Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Understanding: the ability to give reasons for a distinction or to justify a selection of options. For the understanding of signs and words plays a role, whether one can connect an object with the word or sign, as well as whether one can replace the sign or word with another sign or word. In order to understand full sentences, the context must be grasped as well. A point of contention is whether knowing the truth conditions gives the sentence its meaning. In other words Whether there is the knowledge about what should be if the sentence were true. If that is correct, there is no need to know whether the sentence is true (cf. M. Dummett, Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992, p. 20). See also substitution, truth conditions, knowledge.

Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.

Author Item Excerpt Meta data

Books on Amazon:
Richard Rorty
I 38
Microstructure/macrostructure: Putnam: we cannot understand from the knowledge of elementary particles why square pegs do not fit into round holes. But that’s not a disturbing ontological gap!
II 126
Def understanding/Rorty: ability to link old descriptions with new descriptions.
IV 109 ff
Comprehensibility: it is hard to explain what it is supposed to mean that tables and chairs are incomprehensible and God is not (or vice versa!). Logical positivism is already something of a solution with its formal type of speech.
IV 117
Comprehensibility: problem from Parmenides to Ayer: we are constantly tempted to say "the intelligibility conditions of a statement are..." Although the statement itself does not fulfil the specified conditions.
VI 208 ff
McDowell: Problem: "whether our experience is excluded from in the area of the kind of intelligibility appropriate to the concept of meaning".
RortyVsMcDowell: one should not even speak of "forms of intelligibility"! -
McDowell: logical space of reasons - and logical space of the laws are each sui generis.
VI 211
RortyVsMcDowell: there are no strictly separated areas (of reason and law). All language games are sui generis.
VI 212
Understanding/explanation/RortyVsMcDowell/Rorty: we should not talk about comprehensibility - comprehensibility is quite cheap to have: if we train two people to speak the same way.

Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

> Counter arguments against Rorty
> Counter arguments in relation to Understanding ...

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-09-21