Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Grice's distinction between natural and non-natural meani... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Regularities in meaning and belief are not sufficient to ground an analysis of meaning.

    Grice's distinction between natural and non-natural meaning shows that meaning requires communicative intention, not mere regularity.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Natural meaning (smoke means fire) requires no speaker; non-natural meaning requires intentional use by an agent to communicate to an audience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A parrot mimicking words demonstrates regularity without meaning; Grice's intentionality requirement distinguishes genuine communication from mere behavior.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Communicative intention explains why 'x means y' can be false even when x regularly correlates with y—intention determines semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Grice's intentionality criterion faces infinite regress: the intention to communicate must itself be communicated, requiring prior meaning to explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Linguistic meaning survives speaker death and absent intentions; understanding 'Hamlet' requires no access to Shakespeare's specific communicative intentions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Social conventions and learnable systems (languages, codes) constitute meaning independently of individual speaker intentions in each utterance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language1 linked

    Related

    A parrot mimicking words demonstrates regularity without meaning; Grice's intent...Communicative intention explains why 'x means y' can be false even when x regula...Grice's intentionality criterion faces infinite regress: the intention to commun...Linguistic meaning survives speaker death and absent intentions; understanding '...
    +3 moreShow less
    Natural meaning (smoke means fire) requires no speaker; non-natural meaning requ...Regularities in meaning and belief are not sufficient to ground an analysis of m...Social conventions and learnable systems (languages, codes) constitute meaning i...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit