According to a well-established tradition in the philosophy of language, we can understand what makes an arbitrary sound, gesture, or marking into a meaningful linguistic expression only by appealing to mental states, such as beliefs and intentions. In this paper, I explore the contrasting possibility of understanding the meaningfulness of linguistic expressions just in terms of observable linguistic behavior. Specifically, I explore the view that a type of sound becomes a meaningful linguistic expression within a group in virtue of the (...) production of that type of item becoming that group’s widespread, copied way of getting others to involve an object or relation in their activity. After discussing a preliminary version of the view, I develop it in response to some key concerns about whether it really does, as a matter of fact, eschew mental states, and about its adequacy as an account of linguistic meaning. (shrink)

This article periodizes the work of Hans Blumenberg on the basis of a rupture in its underlying strategies of justification and traces this rupture in Blumenberg’s theory of history, his theory of language, and his aesthetics. In all three areas, there is a shift from an immanent and historical-phenomenological to a transcendent and phenomenological-anthropological strategy of justification, which threatens to make the early and the late Blumenberg incommensurable with each other. The article argues against an overly monolithic reading of Blumenberg (...) and an overemphasis on anthropology as a »life project.« Instead, it advocates a pluralization of interpretative approaches to Blumenberg. (shrink)