Can an effective argument against scepticism about objective values be modelled on Donald Davidson’s familiar argument against scepticism about external things?

We take it that Brandom’s sense of the geography is that our way of proceeding is more or less the first and his is more or less the second. But we think this way of describing the situation is both unclear and misleading, and we want to have this out right at the start. Our problem is that we don’t know what “you start with” means either in formulations like “you start with the content of words and proceed to the (...) content of sentences” or in formulations like “you start with the content of sentences and you proceed to the content of words.” Brandom’s official view seems to be that he’s talking about explanatory priorities (see the preceding quote); but we think that can’t really be what he has in mind, and we can’t find any alternative interpretation that seems plausible. Speaking just for ourselves, we’re inclined towards a relatively pragmatic view of explanation; what explanation we should “start with” depends, inter alia, on what it’s an explanation of and whom it’s an explanation for. But, in any case, we would have thought that explanatory priority is of more than heuristic interest only if it reflects a priority of some other kind: ontological, semantical, psychological, or whatever. In talking about what one “starts with”, Brandom must be claiming more than. (shrink)

This chapter addresses the question of what makes expressions meaningful according to the conception of meaning offered by Donald Davidson. It addresses this question by reflecting on Kathrin Glüer’s recent response to it. It argues that Glüer misconstrues both the evidence for meaning that the radical interpreter must rely on and the way in which the principle of charity must be deployed. The articulation of the correct construal of the evidence and the principle reveals the thoroughly non-reductionist aspect of Davidson’s (...) conception of meaning. This aspect becomes even clearer in his later work, through the articulation of the triangulation argument. I try to show how this argument, which is reconstructed in accordance with Claudine Verheggen’s interpretation of it, helps answer the initial question. The question whether the conception has the resources to account for the objectivity of meaning is briefly discussed. (shrink)

Inspired by my reading of the conclusions of Plato’s Cratylus, in which I suggest that Socrates endorses the claim that speaker’s intentions determine meaning of their utterances, this thesis investigates a modern parallel. Drawing on observations that people who produce an utterances that do not accord with the conventions of their linguistic community can often nevertheless communicate successfully, Donald Davidson concludes that it is the legitimate intentions of speakers to be interpreted in a particular way that determine the meanings of (...) their utterances. This thesis investigates how we might interpret the non-standard utterances of another from the perspective of Davidson’s anticonventionalist picture of language. It proceeds by investigating the possible roles for radical interpretation and triangulation in explaining successful day-to-day communication, where non-standard language use abounds, and argues that - even from a Davidsonian perspective - a full account of the linguistic skills and knowledge that a language user requires to interpret utterances must ultimately appeal at least to regularities word use and expressions, if not full-blown conventions. (shrink)

Donald Davidson contributed more deeply to our understanding of language, thought, and reality than perhaps any other recent philosopher. His discussions of skepticism are sometimes seen as peripheral to those contributions. As I read him, Davidson argued against three skeptical worries. First, beliefs are true or false relative to a conceptual scheme. Second, beliefs generally are false. Third, other minds and an external world do not exist. Call those worries ‘conceptual relativism’, ‘falsidicalism’, and ‘solipsism’, respectively. I investigate how Davidson’s arguments (...) are connected. I then show that those connections are so systematic that Davidson ultimately offers a single, master argument with two premises. Premise one is that I think. Premise two is an application of his account of radical interpretation. Focusing on the systematicity of Davidson’s anti-skeptical arguments demonstrates that discussions of skepticism were more central to his views than often appreciated and shines fresh light on his project overall. (shrink)

Od radykalnego przekładu do radykalnej interpretacji – Quine, Davidson i coś jeszcze Ponad trzydzieści lat począwszy od roku 1970 filozofia Willarda Van Ormana Quine'a i Donalda Davidsona stanowiła dominujący nurt w teorii interpretacji, epistemologii i ontologii. Rekonstruując i analizując tę tradycję w pierwszym kroku zarysowuję zwrot Quine'a od teorii znaczenia ku teorii przekładu. Jest to jednocześnie zwrot w stronę naturalizacji epistemologii, post-empiryzmu w teorii znaczenia i radykalnego przekładu oraz jego teorii bazowej. Post-empiryzm w teorii znaczenia głosi, że przekonania i inne (...) postawy propozycjonalne są nierozerwalnie połączone ze znaczeniem. Epistemologia znaturalizowana twierdzi natomiast, że owo połączenie pęka, jeśli wprowadzi się koncepcję znaczenia jako bodźca. Jednak, jak będę argumentował kolejnym kroku, znaczenie jako bodziec nie wyjaśnia epistemicznych warunków radykalnego przekładu. Następnie, po analizie koncepcji radykalnego przekładu Quine'a przejdę do koncepcji radykalnej interpretacji Davidsona. Przeprowadzę analizę przebudowy modelu radyklanego przekładu na model radykalnej interpretacji, przy jednoczesnym odrzuceniu jego teorii bazowe. W koncepcji Davidsona szczególnie interesujące jest to, czy teoria znaczenia oparta na warunkach prawdziwości oraz zastosowanie zasady życzliwości jako warunków każdej interpretacji mogą załatać epistemiczną przepaść. Zostanie tu wykazane, że wypowiedzi nadawcy nie mogą być rozumiane przez zastosowanie zasady życzliwości jako ogólnego warunku radykalnej interpretacji. Na końcu swoich rozważań zaproponuję alternatywne ramy dla modelu radykalnej interpretacji. (shrink)