Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If S uses "green" to mean green, S incurs a commitment to use the term accordingly.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Kripke's Wittgenstein shows any past use is compatible with infinitely many rules, so no determinate commitment can be derived from use alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without a fact that fixes which rule S follows, the normative commitment lacks a determinate content to bind S to.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Williamson argues meaning-constitutive norms are epistemic rather than semantic, so using 'green' commits S only to asserting what S knows, not to use conditions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If the commitment is epistemic rather than semantic, participation in linguistic practice does not itself generate use-based obligations of the kind the claim describes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Meaning statements are true in virtue of a rule-governed practice
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
By using a term with a given meaning, S becomes a participant in that practice
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Participation in a rule-governed practice entails incurring commitments associated with that practice
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.