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
    The argument from understanding cannot be straightforward... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The argument from understanding cannot be straightforwardly applied to concepts and content.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?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.Concepts, unlike linguistic expressions, are not publicly observable tokens subject to intersubjective correction of misuse (Fodor, LOT).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a public medium of expression, the normative standard for 'correct application' of a concept collapses into the thinker's own dispositions, undermining any gap between use and correctness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kripke's normativity argument requires a fact that distinguishes correct from incorrect application, but for concepts this fact cannot be grounded in communal linguistic practice as Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's notion of sense as the mode of presentation of a concept's referent ties conceptual content to objective, mind-independent conditions, not to any individual's understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If conceptual content is Fregean and mind-independent, then 'understanding' a concept is not analogous to grasping a word's meaning—there is no shared social artifact whose correct use can be modeled or taught.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument from understanding presupposes a learnable, correctable practice, but Fregean concepts are abstract objects that one either grasps or fails to grasp without any intermediate notion of partial understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The notion of failing to use a concept in keeping with its content is more problematic than the notion of failing to use a word in accordance with its meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.While it is unproblematic to speak of understanding or misunderstanding the meaning of an expression, in the case of concepts there is nothing corresponding to the expression.
      ?

      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 LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Concepts, unlike linguistic expressions, are not publicly observable tokens subj...Frege's notion of sense as the mode of presentation of a concept's referent ties...If conceptual content is Fregean and mind-independent, then 'understanding' a co...Kripke's normativity argument requires a fact that distinguishes correct from in...
    +4 moreShow less
    The argument from understanding presupposes a learnable, correctable practice, b...The notion of failing to use a concept in keeping with its content is more probl...While it is unproblematic to speak of understanding or misunderstanding the mean...Without a public medium of expression, the normative standard for 'correct appli...

    Similar

    Sentences cannot be about understandings alone80%Safety, understood in terms of knowledge, cannot serve in an analysis ...79%While it is unproblematic to speak of understanding or misunderstandin...79%Therefore necessity cannot be grounded in understandings78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: meaning-normativity
    View source passageHide passage
    This argument runs parallel to the argument from understanding in support of ME normativity (section 2.1.2). Even if that argument is accepted, however, the question arises whether it can be applied to concepts and content, since the notion of failing to use a concept in “keeping with its content” appears more problematic than the notion of failing to use a word in accordance with its meaning (McGinn 1984: 146–147; Millar 2004: 180–181). It is relatively unproblematic to speak of understanding
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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