Argument Analysis
T. Parent
Phil 038; Summer II 2004
In a paper of no more than 5 pages, please write on ONE of the following topics:
(1) In the Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein claims that the meaning of (at least some) expressions cannot be determined by an interpretation, i.e., a determinate rule for the use of the expression.
(a) Please explain to me what Wittgenstein means by this claim, and why he thinks it is true.
(b) We considered the objection in class that Wittgenstein’s argument against interpretations would also seem to be an argument against his own view that social custom determines the meaning of an expression. After all, both an ‘interpretation’ and a ‘custom’ would seem to be rules. In this second part of your paper, please explain to me this objection in detail.
(c) We also considered in class a rejoinder to the objection in (b). Perhaps a ‘custom’ is a different kind of rule, since it is not a determine rule. That is to say, unlike an interpretation, a ‘custom’ for using an expression doesn’t purport to determine in advance all the correct uses of the expression. Rather, customs are dynamic sorts of things; they evolve according to how they are deployed in the community. Please explain this rejoinder thoroughly, and show how it is supposed to help avoid the objection in (b).
(d) Finally, do you think the rejoinder in (c) is successful? That is, do you think the argument there succeeds in diffusing the original objection?
· If you do think the rejoinder is successful, consider a complaint someone else might have against the rejoinder, and then show how this complaint is unwarranted.
· If you do NOT think the rejoinder is successful, please explain why this is so.
If you are having trouble coming up with ideas for part (d), allow me to make a suggestion. (Note, this is merely a suggestion.) The worry is that Wittgenstein’s reasons for rejecting ‘private rule following’ might also force him to reject ‘community rule following.’ In particular: If community practice determines the use of an expression, in the way described above, then apparently whatever seems to be the correct use of an expression in the eyes of the community will in fact be a correct use of the expression. Yet apparently, Wittgenstein objects (at 202) to ‘private rule following,’ precisely because the criterion for correctly following a rule would be a matter of what seems correct to the individual. (Apparently, he thinks this is a problem, since ‘seeming correct’ is not a good standard for actual correctness.) But if ‘seeming correct’ to the individual is not a good standard for correctly following a rule, why should ‘seeming correct’ to the community be a good standard for correctly following a rule?
(2) Paul Grice offers an analysis of “speaker-meaning” based (roughly) on reflexive communicative intentions.
(a) Please thoroughly explain to me Grice’s analysis. You should not only present each step of the analysis, but explain Grice’s reasons for each step.
(b) We considered the “soliloquy” objection in class (also presented in Lycan). What is this objection, and why is it a problem for Grice?
(c) Lycan considers a reply to the soliloquy objection, which rests on the idea that the speaker is his/her own audience. What does this mean exactly, and how would it dispel the objection in (b)?
(d) Finally, tell me whether you think this rejoinder in (c) is successful.
· If you do think the rejoinder is successful, consider a complaint someone else might have against the rejoinder, and then show how this complaint is unwarranted.
· If you do NOT think the rejoinder is successful, please explain why this is so.
(3) Carnap argues that if a word like ‘teavy’ or ‘toovy’ lacks verification conditions, then it is meaningless.
(a) Please explain what Carnap means by this, and give his reasons for why he thinks this.
(b) Lycan objects to verificationists like Carnap, on the grounds that one must understand the meaning of an expression before deciding whether it has verification conditions. What does Lycan mean here, and why is this a problem for Carnap?
(c) Carnap might reply to Lycan by identifying meaningless expressions by their grammar or logical form, not by their “meaning.” Please explain what this means, and tell me how it is supposed to counteract Lycan’s objection.
(d) In this last part of your paper, tell me whether the rejoinder in (c) is successful.
· If you do think the rejoinder is successful, consider a complaint someone else might have against the rejoinder, and then show how this complaint is unwarranted.
· If you do NOT think the rejoinder is successful, please explain why this is so.
(4) You are also free to come up with your own topic. But if you do, you must approve an outline with me before you turn your paper.
The assignment is due in class Tuesday, July 13th. Please submit to me BOTH a hard copy AND an electronic copy either as an email attachment (preferred), or on disk. Also, please identify your hard copy ONLY with your PID.
As before, this is not a research paper, so there’s no need to consult outside material. Moreover, I’d like to emphasize that unlike the first assignment, this second assignment is NOT a “book report” type paper. Rather, I’m asking you to explain a theorist’s view for the purpose of critically evaluating it. So the focus of the paper should be on parts (b)-(d). In particular, part (d) should be the culmination of your discussion, rather than just a few brief, closing remarks.
Don’t be discouraged if you find section (d) particularly difficult. I’m asking you to think up some of your own considerations, which requires a bit of ingenuity on your part. I’m not demanding that you come up with something genius. I’m just looking to see that you can engage the issue on your own philosophically. Accordingly, I’m not grading you on the answers you give on the issue, but on the reasoning you deploy in your discussion.