Titlebook: Meaning and Use; Avishai Margalit Book 1979 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 1979 Jerusalem.Symposium.Theory of Meaning.comment.intent

不公開

Comments,ribe the world of objects. He then presents some truths involving perception as ., which he explains in terms of rules of our language games; wherefore he argues that the rules of our language game make it impossible for there to be an entity which is awareness, from which he concludes that the anal

BOOR

What is a Theory of Use?,d loaded up with an Ordinary Language freight, but instead of rebuilding his ship on the open sea, he ventured on aiming his masts towards new colonies, striving to join some established philosophical confederation, to unite with some intellectual super-powers, and to indulge in some fruitful inland

投射

Conditionals, Generic Quantifiers, and Other Applications of Subgames, natural languages. On this ground the differences between different approaches to meaning and those between the several uses of “use” have clashed dramatically, and yet left many of the principal problems unresolved. The truth-functional analysis of “if—then” sentences is as interesting an example

Cytokines

Circumstance Sentences,I have in mind Quine’s occasion sentences and standing sentences — i.e. sentences, whose correct or incorrect application is strictly determined by the occasion of their utterance or an occasion preceding the utterance within a tolerable time interval — are not circumstance sentences.

Saline

Comments: Is There Anything Non-Circumstantial?,somewhat more loosely associated with the problem and concerned with more general issues of philosophy of language. The general goal is to demonstrate that the problem in question is an inseparable part of a much more general framework amounting to a full-fledged semantic theory and, therefore, an a

granite

What Does the Appeal to Use Do for the Theory of Meaning?,st be a definite answer: there are no two ways about it.’ We say this when someone is shilly-shallying, behaving as if it were no more right to say the one thing than the other: so the utterance of that instance of the law of excluded middle is an expression of the conviction that the sentence, ‘He

SCORE

Open Texture,set of rules can determine their application for all possible situations. The reason is that we cannot envisage all possible states of affairs in which such application might take place. Thus, empirical sentences which employ such terms cannot be verified conclusively, and hence complete verifiabili

干涉

Conversational Relevance,,statement . is irrelevant to belief ., etc. And we often have a great measure of confidence in such judgments, since we are ready to base important decisions upon them (e.g., in the courtroom, when an objection concerning the irrelevance of a question is either sustained or rejected by the judge) a

故意

Asperity

Reference and Understanding,ers have assumed. I want to explain why this is so. I believe that if I am right, this will shed light on a number of things in philosophy as for example, why Wittgenstein had both a “picture” theory of meaning and a “use” theory of meaning (at different times, of course!), and what was going on in