Thick Concepts and Underdetermination

2013 ◽  
pp. 136-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pekka Väyrynen
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Matti Eklund

What is it for a concept to be normative? Some possible answers are explored and rejected, among them that a concept is normative if it ascribes a normative property. The positive answer defended is that a concept is normative if it is in the right way associated with a normative use. Among issues discussed along the way are the nature of analyticity, and there being a notion of analyticity—what I call semantic analyticity—such that a statement can be analytic in this sense while failing to be true. Considerations regarding thick concepts and slurs are brought to bear on the issues that come up.


Author(s):  
Simon Kirchin
Keyword(s):  

This chapter continues the account of thick concepts defended in Chapter Six by arguing that such concepts are essentially evaluative. This is opposed to the view that thick concepts are merely nonevaluative concepts that happen, every so often, to convey evaluation through linguistic and other contingent conventions. This opposing view has been best articulated by Pekka Väyrynen. This chapter presents and considers Väyrynen’s arguments for his claim, and the assumptions that lie behind both his own account of thin and thick concepts, and his overall view of evaluation. This chapter ventures that his arguments against nonseparationism do not work and that, in addition, his own position is suspect.


Author(s):  
Simon Kirchin

This chapter introduces the distinction between thin and thick concepts and then performs a number of functions. First, two major accounts of thick concepts—separationism and nonseparationism—are introduced and, in doing so, a novel account of evaluation is indicated. Second, each chapter is outlined as is the general methodology, followed, third, by a brief history of the discussion of thick concepts, referencing Philippa Foot, Hilary Putnam, Gilbert Ryle, and Bernard Williams among others. Fourth, a number of relevant contrasts are introduced, such as the fact–value distinction and the difference between concepts, properties, and terms. Lastly, some interesting and relevant questions are raised that, unfortunately, have to be left aside.


2014 ◽  
Vol 65 (258) ◽  
pp. 131-134
Author(s):  
Edward Skidelsky
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. 160-177
Author(s):  
Jonathan Dancy
Keyword(s):  

This paper focuses on the way in which thick concepts manage to combine the descriptive and the evaluative. It accepts Blackburn’s suggestion that thick terms have variable relevance, but disputes his conclusion that there are no thick concepts. The views of Wiggins and McDowell on these topics play an important role in the discussion. In the process a richer picture of the thick begins to emerge. The paper ends by considering the question whether the doctrine of the supervenience of the evaluative on the natural can still be sustained as a result.


2021 ◽  
pp. 197-212
Author(s):  
Jonathan Dancy

This paper is a successor to the author’s ‘In Defence of Thick Concepts’. It asks first whether all thick concepts have a default valence. It then considers how to account for the combination of the descriptive and the evaluative (which is sometimes called ‘interpenetration’) in a thick concept, and suggests that the so-called ‘no-priority’ view fails to do this. We might also wonder why the descriptive element is not always capable of separate instantiation. Various alternative moves are considered. The paper offers a considerably more varied list of supposedly thick concepts than is normal. It ends by suggesting that thick concepts are evaluative because competence with them involves grasp of their evaluative point.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document