Some philosophers have conflated functionalism and computationalism. I reconstruct how this came about and uncover two assumptions that made the conflation possible. They are the assumptions that (i) psychological functional analyses are computational descriptions and (ii) everything may be described as performing computations. I argue that, if we want to improve our understanding of both the metaphysics of mental states and the functional relations between them, we should reject these assumptions. # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

What determines the meaning of a context-sensitive expression in a context? It is standardly assumed that, for a given expression type, there will be a unitary answer to this question; most of the literature on the subject involves arguments designed to show that one particular metasemantic proposal is superior to a specific set of alternatives. The task of the present essay will be to explore whether this is a warranted assumption, or whether the quest for the one true metasemantics might (...) be a Quixotic one. We argue that there are good reasons—much better than are commonly appreciated—for thinking the latter, but that there nevertheless remains significant scope for metasemantic theorizing. We conclude by outlining our preferred option, metasemantic pluralism. (shrink)

Summary: This essay rejects the widespread thesis that conceptually creative metaphors are unpara‐phrasable on grounds that it misconceives the nature and function of paraphrase. Encouraged by a deceptively parallel rejection of the positivist reducibility thesis by philosophers of science, defenders of the unparaphrasability thesis mistakenly equated paraphrase with literal translation and in so doing failed to appreciate paraphrase's critical role in the systematic exploitation of metaphor's creative potential. This essay attempts to recast the terms of the paraphrasability debate by separating (...) paraphrase from literal translation and defending paraphrase's essential epistemic role in theory development. Three arguments for the paraphrasability of creative metaphor are presented followed by a critique of the major arguments for their unparaphrasability as formulated by Black, Cohen and Ricoeur. Résumé: Cet essai rejette, parce qu'elle repose sur une incomprehension de la nature et de la fonction de la paraphrase, la thése répandue selon laquelle des métaphores conceptuellement créatives ne peuvent pas être paraphraseées. Encouragés par un rejet faussement paralléle, par les philosophes des sciences, de la réductibilité positiviste, les défenseurs de la non‐paraphrasabilité ont confondu paraphrase et traduction littérale et, ce faisant, n'ont pas tenu compte du rôle critique de la paraphrase dans l'exploitation systématique du potentiel créatif de la métaphore. Cet essai tente de reformuler les termes du débat sur la paraphrasabilité en distinguant la paraphrase de la traduction littérale et en défendant le rôle épistémologique essentiel de la paraphrase dans le développe‐ment des théories. Trois arguments sont présentés pour la paraphrasabilité de la métaphore créative; suit une critique des principaux arguments contre la paraphrasabilité tels qu'ils ont été formulés par Black, Cohen et Ricoeur. Zusammenfassung: Es wird die weitverbreitete Auffassung widerlegt, wonach begrifflich kreative Metaphern nicht paraphrasierbar sind, weil sie Natur und Funktion der Paraphrase missversteht. Durch den scheinbar parallelen Fall der Verwerfung der Reduktionsthese durch Wissenschaftstheoretiker getäuscht setzten die Vertreter der These der Unparaphrasierbarkeit die Paraphrase mit der wört‐lichen Übersetzung gleich und sind deshalb nicht in der Lage, die kritische Funktion der Paraphrase bei der systematischen Verwertung des schöpferischen Potentials der Metapher zu erfas‐sen. Es wird versucht, das Problem der Paraphrasierbarkeit neu zu formulieren, indem die Paraphrase von der wörtlichen Übersetzung unterschieden wird und indem die erkenntnistheorelisch wesentliche Rolle der Paraphrase bei der Entwicklung von Theorien hervorgehoben wird. Es wer‐den drei Argumente zugunsten der Paraphrasierbarkeit von schopferischen Metaphern vorgelegt und die wichtigsten Argumente von Black, Cohen und Ricoeur gegen die Paraphrasierbarkeit kri‐tisiert. (shrink)

This study presents and develops in detail (a new version of) the argumental conception of meaning. The two basic principles of the argumental conception of meaning are: i) To know (implicitly) the sense of a word is to know (implicitly) all the argumentation rules concerning that word; ii) To know the sense of a sentence is to know the syntactic structure of that sentence and to know the senses of the words occurring in it. The sense of a sentence is (...) called immediate argumental role of that sentence. According to the argumental conception of meaning a theory of meaning for a particular language yields a systematic specification of the understanding of every sentence of the language which consists in a specification of the immediate argumental role of the sentence. The immediate argumental role is a particular aspect of the use of a sentence in arguments. But it is not the whole use in arguments, nor is the whole use in arguments reducible to the immediate argumental role. That is why, by accepting the argumental conception of meaning, we can have epistemological holism without linguistic holism. The argumental conception distinguishes between the understanding and the correctness of a language. Such a distinction makes it possible to account for our understanding of paradoxical languages. Redundancy theory of truth, realistic conceptions of truth or epistemic conceptions of truth are all compatible with an argumental conception of sense. But here it is argued that an epistemic conception of truth is preferrable. Acceptance of the argumental conception of meaning and of an epistemic conception of truth leads to a rejection of the idea of analytic truth. The argumental conception is pluralistic with respect to the understandability of different logics, and neutral with respect to their correctness. (shrink)