Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Philosophy of Language

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am reading a book on philosophy of language, Meaning and Reference edited by A.W. Moore, a collection of articles and speeches delivered by some of the previous century's most influential philosophers of language. The narrative that I understand from it, principally, is that Frege largely initiated the topic with a broadly Platonic point of view, Quine reversed the direction with a strictly physicalist model, and Wittgenstein did lord-knows-what when he discussed the idea of meaning as use while rejecting both physicalism and positivism.

I would assume that all the works of Frege, Russell, and Strawson would be out the window for an Objectivist, and there should be some appeal to the mantra 'meaning is use', but I wonder if anybody has studied the matter and could spell out in exactly what way meaning is use, since it seems Quine, Davidson, McDowell, Dummett, and many others are in controversy about this. I'm also guessing that, for an Objectivist, Quine's philosophy would be right out as well, since it seems to me he is so much a physicalist that he has no room for consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that all the works of Frege, Russell, and Strawson would be out the window for an Objectivist, and there should be some appeal to the mantra 'meaning is use'
You'd be on firmer ground if you approached the question from the "meaning is reference" POV. You've got ITOE on hand, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reading a book on philosophy of language, Meaning and Reference edited by A.W. Moore, a collection of articles and speeches delivered by some of the previous century's most influential philosophers of language. The narrative that I understand from it, principally, is that Frege largely initiated the topic with a broadly Platonic point of view, Quine reversed the direction with a strictly physicalist model, and Wittgenstein did lord-knows-what when he discussed the idea of meaning as use while rejecting both physicalism and positivism.

I would assume that all the works of Frege, Russell, and Strawson would be out the window for an Objectivist, and there should be some appeal to the mantra 'meaning is use', but I wonder if anybody has studied the matter and could spell out in exactly what way meaning is use, since it seems Quine, Davidson, McDowell, Dummett, and many others are in controversy about this. I'm also guessing that, for an Objectivist, Quine's philosophy would be right out as well, since it seems to me he is so much a physicalist that he has no room for consciousness.

First, you should supplement those readings with a good book on philosophy of language. One suggestion is Bernard Harrison's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language, which I found clear and interesting (many that I've read are pretty frustrating in not going back beyond or in some cases even as far as Frege; Harrison starts with Locke and then goes to Frege); Harrison leans to the later Wittgensteinian view of things, but he does a good job discussing rival views. You might also look for a book on linguistic semantics as opposed to formal semantics (the theory of meaning common in academic philosophy, which is heavily influenced by Frege and mathematical logic), though again you want a good survey that takes account of philosophical issues without digging too much into purely linguistic matters--one of Sir John Lyons's introductory texts would be good there.

Here's how I'd suggest going about analyzing what each philosopher is arguing for. First, what is his theory of meaning? How does it relate to reference? Second, does he reduce meaning to strictly propositional content? Third, which is more basic, sentence meaning or word meaning? Fourth, does he emphasize reference or sense in analyzing word meaning? (Sense, at least in this sense [heh], means how a word contrasts in meaning with other words. That is, in cognitive science terms, does he take a view closer to prototypes or structuralism? Both are necessary in linguistics, but not necessarily in philosophy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add that if you start with the assumption that "meaning" is a single, coherent thing, you are in for a world of hurt. "Philosophy of language" really isn't about philosophical aspects of language, it's a very small subset of issues related to cognition with emphasis on words. If you're interested in an Objectivist perspective, start by identifying the existent that has captured your interest -- you know, primacy of existence and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd be on firmer ground if you approached the question from the "meaning is reference" POV. You've got ITOE on hand, right?

I'm not sure. It might be in Florida. Now that you mention it, the next few months would be a good time to re-read that one.

First, you should supplement those readings with a good book on philosophy of language. One suggestion is Bernard Harrison's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language, which I found clear and interesting (many that I've read are pretty frustrating in not going back beyond or in some cases even as far as Frege; Harrison starts with Locke and then goes to Frege); Harrison leans to the later Wittgensteinian view of things, but he does a good job discussing rival views. You might also look for a book on linguistic semantics as opposed to formal semantics (the theory of meaning common in academic philosophy, which is heavily influenced by Frege and mathematical logic), though again you want a good survey that takes account of philosophical issues without digging too much into purely linguistic matters--one of Sir John Lyons's introductory texts would be good there.

Here's how I'd suggest going about analyzing what each philosopher is arguing for. First, what is his theory of meaning? How does it relate to reference? Second, does he reduce meaning to strictly propositional content? Third, which is more basic, sentence meaning or word meaning? Fourth, does he emphasize reference or sense in analyzing word meaning? (Sense, at least in this sense [heh], means how a word contrasts in meaning with other words. That is, in cognitive science terms, does he take a view closer to prototypes or structuralism? Both are necessary in linguistics, but not necessarily in philosophy.)

I'll have to take a look at the Harrison book.

As for analyzing the philosophers, I've done a fairly comprehensive job understanding Frege, Russell, Strawson, Quine, Gareth Evans, and Putnam, which should put me in decent standing. Still, I admit I haven't perfectly digested Dummett, Davidson, McDowell, Wiggins, and I doubt anybody has digested Wittgenstein completely. Particularly regarding Davidson and McDowell, it's difficult for me to see exactly what is their development of Quine's model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...