| 743 |
Kritische Wanderungen durch die Philosophie der Gegenwart ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 744 |
Vetervm Illvstrivm Philosophorvm Poetarvm Rhetorvm et Oratorvm Imagines ... : Ex vetustis Nummis, Gemmis, Hermis, Marmoribus alijsque Antiquis Monumentis desumptae ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 745 |
Imagines Vetervm Illvstrivm Rhetorvm Ac Oratorvm - Band 003: Ex vetustis Nummis, Gemmis, Hermis, Marmoribus alijsque Antiquis Monumentis desumptae ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 746 |
How do Language and Gender Interact? (A Critical Study on the Feminist Theory of Language)
|
|
|
|
In: http://hrmars.com/hrmars_papers/How_do_language_and_gender_interact.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 747 |
"Wir sollten die Dinge so einfach wie moglich machen, aber nicht einfacher"
|
|
|
|
In: http://samaraaltlinguo.narod.ru/ejournal/308_kasonde.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 749 |
What We Can Do with Words: Essays on the Relationship Between Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Theorizing
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 750 |
Conflict and Content.
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Speakers differ from one another in philosophically problematic ways. Two speakers can vary not simply with respect to what they believe, but also in the ways they speak, the concepts they employ, and the standards they bring to bear. The fact of imperfect convergence gives rise to a wide range of philosophical puzzles, largely via a single generalization: If two speakers disagree with each other, then at least one of them says something false. The generalization is plausible, but mistaken. Counterexamples are common, diverse, and thoroughly entrenched in ordinary talk, scientific discourse, and philosophical inquiry. I focus on a particular family of counterexamples, disagreements about the proper application of linguistic items, or what I call metalinguistic disagreements. Coming to grips with the widespread existence of metalinguistic disagreement requires a nuanced account of the ways in which information can be transmitted via an utterance, and it suggests a substantial rethinking of conventional philosophical wisdom about the nature of meaning. I begin with a philosophical case study in metalinguistic disagreement—disagreements about aesthetics. I go on to explore the more general linguistic properties of metalinguistic disagreements, focusing on their striking failure to license so-called metalinguistic negation. I conclude with a consideration of semantic methodology, arguing that, despite widely held assumptions to the contrary, metalinguistic disagreements can be adjudicated with reference to objective, non-linguistic features of the world. It is possible therefore to roundly reject a pernicious relativism about scientific discourse while simultaneously allowing for widespread, interpersonal variation in meaning. ; Ph.D. ; Philosophy ; University of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies ; http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64626/1/tsundell_1.pdf
|
|
Keyword:
Aesthetic Disagreement; Disagreement; Humanities; Metalinguistic Negation; Naturalness; Philosophy; Philosophy of Language; Philosophy of Linguistics
|
|
URL: https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/64626
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 751 |
Organizational investigations: an exploration of Wittgenstein's potential contribution to the study of organization
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
