Truth in Virtue of Meaning: A Defence of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
The analytic/synthetic distinction looks simple. It is a distinction between two different kinds of sentence. Synthetic sentences are true in part because of the way the world is, and in part because of what they mean. Analytic sentences - like all bachelors are unmarried and triangles have three sides - are different. They are true in virtue of meaning, so no matter what the world is like, as long as the sentence means what it does, it will be true. This distinction seems powerful because analytic sentences seem to be knowable in a special way. One can know that all bachelors are unmarried, for example, just by thinking about what it means. But many twentieth-century philosophers, with Quine in the lead, argued that there were no analytic sentences, that the idea of analyticity didn't even make sense, and that the analytic/synthetic distinction was therefore an illusion. Others couldn't see how there could fail to be a distinction, however ingenious the arguments of Quine and his supporters. But since the heyday of the debate, things have changed in the philosophy of language. Tools have been refined, confusions cleared up, and most significantly, many philosophers now accept a view of language - semantic externalism - on which it is possible to see how the distinction could fail. One might be tempted to think that ultimately the distinction has fallen for reasons other than those proposed in the original debate. In Truth in Virtue of Meaning, Gillian Russell argues that it hasn't. Using the tools of contemporary philosophy of language, she outlines a view of analytic sentences which is compatible with semantic externalism and defends that view against the old Quinean arguments. She then goes on to draw out the surprising epistemological consequences of her approach.
"1112083710"
Truth in Virtue of Meaning: A Defence of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction
The analytic/synthetic distinction looks simple. It is a distinction between two different kinds of sentence. Synthetic sentences are true in part because of the way the world is, and in part because of what they mean. Analytic sentences - like all bachelors are unmarried and triangles have three sides - are different. They are true in virtue of meaning, so no matter what the world is like, as long as the sentence means what it does, it will be true. This distinction seems powerful because analytic sentences seem to be knowable in a special way. One can know that all bachelors are unmarried, for example, just by thinking about what it means. But many twentieth-century philosophers, with Quine in the lead, argued that there were no analytic sentences, that the idea of analyticity didn't even make sense, and that the analytic/synthetic distinction was therefore an illusion. Others couldn't see how there could fail to be a distinction, however ingenious the arguments of Quine and his supporters. But since the heyday of the debate, things have changed in the philosophy of language. Tools have been refined, confusions cleared up, and most significantly, many philosophers now accept a view of language - semantic externalism - on which it is possible to see how the distinction could fail. One might be tempted to think that ultimately the distinction has fallen for reasons other than those proposed in the original debate. In Truth in Virtue of Meaning, Gillian Russell argues that it hasn't. Using the tools of contemporary philosophy of language, she outlines a view of analytic sentences which is compatible with semantic externalism and defends that view against the old Quinean arguments. She then goes on to draw out the surprising epistemological consequences of her approach.
33.99 In Stock
Truth in Virtue of Meaning: A Defence of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

Truth in Virtue of Meaning: A Defence of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

by Gillian Russell
Truth in Virtue of Meaning: A Defence of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

Truth in Virtue of Meaning: A Defence of the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

by Gillian Russell

eBook

$33.99  $44.99 Save 24% Current price is $33.99, Original price is $44.99. You Save 24%.

Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now

Related collections and offers

LEND ME® See Details

Overview

The analytic/synthetic distinction looks simple. It is a distinction between two different kinds of sentence. Synthetic sentences are true in part because of the way the world is, and in part because of what they mean. Analytic sentences - like all bachelors are unmarried and triangles have three sides - are different. They are true in virtue of meaning, so no matter what the world is like, as long as the sentence means what it does, it will be true. This distinction seems powerful because analytic sentences seem to be knowable in a special way. One can know that all bachelors are unmarried, for example, just by thinking about what it means. But many twentieth-century philosophers, with Quine in the lead, argued that there were no analytic sentences, that the idea of analyticity didn't even make sense, and that the analytic/synthetic distinction was therefore an illusion. Others couldn't see how there could fail to be a distinction, however ingenious the arguments of Quine and his supporters. But since the heyday of the debate, things have changed in the philosophy of language. Tools have been refined, confusions cleared up, and most significantly, many philosophers now accept a view of language - semantic externalism - on which it is possible to see how the distinction could fail. One might be tempted to think that ultimately the distinction has fallen for reasons other than those proposed in the original debate. In Truth in Virtue of Meaning, Gillian Russell argues that it hasn't. Using the tools of contemporary philosophy of language, she outlines a view of analytic sentences which is compatible with semantic externalism and defends that view against the old Quinean arguments. She then goes on to draw out the surprising epistemological consequences of her approach.

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780191528330
Publisher: OUP Oxford
Publication date: 02/28/2008
Sold by: Barnes & Noble
Format: eBook
File size: 607 KB

About the Author

Gillian Russell is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Washington University in St Louis.

Table of Contents


Preface     ix
Acknowledgements     xiii
Introduction     1
The Positive View
The 'in virtue of' Relation     29
The Two-Factor Argument     29
Disambiguating 'in virtue of'     32
Collapse into Necessity?     37
Meaning     43
The Language Myth     43
Kripke and Kaplan     47
Truth in Virtue of Reference Determiner     52
Examples of Analytic Truths     57
Two Objections and a Serious Problem     66
Beyond Modality     71
The Problem     71
Semantics and Modality     72
Strict Truth in Virtue of Meaning     82
The Definition of Analyticity     99
Examples     104
The Formal System     109
Preliminaries     109
The Language     117
Semantics     119
Content, Validity and Reference Determiners     121
Some Theorems     122
A Defense
The Spectre of "Two Dogmas"     129
The Circularity Objection     129
The Argument from Confirmation Holism     135
Definitions     143
The Transience ofDefinition     144
Rethinking Definitions     146
Definitions as Postulates     157
Conventions of Notational Abbreviation     159
More arguments against analyticity     163
The Regress Argument     163
The Indeterminacy of Translation     170
Two Arguments from Externalism     175
An Argument from Vagueness     177
Blue Gold, Robot Cats     180
Work for Epistemologists
Analytic Justification     195
A Priori Justification     196
Analytic Justification     198
Theory 1: Naive Analytic Justification     199
Theory 2: Nihilism about Analytic Justification     202
The Problem of Semantic Competence     203
An Alternative Basis for Analytic Justification     207
Theory 3: Analytic Justification     209
Some Consequences     215
Bibliography     223
Index     229
From the B&N Reads Blog

Customer Reviews