Javascript Menu by Deluxe-Menu.com
MindPapers is now part of PhilPapers: online research in philosophy, a new service with many more features.
 
 Compiled by David Chalmers (Editor) & David Bourget (Assistant Editor), Australian National University. Submit an entry.
 
   
click here for help on how to search

2.5d. Normativity of Meaning and Content (Normativity of Meaning and Content on PhilPapers)

See also:
Bilgrami, Akeel (1993). Norms and meaning. In Ralf Stoecker (ed.), Reflecting Davidson. De Gruyter.   (Cited by 12 | Google)
Boghossian, Paul (online). Is meaning normative?   (Cited by 3 | Google)
Abstract: in Christian Nimtz and Ansgar Beckermann (eds.): Philosophy - Science - Scientific Philosophy. Main Lectures and Colloquia of GAP.5, Fifth International Congress of the Society for Analytical Philosophy, Bielefeld, 2003, Mentis, 2005
Boghossian, Paul A. (2003). The normativity of content. Philosophical Issues 13 (1):31-45.   (Cited by 10 | Google | More links)
Brandom, Robert B. (1994). Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Harvard University Press.   (Cited by 778 | Google | More links)
Brandom, Robert B. (2001). Modality, normativity, and intentionality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (3):611-23.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links)
Buleandra, Andrei (2008). Normativity and correctness: A reply to Hattiangadi. Acta Analytica 23 (2).   (Google)
Abstract: In this paper I will present and evaluate Anandi Hattiangadi’s arguments for the conclusion that meaning is not intrinsically normative or prescriptive. I will argue that she misconstrues the way the thesis that meaning is normative is presented in the literature and that there is an important class of semantic rules that she fails to consider and rule out. According to Hattiangadi, defenders of meaning prescriptivity argue that speaking truthfully is a necessary condition for speaking meaningfully. I will maintain that this is not how prescriptivity is construed by ‘normativists’ such as Kripke, Hacker and Baker, Brandom and Millar. I think that Hattiangadi misconstrues the prescriptivity thesis because she does not distinguish between the general notion of correctness of use and the specific notion of correctness of application. In other words, she does not distinguish between using a term correctly and applying it truthfully. In addition, I submit that there is an important class of semantic rules determining correct use that Hattiangadi does not consider. Following the later Wittgenstein, Hacker and Baker argue that accepted explanations of the meanings of words have the function of semantic rules. These rules are categorically prescriptive because following them is constitutive of being a speaker of a language
Burge, Tyler (1986). Intellectual norms and foundations of mind. Journal of Philosophy 83 (December):697-720.   (Cited by 68 | Annotation | Google | More links)
Bykvist, Krister & Hattiangadi, Anandi (2007). Does thought imply ought? Analysis 67 (296):277–285.   (Google | More links)
Byrne, Alex (2002). Semantic values? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (1):201-7.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Lance and Hawthorne have served up a large, rich and argument-stuffed book which has much to teach us about central issues in the philosophy of language, as well as sports trivia. I shall concentrate, not surprisingly, on points I either disagreed with or found unclear; there are many acute observations, particularly in the second half of the book, that fall into neither of these categories
Callaway, H. G. (1992). Does Language Determine our Scientific Ideas? Dialectica 46 (3/4):225-242.   (Google)
Abstract: This paper argues that the influence of language on science, philosophy and other field is mediated by communicative practices. Where communications is more restrictive, established linguistic structures exercise a tighter control over innovations and scientifically motivated reforms of language. The viewpoint here centers on the thesis that argumentation is crucial in the understanding and evaluation of proposed reforms and that social practices which limit argumentation serve to erode scientific objectivity. Thus, a plea is made for a sociology of scientific belief designed to understand and insure social-institutional conditions of the possibility of knowledge and its growth. A chief argument draws on work of Axelrod concerning the evolution of cooperation.
Calabi, Clotilde & Voltolini, Alberto (2005). Should pride of place be given to the norms? Intentionality and normativity. Facta Philosophica 7 (1):85-98.   (Google)
Crowell, Steven G. (2008). Phenomenological immanence, normativity, and semantic externalism. Synthese 160 (3).   (Google | More links)
Abstract: This paper argues that transcendental phenomenology (here represented by Edmund Husserl) can accommodate the main thesis of semantic externalism, namely, that intentional content is not simply a matter of what is ‘in the head,’ but depends on how the world is. I first introduce the semantic problem as an issue of how linguistic tokens or mental states can have ‘content’—that is, how they can set up conditions of satisfaction or be responsive to norms such that they can succeed or fail at referring. The standard representationalist view—which thinks of the problem in first-person terms—is contrasted with Brandom’s pragmatic inferentialist approach, which adopts a third-person stance. The rest of the paper defends a phenomenological version of the representationalist position (seeking to preserve its first-person stance) but offers a conception of representation that does not identify it with an entity ‘in the head.’ The standard view of Husserl as a Cartesian internalist is undermined by rejecting its fundamental assumption—that Husserl’s concept of the ‘noema’ is a mental entity—and by defending a concept of ‘phenomenological immanence’ that has a normative, rather than a psychological, structure. Finally, it is argued that phenomenological immanence cannot be identified with ‘consciousness’ in Husserl’s sense, though consciousness is a necessary condition for it
Engel, Pascal (2002). Intentionality, normativity, and community. Facta Philosophica 4:25-49.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Engel, Pascal (2002). The norms of thought: Are they social? Mind and Society 2 (3):129-148.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Engel, Pascal (2000). Wherein lies the normative dimension in meaning and mental content? Philosophical Studies 100 (3):305-321.   (Cited by 5 | Google | More links)
Fodor, Jerry A. & Lepore, Ernest (1993). Is intentional ascription intrinsically normative? In B. Dahlbom (ed.), Dennett and His Critics. Blackwell.   (Cited by 3 | Annotation | Google)
Forbes, Graeme (1989). Biosemantics and the normative properties of thought. Philosophical Perspectives 3:533-547.   (Google | More links)
Gampel, Eric H. (1997). The normativity of meaning. Philosophical Studies 86 (3):221-42.   (Cited by 11 | Google | More links)
Gauker, Christopher (1995). A new skeptical solution. Acta Analytica 113 (14):113-129.   (Google)
Abstract: Kripke's puzzle about rule-following is a form of the traditional problem of the nature of linguistic meaning. A skeptical solution explains not what meaning is but the role that talk of meaning plays in the linguistic community. Contrary to what some have claimed, the skeptical approach is not self-refuting. However, Kripke's own skeptical solution is inadequate. He has not adequately explained the conditions under which we are justified in attributing meanings or the utility of the practice of attributing meanings. An alternative skeptical solution may be founded on a nonepistemic conception of assertibility. Roughly, a sentence is assertible if it facilitates cooperation. The function of meaning-talk is to resolve certain sorts of conflicts in assertion. Attributions of meaning to persons outside the community may be a proper expression of a practice whose reason for being lies entirely within the community.
Gauker, Christopher (2007). The circle of deference proves the normativity of semantics. Rivista di Estetica 34:181-198.   (Google)
Abstract: The question whether semantics is a normative discipline can be formulated as a question about the meaning of the word “means”. If I assert, “The word ‘gatto’ in Italian means cat,” what have I done? The naturalist about meaning claims that I have asserted that a certain natural relation obtains between Italian speakers’ tokens of “gatto” and cats. Or at least, I have asserted something about the way Italian speakers use the word “gatto”, which way presumably has something to do with cats. The normativist claims, on the contrary, that what I have said is that in speaking Italian one ought to use the word “gatto” in a certain way, which way has something to do with cats. What I have done is endorse a certain proposal about how to use the word, which, if accepted, will have normative force
Gibbard, Allan F. (2003). Thoughts and norms. Philosophical Issues 13 (1):83-98.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links)
Gibbard, Allan F. (1996). Thoughts, norms, and discursive practices: Commentary on Brandom. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 56 (3):699-717.   (Cited by 1 | Google)
Gl, (online). Against content normativity.   (Google)
Glüer, Kathrin & Wikforss, Åsa (2009). Against content normativity. Mind 118:31-70.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: As meaning’s claim to normativity has grown increasingly suspect the normativity thesis has shifted to mental content. In this paper, we distinguish two versions of content normativism: ‘CE normativism’, according to which it is essential to content that certain ‘oughts’ can be derived from it, and ‘CD normativism’, according to which content is determined by norms in the first place. We argue that neither type of normativism withstands scrutiny. CE normativism appeals to the fact that there is an essential connection between content and correctness conditions. But, we argue, this fact is by itself normatively innocent, and attempts to add a normative dimension via the normativity of belief ultimately fail. CD normativism, in turn, falls prey to the ‘dilemma of regress and idleness’: the appeal to rules either leads to some form of regress of rules, or the notion of rule following is reduced to an idle label. We conclude by suggesting that our arguments do not support naturalism: It is a mistake to assume that normativism and naturalism are our only options
Glüer, Kathrin & Wikforss, Asa (online). The normativity of meaning and content. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.   (Google)
Abstract: There is a long tradition of thinking of language as conventional in its nature, dating back at least to Aristotle De Interpretatione ). By appealing to the role of conventions, it is thought, we can distinguish linguistic signs, the meaningful use of words, from mere natural ‘signs’. During the last century the thesis that language is essentially conventional has played a central role within philosophy of language, and has even been called a platitude (Lewis 1969). More recently, the focus has been less on the conventional nature of language than on the claim that meaning is essentially normative in a wider sense, leaving it open whether the normativity in question should be understood in terms of conventions or not (Kripke 1982)
Gluer, Kathrin (1999). Sense and prescriptivity. Acta Analytica 14 (23):111-128.   (Google)
Gorman, Michael (2002). Intentionality, normativity, and a problem for Searle. Dialogue 42 (4):703-714.   (Google)
Gorman, Michael (2003). Subjectivism about normativity and the normativity of intentional states. International Philosophical Quarterly 43 (1):5-14.   (Google)
Greenberg, Mark (2005). A new map of theories of mental content. Noûs 39 (1):299-320.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Hattiangadi, Anandi (2006). Is meaning normative? Mind and Language 21 (2):220-240.   (Cited by 5 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Many people claim that semantic content is normative, and that therefore naturalistic theories of content face a potentially insuperable difficulty. The normativity of content allegedly undermines naturalism by introducing a gap between semantic 'ought's and the explanatory resources of naturalism. I argue here that this problem is not ultimately pressing for naturalists. The normativity thesis, I maintain, is ambiguous; it could mean either that the content of a term prescribes a pattern of use, or that it merely determines which pattern of use can be described as 'correct'. For the antinaturalist argument to go forward, content must be prescriptive. I argue, however, that it is not. Moreover, the thesis that content supplies standards for correct use is insufficient to supply a similar, a priori objection to naturalism
Hattiangadi, Anandi (2003). Making it implicit: Brandom on rule-following. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):419-31.   (Cited by 6 | Google | More links)
Hattiangadi, Anandi (2009). Some more thoughts on semantic oughts: A reply to Daniel Whiting. Analysis 69 (1).   (Google)
Haukioja, Jussi (2005). Normativity and mental content. In Intentionality: Past and Future (Value Inquiry Book Series, Volume 173). New York: Rodopi NY.   (Google)
Horgan, Terence E. & Timmons, Mark (1993). Metaphysical naturalism, semantic normativity, and meta-semantic irrealism. In Enrique Villanueva (ed.), Philosophical Issues. Atascadero: Ridgeview.   (Cited by 9 | Google | More links)
Kim, Jaegwon (1993). Naturalism and semantic normativity. In Enrique Villanueva (ed.), Philosophical Issues. Atascadero: Ridgeview.   (Google | More links)
Kriegel, Uriah (2010). Intentionality and Normativity. Philosophical Issues 20.   (Google)
Abstract: One of the most enduring elements of Davidson’s legacy is the idea that intentionality is inherently normative. The normativity of intentionality means different things to different people and in different contexts, however. A subsidiary goal of this paper is to get clear on the sense in which Davidson means the thesis that intentionality is inherently normative. The central goal of the paper is to consider whether the thesis is true, in light of recent work on intentionality that insists on an intimate connection between intentionality and phenomenal consciousness. According to several recent authors, there is a kind of intentionality – “phenomenal intentionality” – that is fully constituted by the phenomenal character of conscious experiences. I will argue that although Davidson’s thesis, when correctly understood, is compelling for most intentionality, it is false of phenomenal intentionality. I start, in §1, with an explication of the notion of phenomenal intentionality; in §2, I elucidate Davidson’s thesis and his case for it; in §3, I argue that the case does not extend to phenomenal intentionality; I close, in §4, with some objections and replies.
Loeffler, Ronald (2005). Normative phenomenalism: On Robert Brandom's practice-based explanation of meaning. European Journal of Philosophy 13 (1):32-69.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Miller, Alexander, The argument from queerness and the normativity of meaning.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: In his book Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Kripke 1982), Saul Kripke develops a famous argument that purports to show that there are no facts about what we mean by the expressions of our language: ascriptions of meaning, such as “Jones means addition by ‘+’” or “Smith means green by ‘green’”, are according to Kripke’s Wittgenstein neither true nor false. Kripke’s Wittgenstein thus argues for a form of non- factualism about ascriptions of meaning: ascriptions of meaning do not purport to state facts.1 Define semantic realism to be the view that ascriptions of meaning are apt to be assessed in terms of truth and falsity, and are, at least in some instances, true. Semantic realism, thus defined, is a form of cognitivism about semantic judgement, according to which judgements ascribing meaning express beliefs, states apt for assessment in terms of truth and falsity. Kripke’s Wittgenstein thus argues against semantic realism, and in favour of a form of semantic non-cognitivism. However, another form of opposition to semantic realism accepts that semantic judgements express beliefs but asserts that those beliefs are systematically and uniformly false.2 This cognitivist form of opposition to semantic realism is similar to the error-theoretic form of opposition to moral realism mooted by J.L. Mackie in the first chapter of his Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Mackie 1977). In this paper I will investigate whether there is a plausible analogue of Mackie’s “argument from queerness” that can be used to make a case for an error-theory of semantic judgement. In §2 I set out what I take to be Mackie’s argument from queerness against moral realism. In §3 I argue that there is no straightforward and plausible analogue of that argument that would justify an error theory about ascriptions of meaning. In §4 and §5 I defend the argument of §3 against an objection developed in a recent paper by Daniel Whiting
Millar, Alan (2002). The normativity of meaning. In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Logic, Thought, and Language. Cambridge University Press.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Mulligan, Kevin (1999). Justification, rule-breaking and the mind. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (2):123-139.   (Cited by 5 | Google | More links)
Papineau, David (1999). Normativity and judgment. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73 (73):16-43.   (Cited by 18 | Google | More links)
Peacocke, Christopher (1990). Content and norms in a natural world. In Enrique Villanueva (ed.), Information, Semantics, and Epistemology. Blackwell.   (Cited by 7 | Google)
Penco, Carlo (2007). Idiolect and context. In L. E. Hahn (ed.), Library of Living Philosphers: the Philosophy of Michael Dummett. Open Court.   (Google)
Abstract: In this paper I will compare some of Dummett and Davidson’s claims on the problem of communication and idiolects: how can we understand each other if we use different idiolects? First I define the problem, giving the alternative theses of (I) the priority of language over idiolects and (II) the priority of idiolects over language. I then present Dummett's claims supporting (I) and Davidson's claims supporting (II)
Pendlebury, Michael J. (1998). Intentionality and normativity. South African Journal of Philosophy 17 (2):142-151.   (Google)
Peregrin, Jaroslav (ms). Holistické pojetí jazyka.   (Google)
Abstract: Zdá se, že není nic přirozenějšího, než se spolu s Russellem domnívat, že „máme-li smysluplně hovořit a ne pouze vydávat zvuky, musíme slovům, která užíváme, dávat nějaký význam; a významem, který svým slovům dáváme, musí být něco, s čím jsme přišli do styku“. Naše slova přece musí, aby byla skutečně smysluplná, něco představovat! Od toho se odvíjí běžná poučka, která nám říká, že slova jazyka jsou symboly, to jest (podle Encyklopedie Britannica), „prvky komunikace, které mají představovat osobu, předmět, skupinu, proces nebo ideu“. Problém je ovšem v tom, že není zdaleka zřejmé, co to vůbec znamená něco představovat; a co to tedy znamená být symbolem. V běžném jazyce hovoříme o představování například tehdy, když říkáme, že herec na jevišti divadla představuje dánského prince Hamleta, nebo že krabička sirek, kterou použijeme namísto ztracené šachové figurky, představuje černou věž. Jak vůbec může dojít k tomu, aby něco (nebo někdo) představovalo něco (nebo někoho) jiného? Jednou ze možností jistě je, že to někdo vyhlásí a jiní to přijmou. V programu divadla se například napíše, že se hraje Hamlet, diváci si to přečtou a vědí, že člověk, který pobíhá po jevišti s lebkou, představuje onoho dánského prince. Člověk, který zjistí, že mu chybí šachová figurka, vezme krabičku sirek a prohlásí „Tato krabička bude představovat černou věž“. To je čirá konvence: lidé se o tom, že něco bude představovat něco jiného, jednoduše dohodnou. K takové dohodě sice není potřeba, aby s ní ti, kdo ji přijímají, nahlas vyslovovali souhlas; je k ní nicméně potřeba, aby ji někdo vyhlásil a někdo jiný jeho vyhlášení porozuměl a přijal ho. Z toho ovšem plyne, že o takto konvenční druh představování se jazyk opírat nemůže; alespoň ne obecně. Brání tomu fakt, že k ustanovení takové konvence už jazyk potřebujeme – potřebujeme tedy již nějaká slova, která něco 'představují', mít. Když již nějaký jazyk máme, není problém zavést konvencí další jazyk – jak je to ale s tím prvním jazykem? (Nebylo by možné, abychom konvenci ustanovili za pomoci nějakých pouze 'předjazykových' komunikačních prostředků? Nemůžeme konvenci, na jejímž základě nějaký typ zvuku představuje velryby, ustanovit třebs pomocí pouhého ukazování na velryby? Problém je zřejmě v tom, že rámec, který by byl potřeba k tomu, aby mohlo být to či ono gesto interpretováno jako ukázání, které ustanovuje, co bude daný zvuk představovat, by musel sestávat z tak komplexních komunikčaních praktik, že je opět stěží představitelný jinak než v podobě jazyka.) Samozřejmě, že konvence není tou jedinou cestou, jak může dojít k tomu, že něco představuje něco jiného..
Rey, Georges (2007). Resisting normativism in psychology. In Brian P. McLaughlin & Jonathan D. Cohen (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell.   (Google)
Abstract: “Intentional content,” as I understand it, is whatever serves as the object of “propositional” attitude verbs, such as “think,” “judge,” “represent,” “prefer” (whether or not these objects are “propositions”). These verbs are standardly used to pick out the intentional states invoked to explain the states and behavior of people and many animals. I shall take the “normativity of the intentional,” or “Normativism,” to be the claim that any adequate theory of intentional states involves considerations of value not essentially involved in the natural sciences. Thus, according to Normativism, whether or not someone thinks that fish sleep, or even can represent fish at all, depends upon making a judgment about the person’s goodness or rationality, of a sort that would not be involved in merely determining whether or not fish in fact sleep
Rosen, Gideon (2001). Brandom on modality, normativity, and intentionality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (3):611-23.   (Cited by 3 | Google | More links)
Shapiro, Lionel (2004). Brandom on the normativity of meaning. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (1):141-60.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Abstract: Brandom's "inferentialism"—his theory that contentfulness consists in being governed by inferential norms—proves dubiously compatible with his own deflationary approach to intentional objectivity. This is because a deflationist argument, adapted from the case of truth to that of correct inference, undermines the criterion of adequacy Brandom employs in motivating inferentialism. Once that constraint is abandoned, moreover, the very constitutive-explanatory availability of Brandom's inferential norms becomes suspect. Yet Brandom intertwines inferentialism with a separate explanatory project, one that in explaining the pragmatic significance of meaning-attributions does yield a convincing construal of the claim that the concept of meaning is normative.
Smith, D. C. (2001). Meaning, normativity, and reductive naturalism. Sorites 12 (May):60-65.   (Google)
Steglich-Petersen, Asbjørn (2008). Against essential normativity of the mental. Philosophical Studies 140 (2).   (Google)
Abstract: A number of authors have recently developed and defended various versions of ‘normative essentialism’ about the mental, i.e. the claim that propositional attitudes are constitutively or essentially governed by normative principles. I present two arguments to the effect that this claim cannot be right. First, if propositional attitudes were essentially normative, propositional attitude ascriptions would require non-normative justification, but since this is not a requirement of folk-psychology, propositional attitudes cannot be essentially normative. Second, if propositional attitudes were essentially normative, propositional attitude ascriptions could not support normative rationality judgments, which would remove the central appeal of normative essentialism
Steglich-Petersen, Asbjørn (forthcoming). The truth norm and guidance: a reply to Glüer and Wikforss. Mind.   (Google)
Abstract: Kathrin Glüer and Åsa Wikforss (2009) argue that any truth norm for belief, linking the correctness of believing p with the truth of p, is bound to be uninformative since applying the norm to determine the correctness of a belief as to whether p, would itself require forming such a belief. I argue that this objection conflates the condition under which the norm deems beliefs correct, with the psychological state an agent must be in to apply the norm. I also show that since the truth norm conflicts with other possible norms that clearly are informative, the truth norm must itself be informative.
Tanney, Julia (1999). Normativity and judgment II. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73 (73):45-61.   (Google)
Toribio, Josefa (2002). Semantic responsibility. Philosophical Explorations 1 (1):39-58.   (Cited by 2 | Google | More links)
Abstract: In this paper I attempt to develop a notion of responsibility (semantic responsibility) that is to the notion of belief what epistemic responsibility is to the notion of justification. 'Being semantically responsible' is shown to involve the fulfilment of cognitive duties which allow the agent to engage in the kind of reason-laden discourses which render her beliefs appropriately sensitive to correction. The concept of semantic responsibility suggests that the notion of belief found in contemporary philosophical debates about content implicitly encompasses radically different classes of beliefs. In what follows I make those different types explicit, and sketch some implications for naturalisation projects in semantics and for accounts of the (putative) non-conceptual content of perceptual experiences
Wedgwood, Ralph (2007). Normativism defended. In Brian P. McLaughlin & Jonathan D. Cohen (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell.   (Cited by 1 | Google | More links)
Abstract: The aim of this chapter is to defend the claim that
Whiting, Daniel, Is meaning fraught with ought?   (Google | More links)
Abstract: According to Normativism, linguistic meaning is intrinsically normative (I shall explore what this amounts to below). One, though not the only, reason for Normativism’s importance is that it bears on the prospects of providing an account of meaning in the terms available to the natural sciences. In turn, since linguistic behaviour is inextricably bound up with both non linguistic behaviour and the psychological attitudes informing it, Normativism might (if true) pose a serious challenge to the project of accommodating creatures such as ourselves within the worldview the natural sciences afford. In this paper, I shall not focus on such heady themes but rather on the prior issue of whether or not one should accept Normativism. Though certainly in circulation beforehand, it is fair to say that Saul Kripke’s (1982) was largely responsible for bringing the thesis to the philosophical forefront.1 In the years following its publication, Normativism looked close to achieving the status of orthodoxy. At one stage, Crispin Wright felt able to remark assuredly that the view ‘strike[s] most people now as a harmless platitude’ (1993: 247).2 In recent years
Whiting, Daniel, Particular and general: Wittgenstein, linguistic rules, and context.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: Wittgenstein famously remarks that ‘the meaning of a word is its use’ (PI §43). Whether or not one views this as gesturing at a ‘theory’ of meaning, or instead as aiming primarily at dissuading us from certain misconceptions of language that are a source of puzzlement, it is clear that Wittgenstein held that for certain purposes the meaning of an expression could profitably be characterised as its use. Throughout his later writings, however, Wittgenstein’s appeal to the notion of use pulls in two directions. In several places, Wittgenstein seems to connect the notion of an expression’s meaning with that of use in the sense of usage or practice. More specifically, he suggests that for an expression to possess meaning is for there to be a practice of employing it according to certain rules. ‘That’, he tells us, ‘is why there exists a correspondence between the concepts “rule” and “meaning”’ (OC §62; cf. PG 68; PO 51; RFM VI §28; VW 103). Indeed, Wittgenstein goes so far as to say, ‘The rule-governed nature of our languages permeates our life’ (RC §303). Call the view that the meaning of an expression is determined by a general principle governing its use, rulism
Whiting, Daniel (2007). The normativity of meaning defended. Analysis 67 (294):133–140.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: Meaning, according to a significant number of philosophers, is an intrinsically normative notion.1 For this reason, it is suggested, meaning is not conducive to a naturalistic explanation. In this paper, I shall not address whether this is indeed so. Nor shall I present arguments in support of the normativity thesis (see Glock 2005; Kripke 1982). Instead, I shall examine and respond to two forceful objections recently (and independently) raised against it by Boghossian (2005), Hattiangadi (2006) and Miller (2006). Although I shall argue that the objections are unsuccessful, they are worth attending to, not only because the normativity thesis is so widely accepted and is thought to have such ramifications but, most importantly, because doing so offers the opportunity to help clarify how it is to be understood
Whiting, Daniel, The normativity of meaning (steadfastly) defended: Reply to glüer and Wikforss.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: In a recent article,1 I defend the claim that meaning is an intrinsically normative notion. To say that meaning is normative is, for present purposes, to say that from a statement of an expression’s meaning there follows immediately and without further ado a statement concerning how that expression should (not) or may (not) be used. Call this Normativism. In a reply,2 Kathrin Glüer and Åsa Wikforss (hereafter, G&W), both prominent anti-Normativists, 3 argue that I fail in my attempt to defend Normativism against the objections I consider
Wikforss, Asa Maria (2001). Semantic normativity. Philosophical Studies 102 (2):203-26.   (Cited by 12 | Google | More links)
Wilde, Tine (2006). Normativity and Novelty. In Georg Gasser, Christian Kanzian & Edmund Runggaldier (eds.), Cultures: Conflict-Analysis-Dialog. Papers of the 29th International Wittgenstein Symposium. Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society.   (Google)
Abstract: In this paper I argue that the notion of aspect seeing is a substantial tool to shed light on the question whether rule-following is something necessary individual or social and on how this issue is connected to novelty. Bloor's (1997) insights will be used as representative of the social primacy of rule-following and Luntley (2003) will be taken up in order to examine an example of the individual stance. Weighing pros and cons and taking the notion of aspect seeing into account, these insights will lead us to the conclusion not only that the individual and the social are merely constructs, created by us for practical purposes, but also that we tend to overlook our most basic ties with the world, exactly because of these constructs and conventions. If we adopt an artistic meta-view and make use of the philosopher’s reflection, Wittgenstein's emphasis on the importance of ‘everyday life’, also in philosophy, takes on a new meaning.
Zangwill, Nick (2009). Normativity and the Metaphysics of Mind. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (1):1–19.   (Google | More links)
Abstract: I consider the metaphysical consequences of the view that propositional attitudes have essential normative properties. I argue that realism should take a weak rather than a strong form. I argue that expressivism cannot get off the ground. And I argue that eliminativism is self-refuting.
Zangwill, Nick (2005). The normativity of the mental. Philosophical Explorations 8 (1):1-19.   (Cited by 4 | Google | More links)
Abstract: I describe and defend the view in a philosophy of mind that I call 'Normative Essentialism', according to which propositional attitudes have normative essences. Those normative essences are 'horizontal' rational requirements, by which I mean the requirement to have certain propositional attitudes given other propositional attitudes. Different propositional attitudes impose different horizontal rational requirements. I distinguish a stronger and a weaker version of this doctrine and argue for the weaker version. I explore the consequences for knowledge of mind, and I then consider objections to the view from mental causation, from empirical psychology, and from animals and small children