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
    Regularities in meaning and belief are not sufficient to ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

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

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Grice's distinction between natural and non-natural meaning shows that meaning requires communicative intention, not mere regularity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A thermometer reliably indicates temperature without meaning anything, demonstrating that reliable correlation is insufficient for semantic content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intentional states must be present for an utterance to bear meaning, and regularities can obtain without any underlying intentional structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's rule-following paradox establishes that no pattern of use, however regular, uniquely determines a rule that fixes meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If regularities underdetermine which rule is followed, they underdetermine meaning itself, making them insufficient as a grounding analysis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There exist cases where a regularity between utterances of a sentence and agents' believing a proposition holds, yet the sentence does not express that proposition in the relevant group.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A sufficient analysis of meaning must account for all cases where meaning is present and absent.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    A sufficient analysis of meaning must account for all cases where meaning is pre...A thermometer reliably indicates temperature without meaning anything, demonstra...Grice's distinction between natural and non-natural meaning shows that meaning r...If regularities underdetermine which rule is followed, they underdetermine meani...
    +3 moreShow less
    Intentional states must be present for an utterance to bear meaning, and regular...Kripke's rule-following paradox establishes that no pattern of use, however regu...There exist cases where a regularity between utterances of a sentence and agents...

    Similar

    A sufficient analysis of meaning must account for all cases where mean...86%Possessing the concept of belief requires language.80%Non-linguistic creatures cannot have concepts other than the concept o...80%A theory of meaning that identifies meaning with something meanings do...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: meaning
    View source passageHide passage
    Because of cases like this, it seems that regularities in meaning and belief are not sufficient to ground an analysis of meaning. For this reason, many proponents of a mentalist analysis of meaning in terms of belief have sought instead to analyze meaning in terms of conventions governing such regularities. Roughly, a regularity is a matter of convention when the regularity obtains because there is something akin to an agreement among a group of people to keep the regularity in place. So, applie
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit