Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Wittgenstein's later work shows that meaning is constituted by use in context, making ambiguity resolution a pragmatic achievement, not a logical prerequisite.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Use-based meaning cannot fully explain how novel utterances are understood; pragmatics alone cannot ground systematic compositionality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Some ambiguities resist pragmatic resolution despite shared context; logical structure must partially constrain possible interpretations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Calling ambiguity resolution 'pragmatic' rather than 'logical' may conflate explanation levels; pragmatics itself relies on underlying semantic rules.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Language games show that identical words have different meanings across contexts; 'bank' differs in financial vs. river contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Communication succeeds daily despite logical ambiguity; speakers resolve meaning through shared practices, not prior logical clarity.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The Tractatus assumption that meaning requires fixed logical structure failed; this motivates the pragmatic turn in later Wittgenstein.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.