The Normativity of Meaning

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 ◽  
pp. 57-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Millar

In a discussion of rule-following inspired by Wittgenstein, Kripke asks us to consider the relation which holds between meaning plus by ‘+’ and answering questions like, ‘What is the sum of 68 and 57?’. A dispositional theory has it that if you mean plus by ‘+’ then you will probably answer, ‘125’. That is because, according to such a theory, to mean plus by ‘+’ is, roughly speaking, to be disposed, by and large, and among other things, to answer such questions with the correct sum. Kripke wants to emphasize, by contrast, that if you mean plus by ‘+’ then, faced with the question, ‘What is 68 + 57?’ you ought to answer, ‘125’. One could sum up the assumption about meaning which appears to underpin this criticism of dispositional theories in terms of the slogan that meaning is normative. Allan Gibbard gives us a way of reading that slogan which is suggested by Kripke's brief remarks:The crux of the slogan that meaning is normative … might be another slogan: that means implies ought. To use roughly Kripke's example, from statements saying what I mean by the plus sign and other arithmetic terms and constructions, it will follow that I ought to answer ‘7’ when asked ‘What's 5 + 2?’.

Dialogue ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 207-217
Author(s):  
ALEXANDER MILLER

ABSTRACTThis paper discusses Claudine Verheggen's account of what she takes to be Donald Davidson's response to the sceptical paradox about rule-following and meaning developed in Saul Kripke's interpretation of Wittgenstein's ‘rule-following considerations.’ It focusses on questions about the normativity of meaning, the social character of meaning, and the role of triangulation in Davidson's account of the determination of meaning, and invites Verheggen to compare the non-reductionism she finds in Davidson with that developed in Crispin Wright's judgement-dependent account of meaning.


2012 ◽  
pp. 83-118
Author(s):  
Caroline Sturdy Colls

Public impression of the Holocaust is unquestionably centred on knowledge about, and the image of, Auschwitz-Birkenau – the gas chambers, the crematoria, the systematic and industrialized killing of victims. Conversely, knowledge of the former extermination camp at Treblinka, which stands in stark contrast in terms of the visible evidence that survives pertaining to it, is less embedded in general public consciousness. As this paper argues, the contrasting level of knowledge about Auschwitz- Birkenau and Treblinka is centred upon the belief that physical evidence of the camps only survives when it is visible and above-ground. The perception of Treblinka as having been “destroyed” by the Nazis, and the belief that the bodies of all of the victims were cremated without trace, has resulted in a lack of investigation aimed at answering questions about the extent and nature of the camp, and the locations of mass graves and cremation pits. This paper discusses the evidence that demonstrates that traces of the camp do survive. It outlines how archival research and non-invasive archaeological survey has been used to re-evaluate the physical evidence pertaining to Treblinka in a way that respects Jewish Halacha Law. As well as facilitating spatial and temporal analysis of the former extermination camp, this survey has also revealed information about the cultural memory.


Author(s):  
Lita Amalia ◽  
Alda Dwiyana Putri ◽  
Alfajri Mairizki Nurfansyah

The purpose of this paper is to describe the Problem Posing learning model with Task and Forced Strategy. As for the background of this writing is because of difficulties in understanding the material and also lack of enthusiasm of students in learning the material so that the impact on student learning outcomes is still low. The low student learning outcomes are, of course, many factors, one of which is the problem of applying a learning model that is still teacher-centered, so students tend to be passive. For this reason, the teacher can use the Problem Posing learning model that is modified by the task and force strategy (Task and Forced). Problem Posing learning model is a learning model that requires students to develop their systematic reasoning skills in making questions and answering questions. While the task and force strategy (Task and Forced) is a learning strategy that has little effect on students to complete the task until it is completed and on time to avoid the punishment given by the teacher as a consequence. So that students will be motivated in listening, understanding the material delivered and doing assignments on time. By combining this model and strategy can be a solution so that the learning process becomes quality.


Author(s):  
Marie McGinn

In Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein raises difficulties for the idea that what comes before my mind when I hear, or suddenly understand, a word can impose any normative constraint on what I go on to do. The conclusion his reflections seem to force on us gives rise to a paradox: there is no such thing as going on to apply an expression in a way that accords with what is meant by it. The paradox can be seen as one horn of a dilemma, the other horn of which is Platonism about meaning. It is generally agreed that resolving the paradox means finding a middle course between the two horns of the dilemma. This chapter looks at three attempts to find the middle course: communitarianism, naturalized Platonism, and quietism. It then considers whether Charles Travis offers a way out of the dilemma which avoids the problems of the other views discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document