Meanings as species in communication and inquiry

Laura Schroeter, François Schroeter
{"title":"Meanings as species in communication and inquiry","authors":"Laura Schroeter, François Schroeter","doi":"10.1080/0020174x.2023.2253847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Can mere conceptual competence explain the apriori? Many contemporary theorists believe that conceptual competence grounds apriori conceptual truths – and that this fact helps explain how thinkers can have apriori justification for accepting these truths and reasoning in accord with them. In this chapter, I'll examine several contemporary defenses of the conceptual approach to apriority in order to clarify their core commitments about the nature of concepts. The common thread, I'll argue, is a picture of concepts that combines a conceptual role model of conceptual competence with a rationalizing approach to the determination of semantic contents. My first aim is to show how this model of concepts has the potential to ground apriori truth and justification. My second aim is to show how the model involves problematic commitments about concepts, which can be avoided on an alternative relational model of concepts.","PeriodicalId":47504,"journal":{"name":"Inquiry-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inquiry-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2023.2253847","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Can mere conceptual competence explain the apriori? Many contemporary theorists believe that conceptual competence grounds apriori conceptual truths – and that this fact helps explain how thinkers can have apriori justification for accepting these truths and reasoning in accord with them. In this chapter, I'll examine several contemporary defenses of the conceptual approach to apriority in order to clarify their core commitments about the nature of concepts. The common thread, I'll argue, is a picture of concepts that combines a conceptual role model of conceptual competence with a rationalizing approach to the determination of semantic contents. My first aim is to show how this model of concepts has the potential to ground apriori truth and justification. My second aim is to show how the model involves problematic commitments about concepts, which can be avoided on an alternative relational model of concepts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在交流和探究中作为物种的意义
单纯的概念能力能解释先天吗?许多当代理论家认为,概念能力是以先验的概念真理为基础的,这一事实有助于解释思想家如何能够有先验的理由来接受这些真理,并根据这些真理进行推理。在本章中,我将考察几个当代对优先性的概念方法的辩护,以澄清他们对概念本质的核心承诺。我认为,共同的主线是一幅概念图,它结合了概念能力的概念角色模型和确定语义内容的合理化方法。我的第一个目标是展示这个概念模型如何有潜力为先验真理和证明奠定基础。我的第二个目标是展示模型如何涉及关于概念的有问题的承诺,这可以在概念的另一种关系模型上避免。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
23.10%
发文量
144
期刊最新文献
Ordinal type theory What is priority monism? Reply to Kovacs Responses to critics A new concept of replication Precis of Amie L. Thomasson, norms and necessity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1