If the Wittgensteinian critique holds, treating sentences as static logical objects misrepresents natural language semantics, making consistency with Montague's contention a shared error rather than a vindication.
?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.
consistency with(whether one theory aligns with another)
Agreeing with or being compatible with another idea or theory.
natural language semantics(what gets misrepresented by treating language as static)
The study of how meaning actually works in the languages people speak every day, including all the messy, context-dependent ways words get their meaning.
static logical objects(what the critique says we shouldn't do)
Treating sentences as if they have fixed, unchanging meanings that follow strict rules of logic, like mathematical equations.
vindication(Feigl's account of how humanist values are justified)
A pragmatic mode of justification for moral values, as opposed to a priori or absolutist justification.