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
    If the basic semantic relation is non-normative, the rele... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Normativists who appeal to Rosen's distinction face a special challenge: they must show that semantics needs a normative construal, not merely that it could be given one.

    If the basic semantic relation is non-normative, the relevant question shifts from whether semantic correctness could be given a normative construal to whether semantics needs such a construal.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    non-normative(as used in epistemology)
    A claim that describes how things actually are, rather than how they should be or ought to be.
    normative construal(epistemology and philosophy of language)
    Interpreting or understanding something by deciding what *should* be the case or what we *ought* to value, rather than just what *is* the case.
    semantic correctness

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    (Ginsborg's account of meaning)
    A use of an expression being correct or incorrect in virtue of meaning, such that a use can fail to match what one is disposed to regard as appropriate.
    semantic relation(philosophy of language)
    The connection between a word or sign and what it actually means or refers to in the world.
    semantics(Distinguished from metasemantics and pragmatics in Kaplan 1989)
    The domain that concerns the facts about what meanings words or phrases have.

    Related

    Normativists who appeal to Rosen's distinction face a special challenge: they mu...These normativists grant that the basic semantic relation is non-normative.

    Similar

    These normativists grant that the basic semantic relation is non-norma...90%Normativists who appeal to Rosen's distinction face a special challeng...86%The further notion of semantic correctness is essentially normative.85%The normativist would have to provide reasons why the non-normativist ...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: meaning-normativity
    View source passageHide passage
    This strand in the debate might seem to suggest that behind the discussion of the simple argument lies nothing but a basic clash of intuitions. The anti-normativist denies what the normativist asserts—that the concept of semantic correctness is an essentially normative concept. A possible conclusion, therefore, is that the normativist and the anti-normativist operate with different concepts of semantic correctness. This raises the question, however, whether there is nevertheless co-extensionalit

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective