Minimal Disagreement

Philosophia:1-22 (forthcoming)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In the recent debate about the semantics of perspectival expressions (predicates of taste, aesthetic adjectives, moral terms, epistemic modals, epistemic terms etc.), disagreement has played a crucial role. In a nutshell, what I call “the challenge from disagreement” is the objection that certain views on the market (i.e., contextualism) cannot account for the intuition of disagreement present in ordinary exchanges involving perspectival expressions like “Licorice is tasty./No, it's not.” Various contextualist answers to this challenge have been proposed, and this has led to a proliferation of notions of disagreement. It is now accepted in the debate that there are many notions of disagreement and that the search for a common, basic notion is misguided. In this paper I attempt to find such a basic notion underneath this diversity. The main aim of the paper is to motivate, forge and defend a notion of “minimal disagreement” that has beneficial effects for the debate over the semantics of perspectival expressions.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ZEMMD
Revision history
Archival date: 2020-01-27
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
Relativism and Monadic Truth.Cappelen, Herman & Hawthorne, John

View all 51 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2020-01-27

Total views
65 ( #38,367 of 48,970 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
65 ( #9,453 of 48,970 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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