Interpretative modesty

Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Philosophers have wanted to work with conceptions of word-competence, or concept-possession, on which being a competent practitioner with a word amounts to being a competent judge of its uses by others. I argue that our implicit conception of competence with a word does not have this presupposition built into it. One implication of this is what I call "modesty" in interpretation: we allow for others, uses of words that we would not allow for ourselves. I develop this point by looking at Saul Kripke's discussion of some famous examples given by Benson Mates, concerning beliefs about beliefs. I defend Mates's point against Kripke's claim that an interpreter who is modest in my sense must be "conceptually confused."
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2022-05-18
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
65 ( #58,893 of 69,983 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
65 ( #12,175 of 69,983 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.