Lexicon of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 


[german]  

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

The author or concept searched is found in the following 30 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Anti-Realism Rorty
 
Books on Amazon:
Richard Rorty
Horwich I 462
Anti-realism / Dummett / RortyVsDummett: rather refers to values - realism rather to chairs -
Rorty I 305
Theory-dependence / truth / anti-realism / PutnamVsanti-realism: if truth depends on theory: - Problem: Extension is linked to truth. - X is in the extension of F iff "x is F" is true. - Problem: cChanging Extension is senseless. - justidied assertibility can change - PutnamVs equating truth with justified assertibility -
VI 406
per distinction realism / anti-realism: Dummett, Nagel (vsGadamer, VsDavidson) Vs distinction realism / anti-realism: Rorty, Davidson.

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000


Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Anti-Realism Boyd
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 495
Anti-Realism/Boyd (BoydVsAnti-Realism/BoydVsDummett): two kinds: a) empiricist thesis that theories must be re-interpreted instrumentalistically. - b) "constructivist" thesis (Kuhn): that the world must be constructed from the theoretical tradition of the scientific community.

Boyd I
Richard Boyd
The Philosophy of Science Cambridge 1991


Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Assertions Dummett
 
Books on Amazon
EMD II 124
Assertion/Dummett: By asserting something, the speaker excludes certain possibilities - II 125 - But he does not rule out the possibility that the antecedent of the conditional is false - thus, its falsity does not make the assert. incorrect. - - -
Dum III 203
Meaning/assertion/Dummett: in general, no specific response is associated with an assertion - how the listener responds will depend on indefinitely many things - FregeVsWittgenstein: hence the meaning cannot be determined in the context of non-linguistic activities. - - -
Tugendhat I 253
Meaning/assertion/game/Dummett/Tugendhat: (benefit) new: on the other hand it is said: if the expression is used, which then are the conditions under which it is right - Tugendhat: this requires the following: 1) that the circumstances for the accuracy of the use don’t matter - 2) that the conditions on which the accuracy depends are such that their fulfillment is guaranteed by the use of the expression itself - what the expression guarantees is that the conditions for its correctness (truth) are met - correctness is always implied (by the speaker) - Listeners: separate the conditions and their presence.
Tugendhat I 256f
TugendhatVsDummett:
1) That does not state the truth conditions yet - possible solution: thruth conditions in turn by sentence - then a metalanguage is needed. TugendhatVsMeta language.
Solution/Tugendhat: the explanation must lie in the usage rule of the first sentence.
2) Vs: Giving a guarantee in turn presumes the use of an assertive sentence (circular).

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982


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

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

Tu I
E. Tugendhat
Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Sprachanalytische Philosophie Frankfurt 1976

Tu II
E. Tugendhat
Philosophische Aufsätze Frankfurt 1992
Conservativity Brandom
 
Books on Amazon
I 199
Conservativity/Extension/Language/Tonk/Brandom: pro conservative extension: if the rules are not inferentially conservative, they allow new material inferences and can change the contents that were associated with the old vocabulary - expressive logic/Brandom: requires that no new inferences that contain only old vocabulary are rendered appropriate (if they have not been previously). ---
I 200
E.g. "boche"/Dummett: non-conservative extension: statements that do contain the expression (!) could be inferred from others that do not contain the expression either - E.g. conclusion from German nationality to cruelty - BrandomVsDummett: this is not about non-conservativity: it only shows that the expression "boche" has a content which is not contained in the other expressions - e.g. the term "temperature" has also changed with the methods of measurement - it s not about the novelty of a concept, but about unwanted conclusions. ---
I 204
Especially the material content of concepts is lost when the conceptual content is identified with the truth-conditions.

Bra I
R. Brandom
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001

Content Schiffer
 
Books on Amazon:
Stephen Schiffer
I XIV
Schiffer/Early: ultimately we need a theory of content. - Block: reductionism helps nothing, if it has nothing to say about what has been reduced. - E.g. "worms without noses": does this have a language-independent content? ---
I 182
Mental content/Schiffer: there is no plausible theory of mental content - therefore Vs propositions as objects of belief. (VsRrelation Theory). ---
I 233
SchifferVsDummett: if we subtract all the conditions for evidence that cannot be formulated in terms of observation or depend on indirect knowledge, then the identity conditions for the terms will no longer be the same - therefore the direct verification conditions will not grasp the content.

Schi I
St. Schiffer
Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987

Facts Taylor
 
Books on Amazon
EMD II 263
Facts/F/tradition/Taylor: description of sentences = existing situations - logical complexes - constituents: the entities that are relevant for the truth of any sentence - Problem: relevance when a totality of F is given - Definition exist/Taylor : an element exists if its description is true. ---
II 264
Theory of Tradition/Tradition: logical truths: all have the same descriptum - VsTradition: coextension: not the same F: E.g. having a heart, having kidneys - but synonymy: "aardvark/groundhog": same fact - tradition needs the principle of material adequacy: that is, the entities (constituents) must be relevant for the truth of the sentences that they describe. ---
II 269
Vs: vague formulation dependent> Strawson. ---
II 277
Negative facts/Taylor: conflict between principle of material equivalence and condition 3: intuitively, the same elements are relevant for the truth of the sentence S as for its negation. But S and ~ S have opposite truth conditions. That is, the sentences must have different descriptions - solution: take the negation sign itself as an element - above the elements which are themselves relevant for the truth of S - then neg F as category sui generis - negation: must have common constituents with the corresponding positive F. ---
II 277/8
Definition Fact/F/Taylor: new: every F x in S associates with the set of "F-states (x)" of total states, so that x exists iff the actual total state is an element of the set of F-states (x). ---
II 279
Then facts are equivalence classes on S (= sentence or set of F) under the relation ~, but whereby the descriptum of a sentence is now seen as an equivalence class to which belongs its descriptum in the former sense, and the new fact as existing, if their elements in the former sense exist - facts are then elements of S. ---
EMD II 280f
Facts/application/Taylor: we no longer need that for truth conditions - and not anymore for a Tarskian truth theory - (the semantic apparatus is strong enough) - facts: were used to explain connection between analytic/synthetic sentences - analytic sentences do not describe any F - new: method: to paraphrase sentences of natural language - e.g. Fischer's victory over Spasskij caused Breshnievs anger: victory (f,s) anger (b) - then expand syntax: by double-digit sentence operator "tries victory (f,s) anger (b)" - (+) - problem: fulfillment and truth for the extended language - "causes" is not truth-functional: solution: perhaps two-digit predicate of the meta-language "caus": should only be valid between existing facts - (and such that are equivalent to these - a sequence of elements satisfies caus(A,B) under the interpretation I iff caus(ascribe (A,s), ascribe(B,s)). ---
Graeser I 57
Fact/F/TaylorVsDavidson/VsDummett: some phenomena, which are talked about, only gain form through the use of language - N.B.: inasmuch they cannot well serve as data of a theory, which make meaning understanding dependent on the knowing of truths .

Tayl I
Ch. Taylor
The Language Animal: The Full Shape of the Human Linguistic Capacity Cambridge 2016


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

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

Grae I
A. Graeser
Positionen der Gegenwartsphilosophie. München 2002
Holism Avramides
 
Books on Amazon
I 86
RI/Radical interpretation/Holism/Davidson: E.g. "There’s a whale" is not independent of "There is a mammal" - nowhere to draw a line where you can make a stop - therefore no distinction between simple/Assembled (complex).
I 87
Therefore the RI can not go step by step - Dummett: a class of sentences should contain the questionable word. DavdisonVsDummett: This class expands automatically to the entire language - DavidsonVsDummett: identify a corpus of sentences about situations.

Avr I
A. Avramides
Meaning and Mind Boston 1989

Holism Davidson
 
Books on Amazon
McDowell I 188
DavidsonVsQuine: Even if the "empirical meaning" cannot be divided sentence by sentence into the individual sentences, this does by no means show that rational responsibility cannot be divided into sentences, sentence by sentence. Therefore the experience must really be interpreted as a tribunal.
---
Dav I 113
Holism/Davidson: the ones of the purely linguistic meaning and the elements of his utterances, which are purely attributable to the beliefs of the speaker, cannot be neatly separated. ---
K. Glüer, Davidson zur Einführung, 1993
II 75
Meaning/Davidson/Glüer: a number of logical relations are also always constitutive in terms of the meaning - otherwise we could never talk about the same object. ---
II 78
But reasoning relations between beliefs are not comprehensible in a purely formal-logical way - the fewest beliefs emerge as logical truths from other beliefs. ---
Horwich I 463
Truth/Holism/DavidsonVsDummett: Truth always goes beyond the evidence for the Holism - then understanding never shows up in the manifestations which Dummett means.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D III
D. Davidson
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990


MD I
J. McDowell
Geist und Welt Frankfurt 2001

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Holism Churchland
 
Books on Amazon:
Patricia Churchland
Fodor IV 10
Holism/Language/Fodor/Lepore: Holism is also a revisionism: it could answer HolismVsDummett: "all the worse for our conventional understanding of how languages and theories are learned and mediated." Quine, Dennett, Stich, the Churchlands and many others are strongly tempted by this revisionist direction.


Churla I
Paul M. Churchland
Matter and Consciousness Cambridge 2013

Churli I
Patricia S. Churchland
Touching a Nerve: Our Brains, Our Brains New York 2014


F/L
J. Fodor/E. Lepore
Holism Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992
Identity Wright
 
Books on Amazon
I 228
Identification/WrightVsDummett: it is simply unclear what that means, the "identification" of an object if the recognition of the truth of an identity statement, which includes a term for the object should not be enough! It is also not in dispute that we use abstract singular terms in a circumspect manner.

Wri I
Cr. Wright
Wahrheit und Objektivität Frankfurt 2001

Internal Realism Putnam
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 389
Internal Realism/Putnam: empirical theory - collective spokesperson-behavior. - In contrast, metaphysical realism: not empirical, but a model. (like billiard balls). ---
Horwich I 400
Internal Realism/Putnam: how a theory "is understood" cannot be discussed within the theory itself. - Whether the theory has a clearly intended interpretation, has no absolute sense. - Metaphysical Realism: asks for a theory-independent fact in regards to what a term refers to within a theory. - internal realism: our use of "cow" assumes that "cow" is understood. - This works but only with a verificationist approach of understanding - not with a truth-conditional - hence the use is already explained. ---
Putnam I 18
Internal Realism/Putnam: (truth relative to a theory) - here use and reference are linked. ---
I 151
Internal Realism/PutnamVsDummett: related to its anti-Realism, but truth is not identified with justification but with an idealization of justification. - Quine: the justification conditions change with our corpus of knowledge. ---
I 156ff
Internal Realism/Putnam: the ontology is theory-dependent - truth: rationalized acceptability - brains in a vat are no possible world, because they are only assessable from God's perspective - observation through a "different world" is excluded by definition. - The internal realism recognizes an "internal conceptual scheme", within which objects exist. - Internalism: "Rabbit" refers just to rabbit. ---
II 159
ExternalismVs: the does not tell us what reference is. - Internalism: tautologies are sufficient for reference (> meaning postulates) causality irrelevant for reference. "Alien" refers to aliens - ExternalismVs: the meaning arises for us by association with "not from this earth" and that is ultimately causally mediated. - E.g. Natural type: basic concept for future horses. ---
II 160
InternalismVs "of the same kind" does not make sense out of a category system. - Everything is kind of the same kind-. There are no extra facts that make true that horses are horses, there are just horses. - VsInternalism: but so are self-identifying objects accepted (and the world arranges itself). - Putnam: ultimately, there are self-identifying objects, but not in the externalist sense. - Solution: objects are made and discovered - then they have intrinsic labels (but they are not mind-independent).

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990


Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Language Dummett
 
Books on Amazon
I 11 ff
Evans: Thesis: Language can be explained by modes of thinking - DummettVsEvans: vice versa! (Frege ditto)
II 448
DummettVsQuine, VsDavidson: not idiolect, but common language prevails. (> Dogmas) 1) Frege, Wittgenstein earlier: language as a means of representation or reproduction of reality, "the meaning of a sentence is its truth condition".
2) later Wittgenstein, Austin, Strawson, Searle: everyday language and speech act theory: the constitutive rules of the language are not primarily a representation of reality, but allow actions of various kinds. "the sense of an expression is its use".
- - -
McDowell I 152
Language/Dummett: 1) an instrument of communication 2) carrier of meaning. None should be primary.
Language/McDowellVsDummett: both are secondary. Primarily, language is a source of tradition. (McDowell per Gadamer). To acquire language means to acquire spirit.
- - -
Dum III 81
Language/infinite/Dummett: each quantity of knowledge is finite, but must allow an understanding of infinitely many sentences.
III 145
Idiolect/DummettVs: Language is not a family of similar idiolects, but the speaker declares responsibility of the common usages - without fully dominating them.
III 150
The concept of idiolect is important to explain variations, but idiolect can be explained by language, not vice versa. - - -
Horwich I 461
Language/DavidsonVsDummett: is not a "veil" - it is a network of inferential relations. - Nothing beyond "human abilities" - Like a stone against which we hit ourselves - and that is stone by stone, bit by bit. ((s)> fulfillment,not making true.) - This applies to "this is good" and "this is red". - DavidsonVsMoore/DavidsonVsDummett.

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982


MD I
J. McDowell
Geist und Welt Frankfurt 2001

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Language McDowell
 
Books on Amazon
I 153
Language/Dummett: 1. Tool of communication,  2. Carrier of meaning. None should be primary. Language/McDowellVsDummett: both are secondary. Primary language is a source of tradition. (McDowell pro Gadamer). To acquire language means to acquire spirit.

MD I
J. McDowell
Geist und Welt Frankfurt 2001

Limits Davidson
 
Books on Amazon
I 86
Radical Interpretation/RI/Holism/Davidson: E.g. "There’s a whale" is not independently interpretable from "There is amammal" - also there is nowhere a boundary where one puts an end - therefore there is no distinction simple/Composed (complex).
I 87
Therefore, the RI can not go step by step - Dummett: a class of sentences should contain the word in question - DavdisonVsDummett: This class expands automatically to the entire language - DavidsonVsDummett: we need to identify a corpus of sentences about situations.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D III
D. Davidson
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990

Manifestation Schiffer
 
Books on Amazon:
Stephen Schiffer
I 229
Past/manifestation/understanding/SchifferVsDummett: e.g. we discover a historical document that Thales did begin to run not before his 13th month. - How can you say that the mere understanding of the sentence enables one to identify whether the document verifies the sentence? - ((s) the document could still be wrong.) - Problem: e.g. Betty believes that Australians drink too much - it is not easy to manifest that she thinks so.

Schi I
St. Schiffer
Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987

Meaning Rorty
 
Books on Amazon:
Richard Rorty
Horwich I 449
Meaning / DavidsonVsDummett / DavidsonVsQuine / Rorty: they agree with the basic principle that importance must be reduced to experience - or to the given or stimuli (ie intermediary between conviction and objects) - Problem: scepticism: meaning is then epistemical - Truth and Meaning be separated -
I Horwich 464
meaning / Wittgenstein / Davidson / Rorty as entities: should play a dual role as cause and at the same time justification - example sensory data, example stimuli -

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

Meaning (Intending) Davidson
 
Books on Amazon
I 101f
E.g. If I do not know the difference between a short-beaked echidna and a porcupine, it might be that I describe all the short-beaked echidnas which cross my path as porcupines. But since I have learned the word "porcupine" in a certain environment, my word "porcupine" does not refer to short-beaked echidnas, but to porcupins. It is the porcupine to which I am referring, and it is the porcupine, which I believe to have in front of me, when I sincerely assert, "This is a porcupine." My ignorance of the circumstances which determine what I mean is not the least to show that I do not know what I mean and think.
There is, indeed, no physical difference between my actual condition and the one I would be in if I had meant "short-beaked echdina or porcupine," but this does not mean that there is no psychological difference.
E.g. there may be no physical difference between high-suntan and suntan, but there is a difference, because the causation is different.
---
K. Glüer, Davidson zur Einführung, 1993
II 164f
Someone does not mean that p, if he did not intend to be interpreted as if he would mean p. Well, this is not a humpty-dumpty theory. It would only be one, if it was thought sufficient, to intend to be interpreted as if one would mean p to mean p. This is, however, a necessary condition and not a sufficient condition and therefore it is not an Humpty-Dumpty theory. Humpty-Dumpty says, "You cannot know it!".
---
II 164 f
Davidson: If he knows that she cannot know, then he cannot intend it, because one cannot intend what one does not consider possible. ---
McGinn I 111
Burge and Dummett mean what speakers mean with their words - it very strongly depends on how the community uses these words. DavidsonVsDummett, DavidsonVsBurge: that is nonsense, because it has nothing to do with successful communication. If you talk differently than the community and someone finds out, then you can communicate all day long. And this is happening all the time.
McGinn: Domestication theory: There is also another approach that refuses to answer the constitutional question regarding the meaning (to mean), and instead conceive the meant meaning as an essentially combination-conditioned phenomenon. (Davidson). In order to tame the intended meaning, we would have to show how semantic basic units connect according to determinable rules.
---
K. Glüer, Davidson zur Einführung, 1993
II 169f
Meaning/to mean/intention/intent/Grice/DavidsonVsGrice: pro: Feedback is very important - Vs: nevertheless, intention is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition for meaning. - Intention is at least as difficult to explain as meaning.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D III
D. Davidson
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990


McG I
C. McGinn
Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996

McG II
C. McGinn
Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001
Propositional Knowledge Davidson
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 462
propositional knowledge / DavidsonVsDummett: p. kn. about language: goes beyond competence - is a theory of language

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D III
D. Davidson
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990


Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Proximal Theory Davidson
 
Books on Amazon
I 53
Proximal/meaning theory/Davidson: same meaning with the same stimulus patterns - distal: same objects - here it must be translated several times - 1. Comparison of the linguistic response to changes in the environment - 2. own sentence that the radical interpreter himself would express. ---
I 53f
Distal/DavidsonVsQuine: same objects and causes for speakers - here several times translation - DavidsonVsQuine: the proximal theory leads to classical skepticism - e.g. Gavagai: both could mean the same, whereby the same circumstances make all sentences true for one and for the other one all false - proximal/Quine: documents primary - distal/Davidson: truth primary: meaning linked to the truth conditions - Quine/DummettVsEvans: Do not align meaning on truth conditions. - DavidsonVs: too simplified, every theory must relate meaning to truth and to documents - proofs/Davidson: are relations between sentences. - (no last data, only observing records) - VsDistal: Problem: there are probably several candidates for the position of the common cause item. E.g. every more comprehensive segment of the universe to the birth of the speaker for the utterance of "this is red". And so it would be the cause for any other disposition of the speaker - that would equal the meaning of all observation sentences. ---
I 58
Proximal: does not guarantee that our theory of the world applies at all - difference proximal/distal: as between meaning theories which a) assigns to the evidence (proximal, stimulus pattern) or b) to the truth (distal, objects) the primary status - Quine pro a) (proximal) ---
I 58
QuineVsEvans/DummettVsEvans: meaning not from truth conditions - instead: proximal theory: stimulus patterns (evidence) instead of objects - this is simplistic, since every meaning theory has to relate meaning to truth and to documents. ---
I 59
DavidsonVsPutnam, DavidsonVsDummett: VsProximal theory: skepticism, relativization on the individual - cartesian. ---
I 59
Evidence/Davidson: must be relations between propositions - the theory cannot support this from the outside. ---
I 61
Proximal meaning theory - similar to Descartes, Dummett, Frege - stimulus patterns instead of objects is decisive. ---
K. Glüer, Davidson zur Einführung, 1993
II 53
DavidsonVs social character of meaning: also idiolect is in principle interpretable (via causal hypotheses).

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D III
D. Davidson
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990

Realism Fraassen
 
Books on Amazon
I 4
Realism/FraassenVsRealism: inverted error as in positivism: instead of making everything into language, it realizes everything that cannot be defined away.
---
I 7
VsRealism/Fraassen/(s): realism cannot claim that the present best theory is false, i.e. it is ultimately denying progress. ---
I 9
However, the orientation to truth does not imply that we are ever entitled to believe a theory. ---
I 21
Realism/Best Explanation/Fraassen: every regularity needs an explanation. - Nominalism: there are only regularities, but they do not all have to be explained. ---
I 24
Regularities are "mere facts" (or: "naked facts"). ---
I 32f
Sellars: pro Realism - Theory/Sellar: explains not at all, but shows why observable objects obey so-called laws - there are no empirical laws - For example that water boils at 100°C is valid only under normal pressure. - (> Cartwright) ---
I 37
Realism/Dummett: new: realism should not relate classes of entities and expressions, but classes of statements - these can only be understood by reference to the kind thing we would accept as evidence - thus the nominalist becomes a realist. ---
I 38
Realism/Dummett/Fraassen: this is where Dummett is concerned with language - according to him, not all sentences must be true/false - but they can be! - Constructive Empiricism: also the constructive empiricism adopts mind-independent truth values. FraassenVsDummett: this is not about language.
---
I 209
Realism/Fraassen pro: we know of some regularities - so there must be underlying reasons - according to Thomas Aquina's proof of God.

Fr I
B. van Fraassen
The Scientific Image Oxford 1980

Realism Boyd
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 492
Scientific Realism/Richard Boyd/M. Williams: Boyd's defense of the scientific realism is much more complex than what we have seen so far: ---
Horw I 493
Does it require a substantial (explanatory) scientific concept? Boyd: more indirect way than Putnam: the (approximate) truth of our theories explains the instrumental reliability of our methods.
Method/Boyd: method is not theory neutral! On the contrary, because they are formed by our theories, it is their truth which explains the success of the methods.
Boyd/M. Williams: thus he turns a well-known argument on the head: BoydVsPositivism.
Positivism/Theory: Thesis: the language of observation must be theory neutral. Likewise the methodological principles.
IdealismVsPositivism: VsTheory Neutrality. e.g. Kuhn: the scientific community establishes the "facts".
Boyd/M. Williams: Boyd cleverly makes the theory-ladenness of our methodological judgments the basis of his realism. These methods, which are so loaded as our theory, would not work if the corresponding theories were not "approximately true in a relevant manner".
N.B.: one cannot accuse him of making an unacceptable rigid separation of theory and observation.
Ad. 1. Vs: that invalidates the first objection
Ad. 2. Vs: Boyd: it would be a miracle if our theory-loaded methods worked, although the theories proved to be wrong. There is no explanation for scientific realism.
Ad. 3. Vs:
---
Horw I 494
M. Williams: this is not VsScientific realism but VsPutnam: PutnamVsBoyd: arguments such as those of Boyd establish a causal role for the scientific concept.
BoydVsPutnam: they do not do that at all: "true" is only a conventional expression, which does not add any explanatory power to scientific realism.
Truth/explanation/realism/Boyd/M. Williams: explaining the success of our methods by the truth of our theories boils down to say that the methods with which we investigate particles work because the world consists of such particles that are more or less the way we think.
Conclusion: but it makes no difference whether we explain this success (of our methods) by the truth of the theories or by the theories themselves!
M. Williams pro deflationism: so we need no substantial concept of truth.
---
Horw I 494
Truth/M.Williams: truth has no substantial role - and no explanatory role: no difference whether we explain success by truth of theory or by theory itself (pro deflationism) Scientific Realism/M. Williams: some might object that according to the scientific realism our present theories are not true in one way or another, but simply and literally true.
M. Williams: that can be, but even the deflationist truth is in a sense realistic, because it does not insist on reconstructing the scientific concept epistemically.
---
Horw I 495
Anti-Realism/Boyd: (BoydVsAnti-Realism/BoydVsDummett): two types: a) "empirical" thesis that theories must be re-interpreted instrumentalistically
b) "constructivist" thesis (Kuhn): that the world must be constructed from the theoretical tradition of the scientific community

M. Williams: if that means that objects are not simply "given", then practically everyone is constructivist today.
Deflationism/M. Williams: deflationism does not have to face any version of constructivism.
Boyd/M. Williams: his scientific realism does not ask whether a substantial explanation is necessary in terms of "correspondence." His realism is more "empirical" (in Kant's sense) than "transcendental". It is not concerned with truth but with empirical relations between truths.

Boyd I
Richard Boyd
The Philosophy of Science Cambridge 1991


Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Singular Terms Frege
 
Books on Amazon
Brandom II 173
Singular Term / Frege, late: sentences are singular terms. - Predicates: frame - DummettVsFrege: he disregards the specific nature of the sentences to be moves in language games - BrandomVsDummett: as if Frege had had no idea of Fregean force.
Dum III 113
Reference / Singular Term / Frege: in truth theories of Frege-type all singular terms have a guaranteed reference, always a reference object. - Therefore sentences with "Einhorn" are not wrong but without a truth value (truth value gap). - RussellVsFrege: sentences with "Unicorn" are always wrong.

F I
G. Frege
Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik Stuttgart 1987

F II
G. Frege
Funktion, Begriff, Bedeutung Göttingen 1994

F IV
G. Frege
Logische Untersuchungen Göttingen 1993


Bra I
R. Brandom
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001
Thinking Avramides
 
Books on Amazon
I 104
Thinking/Language/Avramides: thesis: beings without language can have thoughts.
I 113
Thinking without Language/Avramides: then language mere vehicle for communication - Schiffer: the Gricean concepts allow for that, but contingently there are no such beings.
I 115
Thinking without Language/Reductionism/Avramides: there is only a problem for reductionism if the assertion is conceptually related to the semantic and psychological concepts - (and is not simply empirical) - Davidson: psychological concepts cannot be instantiated without semantic ones - SchifferVsDavidson: ditto, but they can be grasped without them! - Avramides: then the mere intuition that there can be no thinking without language is not sufficient for an antireductionism - Antireductionism: must assert that the assertion of the reductionist a deep epistemic dependence is unfounded.
I 142f
DummettVsIdealism/DummettVsLocke: wrong code concept of language for ideas - significance is not explained by thoughts - where the thoughts, in turn, are without reference to language - does not explain how thoughts themselves come to significance - then mother tongue like foreign language - Solution/Dummett: grasp = use: E.g. "square": sort out square things -then no representations to connect sentences with thoughts - understanding instead of association - AvramidesVsDummett: but allows no thinking without language.
I 15
Thinking/Dummett: can only be investigated through language (not through behavior) - AvramidesVsDummett: also through behavior.

Avr I
A. Avramides
Meaning and Mind Boston 1989

Truth Dummett
 
Books on Amazon
EMD II 83
Truth/Dummett: comes from the act of asserting - closely related: correctness: saying something true means to say something correct.
EMD II ~ 87
Truth/Dummett: is an objective property of what a speaker says - and this is independent of the knowledge of the speaker or his utterance reasons - Truth explainable by more primitive notion of correctness - (correctness of sentences about the future, question, command).
EMD II 115
Truth/Dummett: still necessary for deductive inferences - def valid/Dummett: an inference that contains truth. - - -
Dum I 26ff
Correspondence Theory/coherence Theory: meaning prevails over truth - Davidson: Truth prevails over meaning (truth conditions are defined later by the theory). - Dummett both together! Use/truth/Wittgenstein/Dummett: use theory makes concept of truth superfluous > meaning before truth
III 8/9
Truth/Dummett: better: winning the game - necessary: ​​in addition declare that the goal is winning, not losing! - Part of the concept of truth is the stated goal to only make true statements. DummettVsFrege: The aim of the truth must be established before claiming, otherwise one could express the same thought, but deny it.
III 29
Truth/Dummett: in reality it is mostly about the distinction between designated /non-designated truth values
III 40
Truth/meaning/Dummett: "It is true that p if ... iff" is not sufficient - Use: Each conditional must be given a specific meaning. - We must be able to already understand "If P, then it is true that P"
III 45
Truth/Dummett: that through which a statement is true is that by which it can be recognized as true - - -
Putnam II 214
Truth/Dummett: = Justification - Dummett believes in final verification - PutnamVsDummett: merely idealized verification possible. - The assertibility conditions for any sentence are not manageable. - We get to know the meaning conditions by acquiring a practice; that is not an algorithm, they cannot be formalized - hence rationality cannot be formalized either.

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982


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

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

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990
Truth Quine
 
Books on Amazon:
Willard V. O. Quine
Rorty I 217
Quine: "Hund" is the German word for "dog" and "Robinson believes in God" this is not a truth type that expresses a "fact", something "actual". Instead the positivist distinction between conventional and empirically confirmed truth, Quine offers us a distinction between truth by virtue of convenience and truth by virtue of correspondence.
Quine: truths about meaning, opinions and propositional truths are somehow not real truths - just as applied for the positivists that necessary truths are not really "about the world".
---
Quine I 55
Truth: QuineVsPeirce infinite confirmation is not ideal but always correctable - false analogy of the limit value of an approach to truth. ---
I 117
Truth of categorical sentences depends on the object - Our special denoting apparatus - but stimulus meaning similar for natives - Goodman’s individual calculus translatable as syllogistic. ---
I 232
Truth is not ambiguous, but universal: a true confession is as true as mathematical law - difference between laws and confessions - Even "existence" is not ambiguous. ---
I 425/26
"Make true": takes facts as something concrete (VsDummett?). Truth: not confirmation through evidence - it could always be reinterpreted - Truth is immanent, there is nothing above it - Interpretation is always within a theory.
---
II 55 f
DavidsonVsCorrespondence theory: No thing makes sentences true (make true) - Quine: stimuli do not make true, but lead to beliefs. ---
Putnam II 205f
Truth/Quine: is not a property - (where?) - But only recognizes immanent truth - within evolving theory - problem: how to escape solipsism? ---
Quine VI 109
Truth/Meaning/Quine: 1) sentences themselves bear truth - 2) sentence meaning as truth bearer - Problem: sentence meaning is unclear - dependent on other sentences (circular) - truth value may depend on the situation and intention - i.e. better 1st sentence as the truth bearer - "Proposition": as sentence meaning only timeless sentences, the truth value must not change, even if unknown. ---
VI 113
Truth is quote redemption. ---
VII 35~
Truth/Quine: based on two components: language and extralinguistic reality - but that does not mean that truth could be split into a linguistic and a fact component - (s) because it consists of both, it cannot be separated. ---
VII 134
Truth/Tarski/Quine: always only with reference to language - "is white iff" is just gibberish - i.e. a combination of letters that cannot be true. ---
X 34
Truth/language/Quine: Truth depends on language, because it is possible that sounds or signs in one language are equivalent with E.g. 55 - because of this relativity it makes sense to ascribe a truth value only to tokens of sentences.

Q I
W.V.O. Quine
Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980

Q II
W.V.O. Quine
Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985

Q III
W.V.O. Quine
Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978

Q IX
W.V.O. Quine
Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967

Q V
W.V.O. Quine
Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989

Q VI
W.V.O. Quine
Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995

Q VII
W.V.O. Quine
From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953

Q VIII
W.V.O. Quine
Bezeichnung und Referenz
In
Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg), München 1982

Q X
W.V.O. Quine
Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005

Q XII
W.V.O. Quine
Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003


Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990
Understanding Davidson
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich II 121/22
We can understand because we always know what truth is.
I 459
Understanding / capture / Wittgenstein / Davidson / Rorty: for Davidson and Wittgenstein capturing in all these cases is detecting the inferential relations between sentences and other sentences of the language - E.g. "that is red" and "there are transfinite cardinal numbers": DavidsonVsDummett : here there is no difference.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D III
D. Davidson
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990


Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Use Theory Dummett
 
Books on Amazon
I 31
DummettVsuse theory: The disadvantage is that this is substantially non-systematic. According to Wittgenstein, however, it is an advantage, because he emphasizes the variety of speech acts. Dummett: orderliness but is not everything. The use theory is likely to assume that a significant part of the language is already understood.
I 31
Use gives meaning - sence gives reference (Frege) - meaning not the same as reference: Unicorn Use theory of meaning >speech act theory.
I 29
Use/Truth/Wittgenstein/Dummett: use theory makes the concept of truth superfluous >meaning before truth
III 10
Use theory/Dummett: Circumstances not sufficient - we need the purpose of why we use a word - even with classification valid/invalid always of interest (purpose).
III 196
Use theory/Dummett: sentences, not words have use.
III 200
E.g. use of money: here one must understand the whole institution.
I Schiffer 223f
Use theory/Understanding/Meaning/Manifestation/Dummett/SchifferVsDummett: behavioristically - (also othersVsDummett) - from it does not follow anti-realism - Dummett himself uses psychological vocabulary - why should one have to be able to show understanding? - Own use should be sufficient.
I 225
McDowellVsDummett: Martians still cannot understand us, because the intentional (content-determining) cannot be reduced to the non-intentional.
I 227
Knowing whether something counts as verification, could depend on extra-linguistic knowledge and not on the understanding of the sentence - QuineVsDummett: direct Verific. cond. cannot exist for every sentence - ((s)> Quine: ~ theories are not verifiable sentence by sentence) - Sure there are meaningful sentences that have no discernible conditions which would prove the sentence to be true or false.
I 228
Pain/Verification/Wittgenstein/Dummett/Schiffer: Dummett cites Wittgenstein with consent: that pain behavior can be refuted - SchifferVsDummett: then the meaning theory needs both contestable criteria and contestable conditions - problem: this is true for most empirical judgments.

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

Verification Schiffer
 
Books on Amazon:
Stephen Schiffer
I 233
SchifferVsDummett: if we remove all the conditions for documents that cannot be formulated in terms of observation or that depend on indirect knowledge, then the identity conditions for concepts will no longer be the same. - Therefore, the direct verification conditions are not grasped in the content.

Schi I
St. Schiffer
Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987

Verification Stalnaker
 
Books on Amazon
I 48
Verification / concept / conceptual link / nature / LewisVsDummett: there is no conceptual link between our conception of the nature of a thing and our beliefs about how one learns something about this thing. - Abstract / concrete / Dummett: Thesis: their difference is how we can understand their names.

Sta I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003

Vocabulary Brandom
 
Books on Amazon
I 199
Conservativeness/Expansion/Language/Tonk/Brandom: pro conservative expansion: if the rules are not inferentially conservative, they allow new material inferences and thus change the contents that were associated with the old vocabulary expressive logic/Brandom: requires that no new inferences that only contain old vocabulary be rendered appropriate by this (if they were not before). ---
I 200
E.g. "boche"/Dummett: non-conservative extension, statements that do not (!) contain the expression might now be inferred from others that do not contain it either E.g. inference from German nationality to cruelty BrandomVsDummett: this is not about non-conservatism: it only shows that the expression "boche" has a content which is not contained in the other expressions E.g. the cocnept "temperature" has also changed with the methods of measurement. It's not about novelty of a concept, but undesirable inferences. ---
I 204
In particular the material content of concepts is lost when the conceptual content is identified with the truth conditions. ---
I 427/8
Definition Supervenience/Brandom: one vocabulary supervenes another if and only if there could be no two situations in which true assertions (i.e. facts) would differ expressably in the supervening vocabulary, while the true assertions do not differ expressably in the vocabulary that is being supervened more neutral: if it is clear what is defined in one language, then it is clear what is defined in the other. ---
I 958
Order/Twin Earth/TE/Brandom: it does not help to speak in concepts of what can be distinguished by the individuals, because what they can react depends on which reactions are considered to be different, and then the same problem occurs with regard to the vocabulary used Problem: specifying a vocabulary that satisfies two conditions: 1) The twins are indistinguishable in different environments because of their description in that vocabulary (physical language is not sufficient for that). 2) The sub-determination of the semantic properties of their states in this limited vocabulary must point at something interesting. ---
II 76
Material inference/Sellars/Brandom: from "a east of b" to "b west of a" also from flash to thunder, needs no logic. ---
II 79
Formally valid ones can be derived from good material inferences, but not vice versa Proof: if a subset of somehow privileged vocabulary is given, such an inference is correct if it is materially good and it cannot become a bad one if non-privileged vocabulary is replaced by privileged vocabulary. If one is only interested in logical form, one must be able to distinguish a part of the vocabulary as a especially logical beforehand. E.g. if one wants to explore theological inferences, one must investigate which replacement of non-theological vocabulary with non-theological preserves the material quality of the inference. ---
II 94
Definition "tonk"/Belnap: Rule 1): licenses the transition from p to p tonk q for any q. Rule 2): licenses the transition from p tonk q to q. With that we have a "network map" for inferences: any conclusion is thus permitted. PriorVsBelnap: Bankruptcy of all definitions in the style of Gentzen BelnapVsPrior: Solution: Restriction: no inferences with only old vocabulary that were not allowed previously,otherwise the old contents would be changed retrospectively.

Bra I
R. Brandom
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001


The author or concept searched is found in the following 31 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Antirealism Poundstone Vs Antirealism
 
Books on Amazon
Poundstone I 110
VsAntirealism/PoundstoneVsDummett: Risk of drawing the wrong conclusions from present ignorance. E.g. Comte assumed in 1835, we would never be able to know the chemical composition of the stars.
W. Poundstone
I W. Poundstone Im Labyrinth des Denkens, Reinbek 1995
Black, Max Field Vs Black, Max
 
Books on Amazon
II 365
Justification/"Good" Circle/Circular/Field: (Black, 1958, Dummett 1978, Friedman 1979, van Cleve 1984) should we exclude circular justifications of this kind? Black/Dummett/Friedman/Cleve: No.
Field: at least some aspects of their assertion seem indisputable at first glance: a deductive explanation of deduction gives us a kind of reasonable explanation as to why we should prefer it to alternatives.
FieldVsDummett/FieldVsBlack: but it is not obvious that this should count as a justification! Dummett and Friedman concede that they would not have to turn a convinced representative of an alternative around.

Fie I
H. Field
Realism, Mathematics and Modality Oxford New York 1989

Fie II
H. Field
Truth and the Absence of Fact Oxford New York 2001

Fie III
H. Field
Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980
Burge, T. Davidson Vs Burge, T.
 
Books on Amazon
I 74
Burge: Two types externalism: a) Social: Meaning depends on social practices (community - b) on the causal history of the person. DavidsonVsBurge: a) our intuition does not suggest that the meaning of a speaker is determined by other speakers. b) Which group should be outstanding? c) an unconscious elite in the background is problematic.
Burge: in order to have a thought about water, you just have to be in contact with water, you don’t have to prove anything.
DavidsonVsBurge: even a false thought about water is one about water. - VsBurge: Community not causally involved
Burge: radiation patterns or physically described stimuli make everything infinitely complicated. DavidsonVs: Complicated for whom? It is us humans who make all these classifications and groupings! We group according to similarities that are obvious to ourselves.
I 116
DavidsonVsPutnam, DavidsonVsBurge: The fact that he focuses so strongly on the everyday situation through the triangulation sets him apart from the externalism of Putnam and Burges.
II 53
DavidsonVsSocial character of meaning: even idiolect interpretable in principle (via causal hypotheses).
II 167
Burge and Dummett think that what speakers mean by their words depended very much on how the community used those words. DavidsonVsDummett, DavidsonVsBurge: Complete nonsense, because it has nothing to do with successful communication! If you speak differently than the community, and someone finds out, then you can communicate all day long. And that happens all the time.
- - -
Frank I 665
Contents/Thoughts/Externalism/Burge/Davidson: Content is not determined by what is happening in the person, or by what is easily accessible for them through careful reflection. (E.g. incorrectly used terms, information gaps). DavidsonVsBurge: I’m not sure how these assertions are to be understood, because I’m not sure how serious talk of a "direct acquaintance" with a content is to be taken.
But the first person authority is seriously compromised by that.
Therefore, I must reject one of the premises of Burge.
1) I agree that content is not only determined or "fixed" by what is going on inside me.
2) VsBurge: Vs representation of the way in which social and other external factors control the contents.
Fra I 665/666
DavidsonVsBurge: His characteristics are not as relevant as he makes them look: E.g. Suppose I believe that "arthritis" is only used for calcium-induced arthritis. My friend Arthur knows better. We both say honestly to Smith: "Carl has arthritis’.
Burge: Then our words mean the same thing, we mean the same and express the same belief. My mistake is irrelevant for what I thought on this occasion.
Reason: that’s what everyone (who is not tainted by philosophy) would say about Arthur and me.
DavidsonVsBurge: I doubt that he is right, but even if he were right, it would not prove his point:
Ordinary attributions of meanings and attitudes are based on far-reaching and vague assumptions about what speaker and listener have in common.
If some assumptions are not confirmed, we can change the words we used often change drastically.
We usually choose the easy way: we take a speaker by his word, even if that does not fully account for one aspect of his thought.
E.g. if Smith informs a third party about what Arthur and I both believe about arthritis, then he may mislead its listeners!
Fra I 667
If he is careful, he would add, "But Davidson thinks arthritis is calcium-induced". The fact that this addition is necessary shows that the simple attribution was not right.
BurgeVs: could reply that the report is literally correct ((s) because also the wrong-believer sincerely believes that it is arthritis).
DavidsonVsBurge: That overlooks the extent to which the contents of a belief depend on of the contents of other beliefs. Therefore, there can be no simple rigid rule for the attribution of a single thought.
Burge: social determination of contents also leads to the fact that we usually mean what others mean in the community. "certain responsibility towards the group practice".
DavidsonVsBurge: I do not deny it, but that does not show what is supposed to show:
a) It is often reasonable to make people responsible for ensuring that they know the meaning of their words. But this has nothing to do with what they want to say!
b) As a good citizens, we want to increase the opportunities for communication, but that only explains our "legalistic" attribution of meanings and beliefs.
((s) that the meanings are not so).
c) A speaker who wants to be understood, must have the intention that his words are interpreted in a certain way, and consequently the way others do. And vice versa, the listener wants to interpret the words as the speaker does. This has moral weight, but it has no necessary connection with the determination of what anyone thinks.
I 667/668
Externalism/Social community/Meaning/Meaning/DavidsonVsBurge: We are not forced to give the words of a person the meanings that they have in their language community. It is also not true that we cannot help but to interpret their propositional attitudes on the same basis.
I 710
Self-knowledge/Burge: Error excluded (immune), because reflection in the same act. DavidsonVsBurge: that only shows that you cannot make a mistake in identifying the contents.
It does not show why you cannot be wrong about the existence of the attitude.
Worse: Burge cannot show that the two kinds of knowledge (1st and 2nd order) have the same subject.
As long as the asymmetry is not explained by recourse to the social situation (relationships between the speakers), I doubt that a non-skeptical solution is possible.
I 711
Representation/Perceptual knowledge/Burge: It cannot generally be wrong that the representations represent that from which they usually originate and to which they are applied. DavidsonVsBurge: I have long been of this view, but I do not understand why Burge is of this view.
How do we decide where representations usually originate? Circular: "from what they represent."
But which of the many possible causes is the right one? Incidents in the nervous system, stimulation patterns of nerve endings, or a little further out? (proximal/distal).
Burge: We should be watch out for the relation of different observers: they have similar perceptions. Perception is "impersonal".
DavidsonVsBurge: But that is exactly what should be proved!
We need not only causal interaction between different observers and the same objects, but the right kind of causal interaction.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D III
D. Davidson
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990

Fra I
M. Frank (Hrsg.)
Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994
Davidson, D. Dummett Vs Davidson, D.
 
Books on Amazon
Dummett I ~28
DavidsonVsTarski: ... one must have a previous understanding of the concept of truth. - But not of the conditions! Because this knowledge will be determined by the theory of truth!. Dummett: What has to be introduced, however, is the realization of the conceptual link between meaning and truth.
DummettVsDavidson: In Davidson much remains implicit, E.g. this same context, which is required of every speaker. Without the exact nature of this relation the description of the T-Theory is still not a sufficient explanation of the concept of meaning. Correspondence Th./Coherence Th.: meaning before truth - Davidson: truth before meaning (truth conditions defined later by theory) - Dummett both together!.
I 142
Since the vocabulary changes and can be used differently, Davidson no longer assumes the language of a particular individual to be the starting unit, but the disposition for language usage. DummettVsQuine, VsDavidson: not idiolect, but common language prevailing.
I 146
Davidson def idiolect (refined): Language, date, speaker, certain listener. If there was a language that was only spoken by one personn, we could still all learn it. DummettVsDavidson: but in this case remains unresolved: the relation between truth and meaning, more precisely, between truth conditions and use.
Dummett: every participant in the conversation has his own theory of what the words mean. And these theories coincide, or nearly so.
I 187
DummettVsDavidson, DummettVsQuine: It is not permissible to assume that meaning and understanding depend on the private and non-communicable knowledge of a theory. It is not natural to understand precisely the idiolect primarily as a tool of communication. It is then more likely trying to see an internal state of the person concerned as that which gives the expressions of idiolect their respective meanings.
I 149
E.g. What a chess move means is not derived from the knowledge of the rules by the players, but from the rules themselves. DummettVsDavidson: If the philosophy of language is described as actually a philosophy of action, not much is gained, there is nothing language-specific in the actions.
- - -
Avramides I 8
DummettVsDavidson: not truth conditions, but verification conditions. The theory of meaning must explain what someone knows who understands one language. (This is a practical ability).
I 9
This ability must be able to manifest itself, namely through the use of expressions of that language. DummettVsDavidson/Avramides: a realistically interpreted theory of truth cannot have a concept of meaning.
I 87
Dummett: talks about translating a class of sentences that contain a questionable word. DavidsonVsDummett: This class automatically expands to an entire language! (Holism). (s) So to speak this "class of relevant sentences" does not exist.
DavidsonVsDummett/Avramides: Davidson still believes that you need a body of connected sentences, he only differs with Dummett on how to identify it. There may be sentences that do not contain the word in question, but still shed light on it. It may also be important to know in what situations the word is uttered.
Solution: "Translation without end".
EMD II 108
Truth Theory/M.Th./Dummett: There is certainly a wide field in non-classical logic for which is possible to construct a m.th that supplies trivial W sets. DummettVsDavidson: whenever this can be done, the situation is exactly reversed as required for Davidson’s m.th. A trivial axiom for any expression does not itself show the understanding, but pushes the whole task of explaining to the theory of meaning, which explains what it means to grasp the proposition expressed by the axiom.
- - -
Putnam I 148
Truth/Dummett: Neither Tarski’s theory of truth nor Davidson’s theory of meaning (assuming a spirit-independent world) have any relevance for the truth or falsity of these metaphysical views:. DummettVsDavidson: one has to wonder what this "knowing the theory of truth" as such consists in.
Some (naturalistic) PhilosophersVsDummett: the mind thinks up the statements consciously or unconsciously.
VsVs: but how does he think them, in words? Or in thought signs? Or is the mind to grasp directly without representations what it means that snow is white?.

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

Avr I
A. Avramides
Meaning and Mind Boston 1989

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

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

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990
Devitt, M. Rorty Vs Devitt, M.
 
Books on Amazon:
Richard Rorty
Horwich I 463
Making True/True Maker/Davidson: the totality of evidence makes sentences or theories true. But no thing, no experience, no surface stimuli, not even the world makes sentences true. Rorty: I interpret this so that the inferential relations between beliefs have nothing in particular to do with the relation of "being about something" (aboutness relation) to objects. ((s) >holism).
Reference/Empiricism/Evidence/Davidson/Rorty: the lines of the confirmation (evidential force) are not parallel to those of reference. That is due to the epistemic holism. Knowledge of the former is knowledge of the language, knowledge of the latter is an empirical theory about meaning in language use. This is also a story about the causal roles within language behavior in the interaction with the environment.
Confirmation/Justification/Causality/Wittgenstein/Davidson/Rorty: linking justification (by confirmation, evidence) with the causal story is the old metaphysical urge Wittgenstein helped to overcome by warning against "meanings" as entities.
I 464
"Meanings" as entities: were then to play a double role as a cause and at the same time as justification. (>Explanation). E.g. sense data, e.g. surface stimuli. ((s) reductionism: question: does every reductionism assume double roles?)
RortyVsDevitt/RortyVsField: Devitt succumbs to the pre-Wittgensteinean temptation if he follows Field by saying that we the "intuitive idea of ​​a correspondence to an outside world" by wanting to make truth dependent on "true reference relations between words and objective reality". (DavidsonVsDevitt, DavidsonVsField, WittgensteinVsField: "real reference" pre-Wittgenstein).
RortyVsDummett: he succumbs to the same temptation if he thinks that a state of the world can verify ((s) make true) a conviction. This corresponds to the idea rejected by Davidson that pieces of the world make beliefs true. ((S) Contradiction to the above: I 461: here relation with inferential relations: "piece by piece", "stone by stone", Davidson pro?).
Realism/Semantics/Devitt/Rorty: Devitt is right when he says that if we give up on Dummett's anti-holism, the question of "realism" is de-semanticized.
RortyVsDevitt: it is thus also trivialized. Because then you cannot distinguish realism from the banal anti-idealistic thesis that physical objects exist independently of mind. Devitt thinks that this is an interesting and controversial thesis.

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Dummett, M. Brandom Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
I 202
BrandomVsDummett: if he see the problematic aspect of the concept "boche" in that it causes a non-conservative extension of the remaining language, it is not right. The non-conservativity merely shows that the concept has a substantial content which was not already included in other concepts. E.g. Temperature: was introduced with certain criteria, with the introduction of new measurement methods, the complex inferential definition developed that determines the significance of today (> Measuring). Introduction: it is not to be asked if the conclusions were already accepted, but whether this conclusion is one that should be accepted! The problem with "boche" and "nigger" is not the novelty, but the unwanted conclusions.
Brandom II 173
But there are other ways of justification than showing that we’ve already been on them determined implicitly, even before the term was introduced. Background of material inferential practices. Frege, late: sentences are singular terms! Predicates: frames. (DummettVsFrege: this disregards the specific nature of the sentences of being able to be moves in the language game BrandomVsDummett:. As if Frege had no idea about Fregian power).

Bra I
R. Brandom
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001
Dummett, M. Davidson Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
Brandom II 15
Concept/DavidsonVsDummett: relational view. Use of the concept is not understandable in a context that does not include the language, but language can only be made intelligible by recourse to beliefs. Brandom II 16 Brandom pro Davidson: Asserting and believing are two sides of a coin, one cannot be made understandable without the other.
Davidson I 58
Putnam and Dummett show that the concept of truth itself can be given a knowledge-related twist. Yet all three have given evidence precedence over the truth (as the primary status of the meaning determination)
Davidson I 59
DavidsonVsDummett, DavidsonVsPutnam: I think this is a mistake: This leads to the difficulties of the proximal theories: to a concept of truth relativized to individuals and to skepticism. The proximal theories are always somehow Cartesian. DavidsonVsPutnam, DavidsonVsDummett: Vsproximal theory: skepticism, relativism on individuals
Evidence: The only insightful concept of evidence is that of a relationship between sentences. Or between beliefs!
Davidson II 167
Burge and Dummett mean what speakers mean with their words, it depends very much on how the community uses those words. DavidsonVsDummett, DavidsonVsBurge: Pretty much nonsense, because it has nothing to do with successful communication! If you speak differently than the community, and someone finds out, then you can communicate all day long. And that happens all the time.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990

Bra I
R. Brandom
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001
Dummett, M. Geach Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
Dummett III 35
Sentence of the Excluded Third/Dummett: is not rejected because there is a third truth value, but because meaning is no longer explained by means of truth value! (GeachVsDummett: no exceptions!).

Gea I
P.T. Geach
Logic Matters Oxford 1972

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982
Dummett, M. Lewis Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
Stalnaker I 48 Fußnote
Term/Connection of terms/Nature/LewisVsDummett: There is no connection of terms between our definition of a thing's nature and our convictions about how we can learn something about this thing. abstract/concrete/Dummett: Thesis: The difference how we can understand their names ((s) How a causal connection with them may look like or if it is even possible.)
Lewis: Even if such a distinction can be done ((s) between abstract/concrete), it does not tell us anything about how the things on both sides of the border differ from each other. E.g. it is as if we say that snakes are animals which inspire the most fear in us. It does not tell us anything about the nature of the snakes.
I 49
LewisVsVs/Stalnaker: Naturally, Lewis will deny the assumption that there is a connection of terms between our possibility to know and our term of the thing's nature. Stalnaker: In the end, I need to admit that there is no general principle which must be accepted by Modal Realism (MR), which would allow the Liberal Platonism to solely use numbers, but not cabbage heads.
Knowledge/MR/Stalnaker: Will insist that we know about all, persons, physical objets (actual or simply possible),in exactly the same way. This way of knowing does not need a causal connection.
Knowledge/Lewis/Stalnaker: To conclude: Knowledge about actual things is set, not because it is causal knowledge, but because it is deictic knowledge. This is not knowledge about the existence, but about the fact that we have a particular relation to things.
Important Argument: After this, all impersonal ontological arguments are to be justified by a priori reasons. This is not easily accepted by many.

LW I
D. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

LW II
D. Lewis
Konventionen Berlin 1975

LW IV
D. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983

LW V
D. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986

LwCl I
Cl. I. Lewis
Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991

Sta I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003
Dummett, M. McDowell Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
I 152
Language/Dummett: 1st tool of communication   2nd carrier of meaning. None should be primary.
I 153
Language/McDowellVsDummett: both are secondarily. Primarily language is a source of tradition. (McDowell per Gadamer). To acquire language means to acquire spirit.

MD I
J. McDowell
Geist und Welt Frankfurt 2001
Dummett, M. Putnam Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 394
Understanding/truth conditions/WB/Dummett/Putnam: Dummett and I both agree that you cannot treat understanding as knowledge of the truth conditions. Problem: then it gets incomprehensible when reversed, what this knowledge should be.
Meaning/Meaning Theory/BT/PutnamVsDummett: I do not think that a theory of understanding could be the entire meaning theory.
---
I 395
VsMetaphysical realism: thus, we can refute it with Dummett. (Through a theory of reference, not meaning theory). ---
Putnam III 48/49
Proto-thoughts/PutnamVsDummett: terms for animals: dogs have just as little a preconception of meat, like gazelles have a preconception of running fast. ----
Putnam I 124
Realism/anti-realism/PutnamVsDummett: Problem: We argue that the understanding of sentences would be knowing the truth conditions. But how can we say at all what this knowledge is? Putnam: We have seen that "mentalese" does not help.
----
Putnam I 151
Internal realism/PutnamVsDummett: related to Dummett, but: truth is not identified according to him with justification, but with an idealization of justification. Putnam: Truth should be a property of statements that cannot get lost contrarily to the justification. Justification is also gradual as opposed to the truth.
The "ideal justification" corresponds to the "frictionless surfaces" of physics. It has "pure value".
Internal realism/PutnamVsDummett: related to its anti-realism, but truth is not identified with justification but with an idealization of justification, Quine: the justification conditions change with our corpus of knowledge.
---
I 152
Truth is independent of justification here and now, but not of any justification. (> Assertibility). Like Quine: the conditions of justification change with the development of our corpus of knowledge.
----
I 161
Truth/justification/PutnamVsDummett: to reject the divine point of view, does not mean to identify truth with rational acceptability as Dummett says that we should do it. Truth: cannot get lost.
Justification: can very well do this. E.g. "The earth is a disk."
E.g. also that it is a ball, is not a "gradual truth" but it is gradually justified.
Truth/Putnam: an idealization of rational acceptability. (Under epistemically ideal conditions).
---
I 162
Truth/Putnam: 1. independent of the justification here and now, but not independent of any justification. 2. supposed to be stable and convergent.
---
I 214
Truth/Dummett: (1976, 1991) is justification. PutnamVsDummett: 1. this is misleading in many ways, it is likely that one cannot specify the conditions of the justification for the sentences of a natural language. (But Dummett believes that).
2. Dummett believes in a final verification, I only in an idealized one (based on the current evidence, so context-sensitive).
Assertibility conditions/PutnamVsDummett: are not manageable for an arbitrary sentence.
How do we learn them? By appropriating a practice. But this is not an algorithm (how reductionist philosophers believe).
---
I 215
The assertibility conditions cannot be formalized and therefore not the human rationality. ((s) They may well be independent of situations, but not of our entire practice.)

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Dummett, M. Quine Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon:
Willard V. O. Quine
I 426 ff
QuineVsDummett: "make true": takes facts as something concrete Facts: tendency (though not for those who regard facts as true propositions) to imagine facts as something concrete. Facts are what makes sentences true.
Ex "King's Lane is one kilometer long" and "King's Lane is 50 meters wide" are true. In this case, they describe two different facts, but the only physical object that plays a role here is King's Lane. We do not want to split hairs here, but the meaning of concreteness in which facts are "concrete" does not make facts look particularly good.
Facts: also the same difficulty in terms of the scale of identity. The two sentences about King's Lane are true, because King's Lane exists, because it was built like that, and because we use our words in a certain way.
- - -
VI 131
Anti-Realism/Law of Excluded Middle/Dummett/Quine: Dummett turns against the law of excluded middle with epistemological arguments. (Brouwer, too): No sentence is true or false as long as no method for determining the truth value is known.
Anti-Realism/Legitimate Assertibility/QuineVsDummett: holistic considerations make us unsure which sentences at all should be considered candidates for truth or falsity.
It certainly seems pointless to look for a critical difference between contenders for truth and candidates for said uncertainty if you do not want to either draw the line with the observation sentences themselves or at the other end. You might as well just exclude those sentences at no time ever become part of the inferential quantity which ensures the implication of categorical observation sentences, and consequently that at no time have empirical content.
Quine: Truth is therefore one thing, and legitimate assertibility (justified belief) another.

Q I
W.V.O. Quine
Wort und Gegenstand Stuttgart 1980

Q II
W.V.O. Quine
Theorien und Dinge Frankfurt 1985

Q III
W.V.O. Quine
Grundzüge der Logik Frankfurt 1978

Q IX
W.V.O. Quine
Mengenlehre und ihre Logik Wiesbaden 1967

Q V
W.V.O. Quine
Die Wurzeln der Referenz Frankfurt 1989

Q VI
W.V.O. Quine
Unterwegs zur Wahrheit Paderborn 1995

Q VII
W.V.O. Quine
From a logical point of view Cambridge, Mass. 1953

Q VIII
W.V.O. Quine
Bezeichnung und Referenz
In
Zur Philosophie der idealen Sprache, J. Sinnreich (Hg), München 1982

Q X
W.V.O. Quine
Philosophie der Logik Bamberg 2005

Q XII
W.V.O. Quine
Ontologische Relativität Frankfurt 2003
Dummett, M. Rorty Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon:
Richard Rorty
Horwich I 461
Anti-Realism/Davidson/RortyVsDummett: Dummett put Davidson in a false position by suspecting him on the "realistic" side. - - -
Rorty IV 62
RortyVsDummett: (realism/anti-realism): we do not need to ask his question whether there are things in the world that are made true by the mathematical or moral truths. - - -
VI 88
RortyVsDummett: the popularity of his question: "Is there a fact relevant for...?" lead to a revival of the deflated old controversy between realism and anti-realism. There is no "relevant fact". Blatant case of explanation of the opaque by something even darker.

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Dummett, M. Tugendhat Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
I 253
Bedeutung/Behauptung/Dummett/Tugendhat: Bsp Spiel: Behauptungshandlung, Behauptung und Gegenbehauptung, "ja"/"nein" entspricht "wahr"/"falsch" einer gewinnt, einer verliert. Dieses Schema soll jeder Äußerungen jedes assertorischen Satzes zugrunde liegen!
I 254
Der Sprecher übernimmt eine Garantie, die vom Hörer in Zweifel gezogen wird. (Searle so ähnlich, s. o.).
I 255
Neu: es wird umgekehrt gesagt: wenn der Ausdruck verwendet wird, welches dann die Bedingungen sind, unter denen er richtig ist. Das setzt voraus: 1. dass die Bedingungen, in denen der Ausdruck verwendet wird für die Richtigkeit der Verwendung gleichgültig sind.
2. dass die Bedingungen von denen die Richtigkeit abhängt, solche sind, deren Erfülltsein von der Verwendung des Ausdrucks selbst garantiert wird. Was der Ausdruck garantiert, ist, dass die Bedingungen seiner Richtigkeit (Wahrheit) erfüllt sind!
Die Äquivalenz "p equi dass p ist wahr" gründet darin, dass derjenige, der etwas behauptet, immer schon die Richtigkeit mitbehauptet.
I 256
Sprecher: Bedingungen und Vorhandensein zusammen garantiert. Hörer: trennt beides und stellt es getrennt in Frage. (Asymmetrie).
I 256/257
TugendhatVsDummett/TugendhatVsSearle: unbefriedigend: 1. Es ist noch nichts darüber gesagt worden, welches die Wahrheitsbedingungen einer Behauptung bzw. eines Satzes sind. Eine Möglichkeit wäre zu sagen, dass die Wahrheitsbedingungen eines Satzes ihrerseits durch einen Satz angegeben werden. Das setzt natürlich voraus, dass für die Erklärung eines Satzes immer schon ein anderer Satz zur Verfügung steht. Metasprache. (TugendhatVs). Die Erklärung muss in einer Verwendungsregel liegen.
Es genügt nicht, zu zeigen, dass der erste Satz wie der zweite verwendet wird, es muss gezeigt werden, unter welchen Bedingungen der eine Satz gebraucht wird.
2. Jedes Übernehmen einer Garantie setzt seinerseits die Verwendung eines assertorischen Satzes voraus, das ist also eine Pseudoerklärung.
- - -
II 231
TugendhatVsDummett: "Bedeutung" bei Frege sollte man nicht mit "Referenz" übersetzen!
II 232
Gerechtfertigt nur dort, wo Frege Sätze als Eigennamen auffasst!
II 247
Referenz/Tugendhat: durch meine Kritik an der Übersetzung Bedeutung = Referenz habe ich nicht den Primat der Wahrheit vor den Gegenständen in Frage gestellt. DummettVsTugendhat: es genügt nicht, die Bedeutung von Namen lediglich als truth-value potential zu erklären: 1.die Bedeutung könnte dann als bloße equivalence set von Ausdrücken aufgefasst werden.
TugendhatVsDummett: richtig bei Sätzen und Prädikaten, bei Namen muss man sich nicht damit begnügen.
DummettVsTugendhat: 2. Dass zwei Namen "a" und "b" dieselbe Bedeutung haben, wenn sie dasselbe truth-value potential haben, gilt nur bei extensionalen Prädikaten. Aber mit welchem Kriterium kann man extensionale von intensionalen Prädikaten unterscheiden? Es setzte voraus, dass wir ein Kriterium für die Bedeutungsgleichheit von Namen hätten, das nicht erst durch das leibnizsche Gesetz festgelegt wird.
II 248
Leibnizsches Gesetz/Dummett: kann nicht als Definition von "=" aufgefasst werden, sondern gründet darin, dass, wenn wir etwas von einem Gegenstand prädizieren, der Wahrheitwert der Behauptung unabhängig sein muss von der Gegebenheitsweise!. TugendhatVsDummett: nicht so bei Frege: Dummett weist selbst darauf hin, dass er das Leibnizsche Gesetz als Definition von "=" aufgefasst hat.
Tugendhat: wir können, was wir mit Identität meinen, nicht mit dem Gesetz erklären. Tugendhat pro Dummett.
TugendhatVsDummett: mit Sätzen als Äquivalenzklassen hat man nicht den Bezug zur Welt verloren: es geht nur um ganz bestimmte equivalence sets, die natürlich durch die Beschaffenheit der Welt bestimmt sind.
Dummett: Sätze nicht gleich Namen! (VsFrege).
II 249
Referenz/Dummett: semantische Rolle. Tugendhat: das ist genau dasselbe wie mein "truth-value potential". ((s) > semantischer Wert?).
II 250
Referenz/Frege: er hat nie von Referenz gesprochen Prädikate/Frege: er hat nie davon gesprochen, dass die Bedeutungen von Prädikaten als "quasi-objects" verstanden werden müssten.
Dummett/Tugendhat: der berechtigte Kern an Dummetts Kritik: aus dem truth-value potential folgt noch nicht, dass die Bedeutung eines Namens ein Gegenstand sei.

Tu I
E. Tugendhat
Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Sprachanalytische Philosophie Frankfurt 1976

Tu II
E. Tugendhat
Philosophische Aufsätze Frankfurt 1992
Dummett, M. Wittgenstein Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
Dummett I 158
WittgensteinVsDummett / WittgensteinVsFrege: rejects the view that the meaning of a statement is indicated by the description of its truth conditions.

W II
L. Wittgenstein
Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989

W III
L. Wittgenstein
Das Blaue Buch - Eine Philosophische Betrachtung Frankfurt 1984

W IV
L. Wittgenstein
Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982
Dummett, M. Wright Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
Rorty VI 45
WrightVsDummett/Rorty: es ist notwendig, mehr über den pragmatischen Nutzen der Begriffe "realism", "representation" und "Übereinstimmung" zu sagen, als Dummett. Bsp Urteile können aus historischen Gründen zufällig konvergieren. Representation (und mithin realism) muss mit Hilfe eines weder bloß logischen noch eines bloß soziologischen Begriffs expliziert werden. (Rorty per).
- - -
Wright I 225/226
abstrakt/"reine abstrakte Objekte"/Dummett: (Frege: "logische Objekte"): Dummett: nichts weiter als Reflexionen bestimmter sprachlicher Ausdrücke, analog den Eigennamen von Objekten, deren Sinn jedoch nicht so dargestellt werden kann, als bestehe er in unserer Fähigkeit, Objekte als ihre Träger zu identifizieren.
Wright: könnte als Nominalism gelesen werden. (also dass es keine abstrakten Objekte gibt).
Das ist aber nicht Dummetts Ansicht. Dummett leugnet gerade nicht, dass es sing Term gibt, die vorgeblich auf abstrakte Objekte verweisen, aber in der Tat Referenz besitzen.
I 227
Sie spielen sogar eine semantische Rolle! Bsp "größte Primzahl": leerer sing Term, aber die bloße Bedeutung stellt sicher, dass er eine semantische Rolle spielt!
Dummett: scheint hier zu meinen, dass es gar keine Frage ist, ob der Platonismus oder der Nominalismus den besseren Ansatz liefert, nachdem die Frage entschieden ist, ob abstrakte Objekte existieren. (> Zahlen).
abstrakt/Moral/Ethik/Wright: das passt gut zu unserer Einstellung zum Diskurs der Moral: die Sache des moralischen Realismus erschöpft sich nicht wirklich in der Frage, ob der moralische Diskurs wahrheitsfähig ist, oder nicht.
Wenn die Wahrheitsfähigkeit bejaht wird, gibt es immer noch eine Reihe realismusrelevanter Fragen.
I 228
Identifikation/WrightVsDummett: es ist schlicht unklar, was die "Identifizierung" eines Objekts bedeuten soll, wenn das Erkennen der Wahrheit einer Identitätsaussage, die einen Term für das Objekt enthält, nicht ausreichen soll! Es ist auch nicht strittig, dass wir abstrakte sing Term in einer verständigen Weise gebrauchen.
Wright: es gibt keinen sprachlich unvermittelten kognitiven Kontakt mit abstrakten Objekten. (> abstrakt). Abstrakte Objekte können überhaupt nur so auf uns einwirken!
Frege (Platonist) behauptet ganz zu recht, dass Zweifel an der Realität der Referenz auf abstrakte Objekte keinen vernünftigen Sinn enthalten. (Wright: das ist Minimalismus bezüglich Referenz).
Realism/Wright: dann bleiben aber immer noch die Überlegungen, die uns zwingen, konkreten Dingen eine unabhängige Rolle in einer unabhängigen Welt zuzuweisen.
I 229
Def Minimalism/Wright: besserer Name für Dummetts "Anti-Realism" oder "Nominalism".

Wri I
Cr. Wright
Wahrheit und Objektivität Frankfurt 2001

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000
Dummett, M. Avramides Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
Avra I 8
AvramidesVsDummett/AvramidesVsDavidson: the approach of the "theory makers" is too pessimistic, their pessimism is premature and unwarranted.
I 10
AvramidesVsDummett: his reasons are not convincing, the fact remains that he merely expresses a preference. The "knowing of a language" is therefore more complex than just knowing of meanings. Meaning/Dummett: What are the linguistic or non-linguistic means which we can use to determine the meaning of an expression without determining it explicitly? Or perhaps one should not ask at all how we express something in a situation, but rather how we should analyze sentences that include the concept of meaning.
AvramidesVsDummett: this might apply to other terms as well.
Analysis/Avramides: is a harmless means, if we meet Wisdoms demand. (And clearly capture the subject matter).
I 12
AvramidesVsDummett: he does not say why we should proceed like this in the case of the concept of knowledge (providing a theory that explains all knowledge of the actors (the users of the term)).
Avra I 143
Dummett/Avramides: shows three things: 1) Locke’s idealistic theory is not irreparable. It can be completed.
I 144
2) Dummett moves from the question "What associates a concept or idea with a word or phrase?" to the question: "What does it mean to understand a concept or idea?" AvramidesVsDummett: he could just as easily have started with both questions at the same time; if both are not answered, the ideational theory of meaning only wastes time.
3. AvramidesVsDummett: he has not developed his view of how we grasp a concept or an idea in a way that it also permits the attribution of thoughts to speechless beings. (Thw/oL).
I would therefore like to propose an extension.
Thinking without Language/Thw/oL/AvramidesVsDummett: if we allow Thw/oL (> See Dummett: W.James Lectures No. 8, pp. 48), how do we understand this kind of (speechless) thoughts? We could say, we attribute them through the behavior.

Avr I
A. Avramides
Meaning and Mind Boston 1989
Dummett, M. Schiffer Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon:
Stephen Schiffer
I 221
Verificanistical semantics/Dummett/Schiffer: (not truth-theoretical): verification conditions instead of truth conditions. Dummett: (like Davidson): we must ask what form a meaning theory (m.th.) would have to take to find out what meaning is. This M.Th. should be able to specify the meaning of all words and propositions. (Dummett 1975, p. 97).
Dummett: pro compositionality (with Wittgenstein): no systematic meaning theory is possible without explaining the understanding of infinitely many sentences. Therefore one must, like Chomsky and Wittgenstein, accept that we have an implicit capture some general principles. (Dummett 1978, p. 451).
DummettVsDavidson: the meaning theory does not have to contain any truth theory (tr.th.).
Verification condition/verification conditions/Dummett: (for propositions) the verification conditions are also recursively specified. Schiffer: but that does not follow that a compositional truth-theoretic semantics does not exist as well.
I 222
Dummett: with the specification of the verification conditions the meaning theory could at the same time specify the truth conditions (Dummett 1978 Foreword). Verification conditions/SchifferVsDummett: it is not clear how the verification conditions should look like.
Relation theory/meaning theory/Schiffer: when I argued VsRelation theory, I had a standard meaning theory in mind. The relation theory for belief is wrong when languages have no compositional truth-theoretical semantics (tr.th.sem.). Otherwise, it would be true!.
Verificationist meaning theory/Verif. m.th./relation theory/Dummett/Schiffer: with a verificationist meaning theory could the relation theory maybe also be true?.
I 225
Use theory/Dummett/Schiffer: for Dummett the point of use theory is: "the meaning of a word is uniquely determined by the observable characteristics of its linguistic use". (Dummett 1976, 135). SchifferVsDummett: but what counts as "observable characteristic" and what as "openly shown" ?. Does Dummett think that a description of the use in purely behavioral, non-semantic and non-psychological terms would be sufficient that a word has a specific meaning? That would be too implausible as that Dummett would accept that. Still, he notes that the description should not use any psychological or semantic terms.
Meaning/Dummett/Schiffer: should therefore also become understandable for beings who have no semantic or psychological concepts themselves! So even for Marsians. (Also McDowell understands him like this, 1981, 237).
McDowellVsDummett: according to Dummett it must be possible to give a description of our language behavior that is understandable for extraterrestrials. That does not work, because the intentional "(content-determining) is not reducible to the non-intentional.
Content/McDowellVsDummett/SchifferVsDummett: is not detectable for extraterrestrials. ((s) Not "speechless", but only those who do not share our intentional vocabulary).
I 226
Ad. 4: ("To know which recognizable circumstances determine a proposition as true or false"). Schiffer: that means how do we get from behaviorism to anti-realism?.
Manifestation/SchifferVsDummett: this one makes do here even with pronounced psychological terms!.
1. Recognizing (that the conditions are met) is itself a form of knowledge, which in turn contains belief. You cannot describe that non-psychologically.
2. How can one then achieve the further conclusion that a purified attribution should ascribe a skill that can only be "openly shown"? (The showing understood behavioristically).
Behaviorism/Dummett/Schiffer: However, I am not ascribing any behaviorism to Dummett, I ascribe him nothing, I just wonder what his position is.
meaning theory/m.th./Dummett: thinks that natural languages have a m.th.! Their core will be recursively definable verif. cond..
Anti-Realism/Schiffer: here Dummett is uncertain whether the m.th. should have falsification conditions, but that will not affect my subsequent criticism.
1. Whether the knowledge that a state of affair exists, counts as verification of a proposition.
I 227
Could depend on extralinguistic knowledge and not by the understanding of the proposition! We usually need background information. Understanding/SchifferVsDummett: then it should not be about verification conditions!.
Direct verification conditions/Dummett: has to exist for each single proposition!.
QuineVsDummett/Schiffer: (Quine 1953b): direct verification conditions cannot exist for every proposition. ((s) ~Theories are not verifiable proposition by proposition).
2. Surely there are meaningful propositions that have no recognizable conditions that would turn out this proposition as true or false.
Dummett/Schiffer: insists, however, that a proposition must be shown as true or false and in fact "conclusively" (conclusive verifiability). (1978, 379). This leads to anti-realism.
((s) Def anti-realism/Dummett/(s): is exactly to demand that the verification must be performed in order to understand a proposition. The realism would waive the verification.)
Anti-realism/Dummett: you still should not rely too heavily on the anti-realism! Because often a "conclusive verification" is not to obtain!.
Schiffer: so Dummett itself holds the verification conditions contestable!.
I 228
Pain/Verification/Wittgenstein/Dummett/Schiffer: Dummett quotes Wittgenstein with consent: that pain behaviors can be refuted. (Dummett 1978, S. XXXV) SchifferVsDummett: then the m.th. needs contestable criteria as well as contestable conditions!.
Problem: this applies to most empirical judgments E.g. "That is a dog".
3. We know what kind of semantic values we must attribute to the non-logical constants (predicates and singular term) in the conditional sentences in a truth-theoretic semantics. But how shall that look like in the alternative with verification conditions instead of truth conditions?.
Solution/Dummett: the verificationist semantics will make every predicate an effective means available, so that it can be determined for each object whether the predicate applies to the object or the singular term references to the object.
I 230
Relation theory/SchifferVsDummett: the by me disapproved relation theory for propositional attitudes (belief as a relation to belief objects) seems inevitable for Dummett. ((s) because of the relation of predicates to objects to which they must apply verifiable). Problem: that can only happen in a finite theory, and for propositional attitude it would have to be infinite, because for each prop the VB would have to be found individually.
Relation theory/Schiffer: has to assume propositional attitude as E.g. "believes that Australians drink too much" as semantically primitive - namely, 2-figure predicate between believer and content).

Schi I
St. Schiffer
Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987
Dummett, M. Peacocke Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
EMD II 165
Assertion/Dummett: in the strict sense, it can then be characterized as a quasi-assertion whose justification criterion coincides with the truth conditions for the corresponding thought. PeacockeVsDummett: that brings him into the circle! We must remember that it is an adequacy condition that each approach provides the connection between truth and assertion (better: statement): a statement is true if things are as he says in the statement. How to proceed then?
Parallel to the game:
Def Winning/Peacocke: if you meet the goals that you have qua player.
So we have to show that in the language of a community one game is played instead of another. And in the analysis we must not use any such terms as "winning" or "goals qua player".

Pea I
Chr. R. Peacocke
Sense and Content Oxford 1983

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

Ev I
G. Evans
The Varieties of Reference (Clarendon Paperbacks) Oxford 1989
Dummett, M. Stalnaker Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon
II 1
"Linguistic image"/terminology/Stalnaker: Dummett's thesis that language goes before thinking.
StalnakerVsDummett.
II 2
The linguistic image even disturbed our understanding of the language. StalnakerVsDummett: I reverse Dummett's axiom: the philosophy of language can only be achieved through a philosophy of thinking.

Def language/Grice/Stalnaker: is an instrument in order to achieve certain goals. (Stalnaker ditto)
Stalnaker: we should distinguish means and purposes here.
Def speaking/Stalnaker: is essentially a distinguishing of possibilities. Dummett also says so because to know under what truth conditions (tr.cond.) a proposition is true is to know which possibilities it excludes.
II 74
Fatalism/Dummett: (Dummett "Bringing about the past"): either I will be killed in this attack or I will not be killed. Suppose I will. Then I would be killed even if I took precautions. Therefore, the precautions will be in vain. But suppose I will not be killed even if I did not take any precautions then precautions are not necessary. logic form/Stalnaker:
K: I will be killed
P: I take precautions
Q precautions are useless R: precautions are unnecessary.
1. K v ~K - 2. K - 3.P >K - 4. Q - 5. ~K - 6.~P >~K - 7. R 8. Q v R
Stalnaker: it is not sufficient to say that a particular step is not valid and leave it at that.
Fatalism/DummettVsFatalism/Dummett: any sense of conditional making the step from 2 to 3 and from 5 to 6) valid must be too weak to make the conclusion of 3 to 4 valid.
Therefore the whole argument cannot be valid no matter how the conditional is analyzed.
Stalnaker: that is convincing but it would only be a complete solution if it also showed that there are at all in our language different senses (senses) of the conditional justifying each of these steps.
StalnakerVsDummett: this will not work because the strength of his argument is based on a confusion between two senses (senses) of the conditional. (Semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning of the conditional).
a) according to the semantic and pragmatic analysis (see above) there is a sense of the conditional, after the inference from
II 75
2 to 3 is reasonable and also strong enough to justify the conclusion from 3 to 4. Fatalism/StalnakerVsDummett: the fallacy is not in what Dummett believes but both sub-arguments are good arguments. Namely, in the sense that anyone who is in a position to accept the premise, while it remains open whether the antecedent of the conditional is true, would be in a position to accept the conclusion.
That means that if I were in a position to accept that I would be killed even if I had not yet decided whether I take precautions it would be reasonable to conclude that provisions are useless. ((s) before I decided: that means if the premise would be without truth values (tr.val.)).
Accordingly, if I were in the position to know that I will not be killed.
Fatalism/Stalnaker: the problem is the final step: a conclusion which seems to be of a valid form: the
Constructive dilemma: has nothing substantial to do with conditionals. Step 8 is then justified like this:
A v B; C follows from A, D follows from B
So: C v D.
Problem: this is not a reasonable inference even if one assumes that the subarguments are reasonable.
Fatalism/Stalnaker: the subarguments are reasonable but not valid. Therefore, the whole argument fails.
- - -
I 174
Reference/sense/Searle/Stalnaker: if a statement has no descriptive content there may be no connection to an object. Reference/Dummett/Stalnaker: ... the object must be somehow singled out.
Stalnaker: so in both cases it is about skills, use, habits, practices or mental states.
Searle/Dummett/Stalnaker: So both appear to take the view that a fundamental semantics (see above which fact makes that a statement has its semantic value) cannot be given satisfactorily.
StalnakerVsSearle/StalnakerVsDummett: but the two do not say that because they do not separate the two questions.
a) what is the semantics e.g. for names
b) what facts cause that this is our semantics.
Stalnaker: if we separate them we can no longer rule out the possibility that any language could be a spoken language by us. Then the community can also speak a Mill's language.
((s) "Direct Reference": without intermediary sense, VsFrege). ((s) "Direct Reference": is an expression of Kaplan, it is here not used by Stalnaker).
- - -
I 179
Propositional knowledge/StalnakerVsEvans/StalnakerVsSearle/StalnakerVsDummett: even if this is correct – what I do not believe – there is no reason to believe that it is impossible to know singular propositions. E.g. Suppose we concede that you cannot know of a certain individual x that it is F if you cannot identify for G ((s) a second property) x than that the G that is F.
Furthermore suppose the fact that x knows of y that it is based on F and is included by the allegation that y knows that G is F. ((s) identification by specific description).
That means that certain conditions are necessary and others sufficient to have knowledge of a certain kind.
I 180
Content/knowledge/Stalnaker: but nothing follows from these conditions for knowledge for the content of knowledge. Mere knowledge/mere reference/mere knowing/Dummett/Stalnaker: if isolated knowledge is meant by that we can admit that it is impossible but that does not imply that knowledge of x that refers a to x is not knowledge of a particular proposition.
singular proposition/StalnakerVsDummett: e.g. "a refers to x". Dummett did not show that it is not possible to know such a singular proposition (to have knowledge of it).
StalnakerVsDummett: it is difficult to say what conditions must be fulfilled here but the specification of the contents of a ascription is not the same as to say what it is that this knowledge ascription is true.
Solution/Stalnaker: both for the problem at the level of the philosophy of mind as well as the semantic problem. A causal theory.

Sta I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003
Dummett, M. Devitt Vs Dummett, M.
 
Books on Amazon:
Michael Devitt
Horwich I 462
Metaphysik/DevittVsDummett: sie zu ent-semantisieren stellt ihre Reinheit wieder her. (RortyVsDevitt).

Devi I
M. Devitt
Realism and Truth Princeton 1996

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Frege, G. Dummett Vs Frege, G.
 
Books on Amazon
Brandom II 74
Frege (late): representation of independent reality DummettVsFrege: Falsely: property of sentences instead of transitions between them.
Brandom II 173
Frege, late: sentences are singular terms! Predicates: frames. (DummettVsFrege: the disregards the specific nature of the sentences to be moves in the language game BrandomVsDummett:. As if Frege had no idea about Fregean force).
Dummett I 15
Frege’s basic idea: Extraction of the concept (in the sense of the definition of 1890) by decomposition of a complete thought. (Begriffsschrift).
I 51
DummettVsFrege: It is questionable, however, whether this term can be explained without referring to the concept of the sentence. One must, for example, not only identify a proper noun in a sentence, but also be able to replace it in this position. How to explain the "occurrence" of the meaning of a name in a thought without relying on the form of its linguistic expression, is not clear. Frege: The meaning of every partial expression should be the contribution of this subexpression for determining this condition. DummettVsFrege: So we must know, contrary to Frege’s official theory, what it means that a proposition is true, before we can know what it means that it expresses a thought; before we can know what it means that an expression makes sense, we need to know what it means that it has a reference.
Tradition: It used to be argued: as long as the meaning is the way of givenness of the reference object, there can, if no object is present, be no corresponding way of givenness and therefore no meaning (Evans, McDowell). DummettVsFrege: The difficulty is triggered by the fact that Frege strictly equates the semantic value of a singular term and the object to which it is intended to refer. The slogan "Without semantic value no meaning" is impressive, but it can only be accepted at the price of admitting that a singular term without reference still has a semantic value which then presumably consists in the mere fact of the absence of a reference.
Husserl has no doubts in this regard. He generalizes the concept of meaning and transfers it from expressing acts to all acts of consciousness. For this generalized term Husserl uses the term "noema".
DummettVsFrege: That does not show that the thesis the meaning (thought, see above) was not a content of consciousness is wrong, but rather that its reasoning, namely the communicability and consequent objectivity do not quite apply.
Dummett I 61
DummettVsFrege: For an incommunicable meaning which refers to a private sentiment, would, contrary to the sensation itself, not belong to the content of consciousness. DummettVsFrege: Independence from sensation is necessary for objectivity: E.g. color words, opaque surface, a color-blind person recognizes by this that others see the color.
I 63.
Frege: "Red" does not only refer to a physical property, but to a perceptible property (it appears as red to perople with normal vision). If we explained "appears red" with "is red", however, we are no longer able to do this the other way around. DummettVsFrege: The modified version by Frege is unsatisfactory, because it gives the word "red" a uniform reference, but attributes a different meaning to it, depending on the speaker.
I 64
Intension/Frege: "parallel to the straight line" different from "same direction as the straight line", DummettVs: Here, one must know the concept of direction or not "whatever value" other sense than "value curve" DummettVs: Here, the concept of value curve must be known or not. special case of the Basic Law V from which Russell antinomy arises.
I 79
Meaning: Contradictory in Frege: on the one hand priority of thought over language, on the other hand, it is not further explained.
I 90 ++ -
Language/Thinking/Perception
I 93 + -
DummettVsFrege, DummettVsHusserl: both go too far if they make the linguistic ideas expressed similar to "interpretation".
I 104 -
Thoughts/DummettVsFrege: not necessarily linguistic: Proto thoughts (also animals) (linked to activity) - Proto thoughts instead of Husserl’s noema.
I 106
Frege: Grasping of the Thought: directly through the consciousness, but not content of the consciousness - DummettVs: contradictory: Grasping is an ability, therefore background (both episodically and dispositionally)
I 122 -
DummettVs Equating the literal meaning with the thought module.
I 124 +
DummettVsFrege: all thoughts and ideas can be communicated! Because they only appear in a particular way - by this determination they are communicable I 128.

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

Bra I
R. Brandom
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001
Frege, G. Kripke Vs Frege, G.
 
Books on Amazon
Cresswell II 151
Pierre-E.g../Kripke/Cresswell: (Kripke 1979) Cresswell: if de re interpreted, is the belief about London. Description Theory/Cresswell: For this, the example is not a problem ((s) Londres and London are different for Pierre because of different descriptions).
((s) causal theory/(s): the case is a problem for them because they have to assume that the meaning of the name is the carrier and must therefore be the same carrier and therefore contradictory predicates are attributed.)
Description Theory/Cresswell: Here the description is relative to Pierre, but it is not his private matter!
Def "Extreme Fregeanism"/KripkeVsFrege/KripkeVsRussell/Cresswell: (he attributes this disposition to these two): Thesis: that name in general belong to idiolects.
Problem: Then the Pierre-E.g. is not about Pierre but about the speaker, who is reporting this case, and his idiolect.
Cresswell: Unfortunately it is not so simple: e.g. an ancient Greek could have been arrived from the ancient to us. He is initially going to use "Φωσφόρος" instead of "Phosphorus". His disposition towards it will as different from ours, as the Pierre-example demonstrates the different dispositions of "London" and "Londres".
Ambiguity/Cresswell: is caused here because a name can stand for numerous descriptions. The latter allow in most cases that "London" can be translated as "Londres". The only case in which it does not work is the example of Pierre.
- - -
Stalnaker I 172
Name/reference/meaning/sense/Stalnaker: 1. Mill/KripkeVsFrege: Thesis: Names are directly addressing the referent without the mediation of an intermediary meaning
Frege/Dummett/Searle: Thesis: The meaning of the name must be adopted in-between the name and his referent.
a) otherwise the object cannot be identified or we cannot explain how it is identified,
b) (DummettVsKripke)since we cannot learn the language.
I 174
Reference/meaning/Searle/Stalnaker: When a statement does not possess a descriptive content, it cannot be linked to an object. Reference/Dummett/Stalnaker: .. the object must be singled out somehow. Stalnaker: in both cases, it comes to skills, use, habits, practices or mental states.
Searle/Dummett/Stalnaker: So both seem to be of the opinion that a satisfactory fundamental semantics (see above that as a fact an expression has its semantic value)cannot be given.
StalnakerVsSearle/StalnakerVsDummett: Both, however, do not state this since they do not separate those two issues.
a) what is the semantics, e.g. for names
b) what circumstances lead to those semantics.
Stalnaker: if we separate them, we can no longer rule out the possibility that each language could be a language spoken by us. Then the community could very well speak a Mill’s language.
Frege’s language/Meaning/Reference/Denotation/Stalnaker: We would need them if these questions were not separate, e.g. if we needed to explain those at the same time.
a) why a name has these referents and
b) what the speaker communicates with his statement (which information, content).
Meaning/ KripkeVsFrege: (1972:59) The latter should be criticized for using "meaning" in two different ways.
a) as meaning
b) as the way how the reference is determined.
By identifying the two, he assumes that both are created by specific descriptions.that both are given by specific markings.
I 192
Causal chain/Historic chain/Semantics/Metasemantics/Presemantics/Kaplan/Stalnaker: (Kaplan 1989a, 574 ("pre-semantics")
Question: Are causal chains a part of semantics or a part of metasemantics?
Semantics: states, which semantic values hold the expressions of a language.
Metasemantics: what circumstances determine the semantic values.
Presemantics/Kaplan: concerns those who believe that a name signifies something laying at the other end of a historical chain.
Semantics/Kaplan: gives us rather the meaning than explaining how to find it.
Similar to Kripke:
Reference/Meaning/Kripke/Stalnaker: Kripke distinguishes between what the reference fixes (the causal chain) and it signifies.
KripkeVsFrege: he has mixed up those two things.
Name/Kaplan/Stalnaker: he asks whether names are like index words.
I/Kaplan/Stalnaker: Is a rigid designator: The truth conditions (WB) of what is said (propositional content) depend on the actual referent. Contrary to:
Meaning/I/Stalnaker: One indicates the significance by stating how the referent is determined in the context. That would belong to a theory of e.g. the English language.
E.g. "I refer to the speaker" . Who knows this will be taken for someone who knwos the significance of"I", even if
Important Argument: he does not know who was the speaker at a particular occasion.((s) Difference between significance/reference > "whoever was the speaker")
Def Character/Kaplan: = significance. Function of possible contexts of use for referents.
- - -
Tugendhat I 440
KripkeVsFrege: Primacy of descriptions not anymore(TugendhatVs). Kripke/Tugendhat: Actually, he is not particularly interested in the definition of the proper name but in the rigid designator.

K I
S.A. Kripke
Name und Notwendigkeit Frankfurt 1981

K III
S. A. Kripke
Outline of a Theory of Truth (1975)
In
Recent Essays on Truth and the Liar Paradox, R. L. Martin (Hg), Oxford/NY 1984

Cr I
M. J. Cresswell
Semantical Essays (Possible worlds and their rivals) Dordrecht Boston 1988

Cr II
M. J. Cresswell
Structured Meanings Cambridge Mass. 1984

Sta I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003

Tu I
E. Tugendhat
Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Sprachanalytische Philosophie Frankfurt 1976

Tu II
E. Tugendhat
Philosophische Aufsätze Frankfurt 1992
Frege, G. Wittgenstein Vs Frege, G.
 
Books on Amazon
Brandom I 919
TractatusVsFrege: nothing can be considered an assertion, if not previously logical vocabulary is available, already the simplest assertion assumes the entire logic. ---
Dummett I 32
Frege capturing of thought: psychic act - thought not the content of consciousness - consciousness subjective - thought objective - WittgensteinVs ---
I 35
WittgensteinVsFrege: no personal objects (sensations), otherwise private language, unknowable for the subject itself. WittgensteinVsFrege: Understanding no psychic process, - real mental process: pain, melody (like Frege).
---
Dummett I 62
Wittgenstein's criticism of the thought of a private ostensive definition states implicitly that color words can have no, corresponding with the Fregean assumption, subjective, incommunicable sense. (WittgensteinVsFrege, color words). But Frege represents anyway an objective sense of color words, provided that it is about understanding. ---
Dummett I 158
WittgensteinVsDummett/WittgensteinVsFrege: rejects the view that the meaning of a statement must be indicated by description of their truth conditions. Wittgenstein: Understanding not abruptly, no inner experience, not the same consequences. ---
Wolf II 344
Names/meaning/existence/WittgensteinVsFrege: E.g. "Nothung has a sharp blade" also has sense if Nothung is smashed. ---
II 345
Name not referent: if Mr N.N. dies, the name is not dead. Otherwise it would make no sense to say "Mr. N.N. died". ---
Simons I 342
Sentence/context/copula/tradition/Simons: the context of the sentence provided the copula according to the traditional view: Copula/VsTradition: only accours as a normal word like the others in the sentence, so it cannot explain the context.
Solution/Frege: unsaturated phrases.
Sentence/WittgensteinVsFrege/Simons: context only simply common standing-next-to-each-other of words (names). That is, there is not one part of the sentence, which establishes the connection.
Unsaturation/Simons: this perfectly matches the ontological dependence (oA): a phrase cannot exist without certain others!
---
Wittgenstein I 16
Semantics/Wittgenstein/Frege/Hintikka: 1. main thesis of this chapter: Wittgenstein's attitude to inexpressibility of semantics is very similar to that of Frege. Wittgenstein represents in his early work as well as in the late work a clear and sweeping view of the nature of the relationship between language and the world. As Frege he believes they cannot be expressed verbally. Earlier WittgensteinVsFrege: by indirect use this view could be communicated.
According to the thesis of language as a universal medium (SUM) it cannot be expressed in particular, what would be the case if the semantic relationships between language and the world would be different from the given ones?
---
Wittgenstein I 45
Term/Frege/WittgensteinVsFrege/Hintikka: that a concept is essentially predicative, cannot be expressed by Frege linguistically, because he claims that the expression 'the term X' does not refer to a concept, but to an object. ---
I 46
Term/Frege/RussellVsFrege/Hintikka: that is enough to show that the Fregean theory cannot be true: The theory consists of sentences, which, according to their own theory cannot be sentences, and if they cannot be sentences, they also cannot be true ". (RussellVsFrege) WittgensteinVsFrege/late: return to Russell's stricter standards unlike Frege and early Wittgenstein himself.
Wittgenstein late: greatly emphasizes the purely descriptive. In Tractatus he had not hesitated to go beyond the vernacular.
---
Wittgenstein I 65ff
Saturated/unsaturated/Frege/Tractatus/WittgensteinVsFrege: in Frege's distinction lurks a hidden contradiction. Both recognize the context principle. (Always full sentence critical for meaning). ---
I 66
Frege: unsaturated entities (functions) need supplementing. The context principle states, however, neither saturated nor unsaturated symbols have independent meaning outside of sentences. So both need to be supplemented, so the difference is idle. The usual equation of the objects of Tractatus with individuals (i.e. saturated entities) is not only missed, but diametrically wrong. It is less misleading, to regard them all as functions.
---
Wittgenstein I 222
Example number/number attribution/WittgensteinVsFrege/Hintikka: Figures do not require that the counted entities belong to a general area of all quantifiers. "Not even a certain universality is essential to the specified number. E.g. 'three equally big circles at equal distances' It will certainly not be: (Ex, y, z)xe circular and red, ye circular and red, etc ..." The objects Wittgenstein observes here, are apparently phenomenological objects. His arguments tend to show here that they are not only unable to be reproduced in the logical notation, but also that they are not real objects of knowledge in reality. ((s) that is not VsFrege here).
Wittgenstein: Of course, you could write like this: There are three circles, which have the property of being red.
---
I 223
But here the difference comes to light between inauthentic objects: color spots in the visual field, tones, etc., and the
actual objects: elements of knowledge.
(> Improper/actual >sense data, >phenomenology)
---
II 73
Negation/WittgensteinVsFrege: his explanation only works if his symbols can be substituted by the words. The negation is more complicated than that negation character.
---
Wittgenstein VI 119
WittgensteinVsFrege/Schulte: he has not seen what is authorized on formalism that the symbols of mathematics are not the characters, but have no meaning. Frege: alternative: either mere ink strokes or characters of something. Then what they represent, is their meaning.
WittgensteinVsFrege: that this alternative is not correct, shows chess: here we are not dealing with the wooden figures, and yet the figures represent nothing, they have no Fregean meaning (reference).
There is simply a third one: the characters can be used as in the game.
---
Wittgenstein VI 172
Name/Wittgenstein/Schulte: meaning is not the referent. (VsFrege). ---
Sentence/character/Tractatus 3.14 .. the punctuation is a fact,.
3.141 The sentence is not a mixture of words.
3.143 ... that the punctuation is a fact is concealed by the ordinary form of expression of writing.
(WittgensteinVsFrege: so it was possible that Frege called the sentence a compound name).
3.1432 Not: "The complex character 'aRb' says that a stands in the relation R to b, but: that "a" is in a certain relation to "b", says aRb ((s) So conversely.: reality leads to the use of characters). (quotes sic).
---
IV 28
Mention/use/character/symbol/WittgensteinVsFrege/WittgensteinVsRussell/Tractatus: their Begriffsschrift does not yet exclude such errors. 3.326 In order to recognize the symbol through the character, you have to pay attention to the meaningful use.
---
Wittgenstein IV 40
Sentence/sense/WittgensteinVsFrege/Tractatus: the verb of the sentence is not "is true" or "is wrong", but the verb has already to include that, what is true. 4.064 The sentence must have a meaning. The affirmation does not give the sentence its meaning.
---
IV 47
Formal concepts/Tractatus: (4.1272) E.g. "complex", "fact", "function", "number". WittgensteinVsFrege/WittgensteinVsRussell: they are presented in the Begriffsschrift by variables, not represented by functions or classes.
E.g. Expressions like "1 is a number" or "there is only one zero" or E.g. "2 + 2 = 4 at three o'clock" are nonsensical.
4.12721 the formal concept is already given with an object, which falls under it.
---
IV 47/48
So you cannot introduce objects of a formal concept and the formal concept itself, as basic concepts. WittgensteinVsRussell: you cannot introduce the concept of function and special functions as basic ideas, or e.g. the concept of number and definite numbers.
Successor/Begriffsschrift/Wittgenstein/Tractatus: 4.1273 E.g. b is successor of a: aRb, (Ex): aRx.xRb, (Ex,y): aRx.xRy.yRb ...
General/something general/general public/WittgensteinVsFrege/WittgensteinVsRussell: the general term of a form-series can only be expressed by a variable, because the term "term of this form-series" is a formal term. Both have overlooked: the way, how they want to express general sentences, is circular.
---
IV 49
Elementary proposition/atomism/Tractatus: 4.211 a character of an elementary proposition is that no elementary proposition can contradict it. The elementary proposition consists of names, it is a concatenation of names.
WittgensteinVsFrege: it itself is not a name.
---
IV 53
Truth conditions/truth/sentence/phrase/Tractatus: 4.431 of the sentence is an expression of its truth-conditions. (pro Frege). WittgensteinVsFrege: false explanation of the concept of truth: would "the truth" and "the false" really be objects and the arguments in ~p etc., then according to Frege the meaning of "~ p" is not at all determined.
Punctuation/Tractatus: 4.44 the character that is created by the assignment of each mark "W" and the truth possibilities.
Object/sentence/Tractatus: 4.441 it is clear that the complex of characters
---
IV 54
"F" and "W" does not correspond to an object. There are no "logical objects". Judgment line/WittgensteinVsFrege/Tractatus: 4.442 the judgment line is logically quite meaningless. It indicates only that the authors in question consider the sentence to be true.
Wittgenstein pro redundancy theory/Tractatus: (4.442), a sentence cannot say of itself that it is true. (VsFrege: VsJudgment line).
---
IV 59
Meaning/WittgensteinVsFrege/Tractatus: (5.02) the confusion of argument and index is based on Frege's theory of meaning ---
IV 60
of the sentences and functions. For Frege the sentences of logic were names, whose arguments the indices of these names. ---
IV 62
Concluding/conclusion/result relation/WittgensteinVsRussell/WittgensteinVsFrege/Tractatus: 5.132 the "Final Acts" that should justify the conclusions for the two, are senseless and would be superfluous. 5.133 All concluding happens a priori.
5.134 one cannot conclude an elementary proposition from another.
((s) Concluding: from sentences, not situations.)
5.135 In no way can be concluded from the existence of any situation to the existence of,
---
IV 63
an entirely different situation. Causality: 5.136 a causal nexus which justifies such a conclusion, does not exist.
5.1361 The events of the future, cannot be concluded from the current.
---
IV 70
Primitive signs/WittgensteinVsFrege/WittgensteinVsRussell/Tractatus: 5.42 The possibility of crosswise definition of the logical "primitive signs" of Frege and Russell (e.g. >, v) already shows that these are no primitive signs, let alone that they signify any relations. ---
Wittgenstein IV 101
Evidence/criterion/logic/WittgensteinVsFrege/Tractatus: 6.1271 strange that such an exact thinker like Frege appealed to the obviousness as a criterion of the logical sentence. ---
IV 102
Identity/meaning/sense/WittgensteinVsFrege/Tractatus: 6.232 the essential of the equation is not that the sides have a different sense but the same meaning, but the essential is that the equation is not necessary to show that the two expressions, that are connected by the equal sign, have the same meaning, since this can be seen from the two expressions themselves. ---
Wittgenstein II 343
Intension/classes/quantities/Frege/Russell/WittgensteinVsRussell/WittgensteinVsFrege: both believed they could deal with the classes intensionally because they thought they could turn a list into a property, a function. (WittgensteinVs). Why wanted both so much to define the number?

W II
L. Wittgenstein
Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989

W IV
L. Wittgenstein
Tractatus Logico Philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960

Bra I
R. Brandom
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

K II siehe Wol I
U. Wolf (Hg)
Eigennamen Frankfurt 1993

Si I
P. Simons
Parts Oxford New York 1987
Holism Dummett Vs Holism
 
Books on Amazon
Fodor/Lepore IV 8
Analytic/Synthetic/(a/s)/Holism/Fodor/Lepore: there is an argument that anatomical features are also holistic, which presupposes that the distinction anal/synth (a/s) is suspended. E.g. DummettVsHolism: shows neither how communication should function nor language acquisition or language proficiency. (If you have to know all propositions at the same time, which is impossible). ((s) This therefore expects that even anatomical properties are holistic. (or that there are no anatomical prop). Due to this extreme position learning only becomes impossible). Dummett/(s)VsDummett: Departs from the extreme assumption that anatomical properties (which only a second similar thing can have) are also holistic, i.e. are shared by many similar things. So almost a bugbear. Dummett: nor does holism show how a whole theory can be significant at all: if in turn its internal structure cannot be broken down into significant parts, then it has no internal structure. Fodor/Lepore: Dummett argues from the following analogy: Sentences are interpersonally understandable, because their meanings are formed from the meanings of their components and the speaker and hearer are privy to these meanings. Dummett/Fodor/Lepore: this explanation assumes that the speaker and hearer mean the same thing.
IV 9
And it assumes that the constituents have meaning at all. If holism were true, this would be false.
IV 10
Holism/Fodor/Lepore: is also a revisionism: he could reply HolismVsDummett: "so much the worse for our conventional understanding of how languages ​​and theories learned and taught". Quine, Dennett, Stich, the Churchlands and many others are strongly tempted by this revisionist direction. - - -
Horwich I 459
Meaning Theory/M.Th./DummettVsDavidson: we need more than he gives us: it could be that someone knows all TC without knowing the content of the (metalinguistic) right side of the T sentence. T sentence/Dummett: explains nothing if the metalanguage (MS) contains the object language (OS). And because this is so, the same applies if meta language and object language are separated (terminology/Dummett: "M sentence". T-sentence/Davidson: "neutral, snow-bound triviality" No single T-sentence says what it means to understand the words on the left side, but the whole corpus of sentences says that this is everything you can know about it ((s) no theory "beyond", "about").
DummettVsDavidson: thus Davidson admits defeat: then it cannot be answered how the speaker came to his own understanding of the words he used. ((s)> DummettVsHolism) DummettVsDavidson: The ability for language use cannot be split into separate skills Language/Use/Wittgenstein/Davidson/SellarsVsDummett/Rorty: such partial skills do not exist. If "tertia" such as "special meaning ", "response to stimuli", etc. are abolished, there are no components anymore, in which the capacity for language use could be divided (>competence?). E.g. "How do you know that this is red?" Wittgenstein: "I speak German."
T-sentence/Davidson: does not double any internal structures. They do not even exist, otherwise the "Tertia" would be introduced again.
MT/DummettVsDavidson/Rorty: he makes a virtue of necessity. But we can expect more from a MT. And that is that it retains the traditional concepts of the empiricist epistemology. Such a theory must explain the ability to use language through knowledge of the TC. Dummett: Contrast: E.g. "this is red" and E.g. "there are transfinite cardinal numbers".
Holism/Wittgenstein/VsDummett/DavidsonVsDummett: There is no contrast!. Understanding/Grasping/Wittgenstein/Davidson/Rorty: for Davidson and Wittgenstein grasping in all these cases is acquiring the inferential relations between the sentences and other sentences of the language. Meaning/Wittgenstein: accepting some inferential principle helps to determine the meaning of words. (Davidson ditto).
DummettVsWittgenstein/DummettVsHolism: This leads us to the attitude that no systematic MT is at all possible.
RortyVsDummett: does not show, however, how it is possible.
- - -
Rorty I 289
Philosophy/Dummett/Rorty: (VsDavidson) (like Putnam): only task of philosophy is the analysis of meaning. (It is the foundation, and not Descartes’ epistemology). DummettVsDavidson/DummettVsHolismus/Rorty: you cannot provide adequate philosophy of language without the two Kantian distinctions (Givenness/Interpretation and Necessity/Contingency).

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000
Kripke, S. A. Dummett Vs Kripke, S. A.
 
Books on Amazon
Wolf II 361
Rigid Designators/DummettVsKripke: (Frege): in modal contexts: Descriptions: to be construed as precluding the modal operator (MO), proper names: include MO E.g. Kripke: St. Anne did not have to be mother of Mary but still St. Anne, DummettVsKripke: "St. Anne" is not a predicate, not a candidate for being an accidental property of someone
BurckhardtVsDummett: false justification: "St.Anne" simply as a rigid designator - by Dummett: in essential properties it is different.
- - -
Stalnaker I 173
DummettVsKripke: (1973, 232) there can be no proper name, whose whole purpose is to have an object as a reference, without sense that defines the object somehow. Stalnaker: what kind of argument could indicate that we are not only speaking no such language, but that we are not even able to do it?

Du I
M. Dummett
Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992

Du III
M. Dummett
Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982

K II siehe Wol I
U. Wolf (Hg)
Eigennamen Frankfurt 1993

Sta I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003
Metaphysical Realism Putnam Vs Metaphysical Realism
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 390
Truth/metaphysical realism/Putnam: thesis: truth is not radically epistemic. Because we could all be brains in a vat, even the most beautiful and most ideal, simplest and most conservative theory could be wrong. Verification/metaphysical realism: then "verified" implies not "true".
Peircean Realism/Putnam: thesis: there is an ideal theory (weaker: than a regulative idea that is presupposed by the terms "true" and "objective").
PutnamVsMetaphysical Realism: I criticize precisely the characteristic that distinguishes it from Peirce's realism. E.g.
T1: is an ideal theory as we understand it. We imagine that it has any property except for objective truth; e.g. it is complete, consistent, predicts observations accurately (as we see and meets all "operational restrictions", it is "beautiful", "simple", etc.
Putnam: thesis: T1 may still be wrong.
E.g. WORLD/PutnamVsMetaphysical Realism: Suppose, it can be divided into an infinite number of parts. And T1 says that there are infinitely many parts in it, so that it is "objectively correct" in this regard.
T1: is consistent (by hypothesis) and has only finite models.
Completeness Theorem: according to it, T1 has a model for every infinite cardinality.
M: is a model with the same cardinality as the WORLD. (This is finite.) The particulars of M are mapped one to one to the parts of the WORLD. We use this mapping to define the relations of M directly in the WORLD.
SAT: is then the result of it: a fulfillment relationship, a "correspondence" between the terms of L and sets of parts of the WORLD. ((s) sets because of the predicates).
Truth: the theory results then in "true" when we interpret "true" as "TRUE(SAT)". (I 403 thereby SAT is of the same logical type as "satisfied" and TRUE(SAT) is defined in terms of SAT like "true" is defined in terms of "satisfied" with Tarski).
---
I 391
TRUE(SAT): is then the property of the truth, determined by the relation SAT. ideal theory: Question: what becomes of the claim that even the ideal theory could be wrong" in reality"?
Solution: It may be that SAT is not the intended correspondence relation (unintended model).
"Intended"/Putnam: what does it mean in this case? T1 meets all operational limitations. E.g. if "there is a cow in front of me at this and this point of time" belongs to T1,
---
I 392
then that will naturally appear true when there is a cow in front of me. But SAT is a true interpretation of T.
Definition operational conditions/Putnam/(s): that a sentence can be falsified if the object does not have the properties that the sentence attributes to it.
T1 is TRUE(SAT). Thus, the sentence is "true" in this sense, in the sense of TRUE(SAT).
On the other hand: if "there is a cow in front of me at this and this point of time" is operationally "wrong" (falsified), then the sentence is FALSE(/ SAT).
Reference: thus, it meets the "operational conditions".
theoretical conditions: the interpretation of "reference" as SAT meets all theoretical conditions for reference.
N.B.: so the "ideal" theory T1 becomes true. ((s) Problem: We wanted to ask how it can be wrong according to the metaphysical realism).
unintended: question: what additional conditions are there for reference, that could SAT pick out as "unintended" and a different interpretation as intended?
Putnam: thesis, the assumption that even an "ideal" theory could be wrong "in reality", should then be incomprehensible.
Causal theory/reference/metaphysical realism/Putnam: a causal theory of reference would not help here, because how "cause" should clearly refer, is, according to the metaphysical realism, as much a mystery as "cow" can clearly refer.
---
I 393
Reference/anti-realism/verificationism/Dummett/PutnamVsMetaphysical Realism: Understanding/anti-realism/Dummett: thesis, the theory of understanding should be operated in terms of verification and falsification.
DummettVsPhenomenalism/Putnam: new: is that there is no "base" of "hard facts" (for example, sense-data) with respect to which one ultimately uses truth-conditional semantics, logic and realistic terms of truth and falsehood.
Understanding/Dummett: understanding a sentence is to know what would be its verification.
Analogy: for the intuitionism: knowing the constructive proof, is to understand a mathematical proposition.
Assertibility condition/assertibility/Dummett: then E.g. "I see a cow" is only assertible if it is verified.
Verification/Dummett/Putnam. N.B.: we say the sentence is verified when it is pronounced > Firth:
Definition self-affirmation/Roderick Firth/Putnam: E.g. "I see a cow" is self-affirmative. It is thus verified when it is pronounced. This does not mean that it is incorrigible. It also does not have to be completely determined (bivalent).
Facts/Dummett/Putnam: thesis: in this sense (the "self-affirmation of observation sentences" (Firth)) all facts are "soft".
---
I 394
N.B.: thereby, the realistic terms of truth and falsity are not used. N.B.: the problem how the "only correct" reference ratio is identified, does not arise. Because the term "reference" is not used.
Reference: can we introduce it à la Tarski, but then ""cow" refers to cows" becomes a tautology and understanding this sentence needs no metaphysical realism.
Facts/verificationism/Dummett/Putnam: one should not operate the verificationist semantics in terms of "hard facts". (Neither the one of sense data). Otherwise you could repeat all objections VsMetaphysical Realism on the level that the meta language gets incomprehensible (which would be an equivalent to Wittgenstein's private language argument). (?).
Solution/Dummett: we need to apply the verificationism also in the meta language and the meta-meta language etc.
Understanding/truth condition/Dummett/Putnam: Dummett and I both agree that you cannot treat understanding as knowledge of the truth conditions.
Problem: then it gets incomprehensible vice-versa in what this knowledge should be.
Meaning/meaning theory/PutnamVsDummett: but I do not think that a theory of understanding could be the entire meaning theory.
---
I 395
VsMetaphysical realism: thus, we can refute it with Dummett. (with a theory of reference, not meaning theory). Realism/Putnam: then it is not wrong per se, but only the metaphysical, which was just a picture anyway. (So you could say at least).
Solution:
Internal realism is all we need.
Problem: that is not the whole story:
Peirce: the metaphysical realism collapses at a certain point, and this point tells us something, because it is precisely this point at which the metaphysical realism claims to be distinguishable from Peirce's realism . (That is, from the proposition that there is an ideal theory).
PeirceVsMetaphysical realism/PutnamVsPeirce: is mistaken when he says that the metaphysical realism collapses at this exact spot. And I, myself, was already wrong in this point. > E.g.
PutnamVsMetaphysical Realism/PutnamVsPeirce: the metaphysical realism is incoherent elsewhere:
E.g. Suppose, the WORLD is merely a straight line.
Then you can tell 2 stories about the WORLD:
Story 1: there are points. That is, the line has segments which can be infinitely small. The same relation "part of" is valid between points and segments that contain it
---
I 396
and between segments and large segments. Story 2: there are no points. Line and all segments have expansion. Thus, it is not claimed that story 1 would be wrong, points are simple logical constructions of segments. Speech about points is derived from speech about segments.
---
I 397
PutnamVsMetaphysical Realism: Problem: when you cannot say how the WORLD theory is independent, the speech of all these descriptions will be empty. Putnam: Quine says that in "Ontological Relativity". E.g.
Theory: if we have a complete theory, we can define an equivalence relation (AER): "provable co-extensiveness", with the property that if two terms belong to different equivalence classes (Aeki), no model of the theory refers to the referent, while, if they belong to the same equivalence class, they have the same referent in each model.
We take advantage of that.
Now, if our view is correct (see figure above)
---
I 399
then there is a unique reference maintaining "translation", which connects the two languages. Problem: it is known that there are often not equivalent interpretations of a theory within another theory. Story 1 can be interpreted in Story 2, namely in many different ways. E.g. "points" can be understood as sets of segments with negative power of two. Or sets of segments whose lengths are negative powers of 3.
VsMetaphysical Realism/problem: if that was so, there ought to be a fact about which translation "really" contains the reference.
Putnam: now we can make the picture again more complicated in order to also address the second objection: we allow that the language has more than one way, how it can be applied to the WORLD. (> way of use).
Problem: we can no longer hold onto the image itself. If that, what is a unique set of things within a correct theory, could be "in reality" no definite set, then we have no picture anymore.
Internal realism/Putnam: why is it not refuted by all of these?
VsInternal Realism: E.g. he might ask, "how do you know that "cow" refers to cows"? After all, there are other interpretations of the language as a whole, which would make an ideal theory true (in your language).
VsVs: E.g. Suppose, God gave us the set of all true propositions. That would be the "perfect" theory.
Problem: there would still be infinitely many possible interpretations of this perfect theory, which would meet all operational and theoretical conditions. Even the sentence ""cow" refers to cows" would be true in all these interpretations. How do you know then, that it is true in this sense of "true" that there is a unique "intended" interpretation? "How do you know that "cow" refers to cows in the sense of reference to a certain set of things as opposed to a certain set of things in each accessible interpretation?"
Putnam: that is precisely the objection of Internal RealismVsMetaphysical Realism, but now in the reverse direction.
Reference/internal RealismVsVs: that "cow" refers to cows, follows directly from the definition of reference. It would even be true if the internal realism would be wrong. Relative to the theory, it is a logical truth.
not revisable: but it is not absolutely unrevisable that "cow" refers to cows, but to revise it you would have to reject the whole theory.
Metaphysical RealismVs: The question is therefore not answered: ""cow" refers to cows" is certainly analytically relative to the theory, but it is about how the theory is understood. That "cow" refers to cows is true in all accessible interpretations, but that was not the question.
---
I 401
Internal RealismVsMetaphysical Realism/Putnam: the metaphysical realism makes it a mystery how there can be truths a priori, even in the contextual sense, even as a limiting case. An a priori truth must be given by a mysterious intuition. Even E.g. "bachelors are unmarried" would only be a priori due to an intuition. But if it is a "verbal" truth ((s)> "analytical", true because of the meaning of the words) then this is an abbreviation for E.g. "All unmarried men are unmarried. And that is an instance of "all AB are A". And why is that true? ---
I 404
PutnamVsMetaphysical Realism is doomed to a) consider the logic either empirically (i.e. not merely revisable, as I believed, myself) but in the sense that it has no conventional component at all, or b) he must see the logic as a priori in the sense, which cannot be explained by the term of convention.
---
I 414
PutnamVsMetaphysical Realism: (V, W u.G. pp 135f, 142f, 210f): Thesis metaphysical realism leads to a dichotomy facts/values. And this leads to relativism and the relativism refutes itself. ---
I 440
Theory Change/truth value/Putnam: not every sentence changes the truth value when it changes from an acceptable theory in another acceptable theory. PutnamVsMetaphysical Realism: but to set off an image, it suffices to show that his project of a complete description of the world without such sentences that change truth values, is impracticable.

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Propositions Davidson Vs Propositions
 
Books on Amazon
Field II 167
Meanings as intentional entities/DavidsonVsPropositions/Field: (Davidson 1967): Thesis: It is impossible to come up with a non-trivial theory of these intentional entities. E.g. meanings as intentional entities. E.g. How are meanings to be combined in form combinations? Meaning Combinations/MC/Davidson: ((s) instead of syntactic combinations): the most obvious is still to assume that meaning equality requires equal MC to be constructed of synonyms parts in the same way. Then we need a link operation for meanings. Like otherwise only for expressions ((s) syntactically). Of course, we could set up something like this: E.g. for all expressions E1 and E2: if E1 means m1 and E2 means m2, thenE1^E2 means m1^m2. How exciting! We can expand this "theory" by combining meaning equality with equality of meaning characterization. Problem: this does not yet create a connection between these meanings on the one hand and truth conditions (TC) and reference conditions on the other hand. That must yet be added. E.g. nothing tells us that the meaning associated with "Plato" picks out Plato. We have to add that through another theory of reference. (Which could be disquotational). Wrong solution: it would not help to introduce the concept "Plato" in a way that no intentional entity can be "Platon" if it does not single out Plato. Vs: If we did that, it would no longer be trivial that the meaning associated with "Plato" is iPlatoni. We would need an additional explanation as to why this is so, and it is not clear why this should be self-evident. "Theory of Reference"/Field: we would have to add that for other expressions, such as predicates and logical symbols. E.g. a theory that explains how the corresponding truth functions for "or" is singled out. T theory/Field: we would then have to add a T theory that explains how the meanings of composite expressions contribute to the TC. Conclusion: Hasn’t all the interesting work been done by the theories of reference and truth, plus access to equivalence relations on the set of meaning characterizations after this is subjected to translation?.
Horwich I 461
"Propositional assumption"/Propositional assumption/Terminology/Dummett/Devitt/Rorty: this is how Devitt called Dummett’s assumption that language understanding consists in the knowledge that the proposition is true in L in such and such circumstances. Understanding/Truth conditions/Tr.cond/Circumstances/Situation/DavidsonVsDummett: it is hopeless to try and isolate such circumstances because of the holism. Dummett: gives a non-holistic representation of "Davidsonean truth conditions" Dummett/Devitt: tries to infer: E.g. from "X knows the meaning of S" and "The meaning of S = the TC of X" to "S knows that the TC of X are TC". Rorty: this is only possible if we construct "S knows the meaning of S" as "There is an entity that is the meaning of S, and thus X is known." This is the propositional assumption. DavidsonVsPropositions//Rorty: Davidson would not accept them. And therefore he is not a TC theorist in Dummett’s sense. Devitt: assumes that Davidson accepts the propositional assumption. Rorty: this goes back to the fact that Davidson identified the meaning of theory with a theory of language understanding in his early articles. But they are incompatible with holism, and as misleading as E.g. the metaphor that billiard balls have "internalized" the laws of mechanics.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990

Fie III
H. Field
Science without numbers Princeton New Jersey 1980

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Putnam, H. Davidson Vs Putnam, H.
 
Books on Amazon
I 29
Twin Earth/: The question is whether it follows that the person concerned does not know what they think? DavidsonVsPutnam: Answer: this does not follow: it would only follow if the object that is used to identify my thoughts were something which I would have to be able to distinguish in order to know what I think. However, we had abandoned this assumption. What I see in front of me I believe to be water, I do not run the risk of thinking it was twin earth water, because I do not know what twin earth water is.
I 30
Even more: I also believe that I think I see water, and I am right with that, although it is probably not to water but twin earth water.
I 59
Putnam and Dummett show that the concept of truth itself can be given a knowledge-based twist. Yet all three have given the evidence precedence over the truth (as the primary status for the determination of meaning). DavidsonVsDummett, DavidsonVsPutnam: I think this is a mistake: This leads to the difficulties of the proximal theories: to a concept of truth relativized to individuals and to skepticism. The proximal theories are always kind of Cartesian.
I 73
DavidsonVsPutnam, DavidsonVsDummett: Vsproximal theory: skepticism, relativism to individual evidence: The only insightful concept of evidence is that of a relation between sentences. Or between beliefs! Davidson: My externalism is excited not by "linguistic division of labor" but by the "Twin Earth". Therefore, I do not believe that Putnam’s externalism threatens the authority of the first person. But I do not quite agree for other reasons.
DavidsonVsPutnam: his externalism applies primarily to words for natural species such as "water" and "leopard". The idea is that I identify these objects henceforth through the microstructure. ((s) why?)
DavidsonVsPutnam: but I do not see why the equality of the microstructure necessarily should be the decisive similarity, through which the reference of a word such as water should be determined.
I 116
There is no reason to limit externalism to a single, or small number of categories. For language and thought it is generally characteristic that their link with the world emerge from the kind of causal connections I discussed. Putnam: microstructure provides similarity for determining the reference (DavidsonVs)
Davidson: causal connections generally relevant for language and reference
DavidsonVsPutnam, DavidsonVsBurge: The fact that he emphasizes the everyday situation so strongly with the triangulation sets him apart from Putnam’s and Burge’s externalism.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990
Searle, J.R. Tugendhat Vs Searle, J.R.
 
Books on Amazon
I 256/257
TugendhatVsDummett/TugendhatVsSearle: unbefriedigend: 1. Es ist noch nichts darüber gesagt worden, welches die Wahrheitsbedingungen einer Behauptung bzw. eines Satzes sind. Eine Möglichkeit wäre zu sagen, dass die Wahrheitsbedingungen eines Satzes ihrerseits durch einen Satz angegeben werden. Das setzt natürlich voraus, dass für die Erklärung eines Satzes immer schon ein anderer Satz zur Verfügung steht. Metasprache. (TugendhatVs). Die Erklärung muss in einer Verwendungsregel liegen.
Es genügt nicht, zu zeigen, dass der erste Satz wie der zweite verwendet wird, es muss gezeigt werden, unter welchen Bedingungen der eine Satz gebraucht wird.
2. Jedes Übernehmen einer Garantie setzt seinerseits die Verwendung eines assertorischen Satzes voraus, das ist also eine Pseudoerklärung.
I 258
TugendhatVsSearle: an diesem Punkt wird deutlich, dass sein Regelsystem dort endet, wo es anfangen müsste. Verstehen/Tugendhat: wer eine Behauptung versteht, weiß zwar nicht, ob sie wahr ist, aber er weiß, wie es sich feststellen lässt.
Behaupten/Meinen: der Hörer kann die Rede so aufnehmen: »er behauptet, "dass p, aber er meint nicht, dass p".
Andererseits kann der Sprecher nicht von sich selbst sagen: "p; aber ich meine nicht, dass p". Searle: sincerity rule.
TugendhatVsSearle: der Zusammenhang mit dieser Regel und der Hauptregel essential rule, (an deren Stelle wir hier die These (7) (Eröffnungszug) gesetzt haben) wird bei Searle nicht klar.
- - -
I 504
Modaladverbien: Bsp "Peter rennt schnell". Analoges Problem: Autos sind in jedem Fall schneller. Wie also wird das "schnell" erklärt? Es hängt davon ab, 1. dass sich der Gegenstand, für den der sing Term steht, sich in einem bestimmten Zustand befindet und dass 2. dieser Zustand in bestimmter Weise klassifizierbar ist. Tugendhat: 1976: hier hat die Forschung gerade erst begonnen.
I 507
TugendhatVsSearle: er ist dort stehengeblieben, wo das Problem erst beginnt
I 512
TugendhatVsSearle: falsch: Sätze des Versprechens (für Searle zentral) als auf einer Ebene wie Aussagensätze zu behandeln.

Tu I
E. Tugendhat
Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Sprachanalytische Philosophie Frankfurt 1976

Tu II
E. Tugendhat
Philosophische Aufsätze Frankfurt 1992
Verificationism Husserl Vs Verificationism
 
Books on Amazon
Chisholm II 150
Äußerung/wahrmachen/Husserl: Unterschied: 1. Semantische Relation des Wahrmachens
2. Verifikation (beides muß nicht zusammenfallen: Wahrheit muß nicht evident sein > Behauptbarkeit)
3. Relation zu einem Ding "außerhalb", was immer es sein mag.
II 151
Bei Sätzen mit indexikalischen Wörtern (Index Wörtern) überlappen sich die drei.
Bedeutung/HusserlVsVerifikation/Husserl: Verifikation trägt nicht zur Bedeutung des Satzes bei, weil 2. und 3. auseinanderfallen. Einzige Ausnahme: indexikalische Phänomene! (VsFrege; VsDummett?). (6. Logische Untersuchung).
Bsp Jules versteht nur "Diese Krähe fliegt hoch", wenn Jim sie ihm zeigt.
Die Krähe, das Zeigen und das Fliegen instantiieren verschiedene Arten. Dabei sind die zwei Ebenen des Universalen und Partikularen strikt getrennt.
E. Husserl
I Peter Prechtl Husserl zur Einführung, Hamburg 1991 (Junius)
II "Husserl" aus Hauptwerke der Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart

Chi I
R. Chisholm
Die erste Person Frankfurt 1992

Chi III
Roderick M. Chisholm
Erkenntnistheorie Graz 2004

The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 theses of the more related field of specialization.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Meaning Theory Davidson, D.
 
Books on Amazon
Avramides I 8
Bedeutung/BT/Davidson/Avramides: These um zu erfahren, was Bedeutung ist, müssen wir sehen, welche Form eine BT haben muß. Davidson: These einen semantischen Wahrheitsbegriff für eine Sprache zu haben heißt wissen, was es für einen Satz bedeutet, wahr zu sein, und das heißt in einem vernünftigen Sinn, die Sprache zu verstehen. (Davidson 1984b,S.24).
Dummett III 83
VsDummett: man könnte einwenden, ich hätte schlicht Davidsons These geleugnet, daß wir bei der Konstruktion einer BT nur von für wahr gehaltenen Sätzen ausgehen können sowie von den Bedingungen unter denen Urteile gefällt werden.
Horwich I 455
Sprachphilosophie/Davidson: These wir brauchen nichts außer der Sicht des Feld-Linguisten. DummettVsDavidson: wir brauchen mehr.
Schiffer I 3
BT/Davidson: These sollte die Form einer extensionalen, endlich axiomatisierten WT für L im Tarski-Stil haben. Und zwar irgendwie auf Äußerungen relativiert.

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994

Schi I
St. Schiffer
Remnants of Meaning Cambridge 1987
Antirealism Fine, A.
 
Books on Amazon
Rorty IV 19
Arthur Fine / Rorty: Thesis: wants to have a standpoint point beyond realism and anti-realism . (VsDummett). (Also A. FineVs truth makers).

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

The author or concept searched is found in the following theses of an allied field of specialization.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Construktivism Boyd, R.
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 495
Antirealism / Boyd: (BoydVsAnti-realism / BoydVsDummett): two ways:   a) empiricist thesis that theories need to be reinterpreted in a instrumentalist manner.
  I 495
  b) "constructivist" theory (Kuhn): that the world must be constructed from the theoretical tradition of the scientific community.   M. Williams: if this means that objects are not simply "given", then today virtually everyone is a constructivist.

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994