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
    Speaker meaning requires intending that the audience form... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Speaker meaning requires intending that the audience form the belief on the basis of their recognition of the speaker's intention to produce that belief

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Merely intending to cause a belief is insufficient for speaker meaning, since that belief could be caused in ways that do not involve the audience recognizing the speaker's communicative intention
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The distinctively communicative character of speaker meaning depends on the audience's recognition of the speaker's intention as the basis for forming the belief
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sincerity conditions can be satisfied in assertion without any reflexive intention that belief-formation be grounded in audience recognition of that very intention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Austin's illocutionary acts are conventionally constituted, not reducible to layered Gricean intentions, so the reflexive structure Grice posits is neither necessary nor sufficient for meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Schiffer's 'mutual knowledge' objection shows that Grice's original reflexive intention schema generates an infinite regress requiring ever-higher orders of mutual recognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the regress is not halted by some non-intentional conventional or contextual fact, the reflexive intention condition cannot be a finitely specifiable requirement on speaker meaning.
      ?

      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

    Austin's illocutionary acts are conventionally constituted, not reducible to lay...If the regress is not halted by some non-intentional conventional or contextual ...Merely intending to cause a belief is insufficient for speaker meaning, since th...Schiffer's 'mutual knowledge' objection shows that Grice's original reflexive in...
    +2 moreShow less
    Sincerity conditions can be satisfied in assertion without any reflexive intenti...The distinctively communicative character of speaker meaning depends on the audi...

    Similar

    Speaker meaning cannot be solely a matter of intending to cause a cert...89%One can intend to cause a belief in an audience through means that byp...86%Merely intending to cause a belief is insufficient for speaker meaning...86%When a belief is caused independently of the audience's recognition of...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: meaning
    View source passageHide passage
    This sort of example indicates that speaker meaning can’t just be a matter of intending to cause a certain belief—it must be intending to cause a certain belief in a certain way. But what, in addition to intending to cause the belief, is required for meaning that p? Grice’s idea was that one must not only intend to cause the audience to form a belief, but also intend that they do so on the basis of their recognition of the speaker’s intention. This condition is not met in the above example: I do
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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