Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:34:28.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Gibbard’s Defence of the Dispositional Theory of Meaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2018

ALI SABOOHI Open the ORCID record for ALI SABOOHI [Opens in a new window]
ALI SABOOHI*
Affiliation:
Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM, Tehran)
*
*<alisaboohi44@gmail.com>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the dispositional theory of meaning and content, what a speaker means by an expression is determined by her dispositions to use it. The literature contains two well-known objections against this theory: the problem of finitude and the problem of error. In his book Meaning and Normativity, Allan Gibbard propounds a novel defence against these objections. In this paper, I argue that Gibbard’s suggestions fail to save the dispositional theory. Moreover, I argue that Gibbard’s deflationary view about facts prevents him from saying anything about the property of meaning that would hold any interest for a naturalist.

Selon la théorie dispositionnelle du sens et du contenu, ce qu’un locuteur veut dire par une expression est déterminé par ses dispositions à l’utiliser. La littérature contient deux objections bien connues contre cette théorie: le problème de la finitude et le problème de l’erreur. Dans son livre Meaning and Normativity, Allan Gibbard propose une nouvelle défense de la théorie dispositionnelle du sens et du contenu. Dans cet article, je soutiens que les suggestions de Gibbard ne parviennent pas à sauver la théorie dispositionnelle. De plus, je soutiens que le point de vue déflationniste de Gibbard sur les faits l’empêche de dire quoi que ce soit à propos de la propriété du sens qui aurait un intérêt quelconque pour un naturaliste.

Keywords

dispositional theory of meaningbelief holismerror and finitudebest fit ascriptionssimplicity
Type
Original Article/Article original
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 2019 , pp. 513 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, D. 2016 “Intuitions about Disagreement Do Not Support the Normativity of Meaning.” Dialectica 70 (1): 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, L., and Georges, R. (Eds.) 1991 Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics. Oxford, UK: Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S. 1984 “Individuals Strike Back,” reprinted in Miller and Wright, 2002, 28–54.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. 1989 “The Rule-Following Considerations,” reprinted in Miller and Wright, 2002, 141–187.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. 1991 “Naturalising Content,” reprinted in Boghossian, 2008, 71–95.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. 2005 “Is Meaning Normative?” reprinted in Boghossian, 2008, 95–109.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. 2008 Content and Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1987 Psychosemantics: The problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. 1991 “Replies,” in Meaning in Mind: Fodor and his Critics, edited by Barry, L. and Georges, R.. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 251–319.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. 2012 Meaning and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R.M. 1952 The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1982 Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1970 “How to Define Theoretical Terms.” Journal of Philosophy 67 (3): 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1972 “Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (3): 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. 2003 “Does ‘Belief Holism’ Show that Reductive Dispositionalism about Content Could Not be True?” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 77 (1): 47–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A, and Wright, C. (Eds.) 2002 Rule-Following and Meaning. London: Acumen.Google Scholar
Moore, G.E. 1993 [1903] Principia Ethica. Revised edition. Edited by Baldwin, T.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar