Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
Avr I 75
Def possible language / Loar: abstract entity, which must still be based on a speaker -
EMD II 146
Language / Loar: Community based - therefore intensions are important -> quantification on the semantic content of sentences - problem: the p-position in the Tarski scheme only allows extensions - Loar thesis: the semantic properties of the sentence components are a function of the propositional attitudes of the speakers
EMD II 149
Language / Loar: maybe a function of sentences on sentence-like intentions (which in turn are functions of possible worlds on truth values) - Language is always relative to a community - not reducible to logical and syntactic terms - factual use is decisive, so psychological terms come into play.

Loar I
B. Loar
Mind and Meaning Cambridge 1981

EMD II
G. Evans/J. McDowell
Truth and Meaning Oxford 1977

Ev I
G. Evans
The Varieties of Reference (Clarendon Paperbacks) Oxford 1989


> Counter arguments against Loar
> Counter arguments in relation to Language



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-30