Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE
The instructions for writing the second papers are the same as
previous papers:
John Gabriel:
Overall, the papers showed that the students were working hard to grasp the
complicated ideas in the readings and had more or less understood them. But
and the views of others, and when one only more or less understands what one
is reading, that less can be magnified when one explains that reading to others.
This led lots of papers to contain paragraphs like this [made up] one:
2
As Frege adroitly notes, “The President of the United States is wise,” refers to the
President of the United States (Barack Obama) and is, consequiously, about
him. Russell denies this. According to Russell, the President of the United States
man” or “some men”. According to Russell, “The President of the United States is
wise,” says: (i) There is at least one man. (ii) There is at most one man. (iii) The
President of the United States is Barack Obama and he is wise. This allows Russell
Clemens.” The President of the United States denotes something different than
Barack Obama, so that’s how that sentence can have a different cognitive
This is on the right track. A person who already understood Russell’s view could
see how this more or less captures his ideas. But subtle inaccuracies in the
sample paragraph could lead the reader who knew nothing of Russell to be
massively confused. The naïve reader could be misled into thinking, for
instance, that Russell believes that: 1) “The President of the United States is
wise,” is neither about Barack Obama nor does “the President of the United
States,” refer to him. 2) “The President of the United States,” refers 'to quantifiers',
perhaps either the existential or universal quantifier in formal logic. 3) For, “The
President of the United States is wise,” to be true, the world must contain only a
3
single man. This puts me in mind of a piece of Jim Pryor’s advice (to which a link
Pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He's lazy in that he doesn't
want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and
he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious.
He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized
pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably. (For
example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he's
Often, that less plausible interpretation involved attributing views to the authors
we read that were absolutely crazy. Students need to take more care when
which the authors they’re discussing are stark raving nuts. That’s especially
(which they often do) since it leaves the impression that they’re merely
attacking a straw man. In sum, they need to keep in mind Pryor’s advice not to
assume their readers are sophisticated experts who will get the gist of what
they’re trying to say even if they don’t say it particularly well and to assume,
instead, that their readers are lazy, stupid, and mean (I’m at least two of those
things).
4
Nate Adams:
Regarding thoughts on the papers, I fully agree with John's concerns. I might reiterate
in general that the essay checklist and Pryor's advice are important, because many of
the errors I encountered could have been avoided by taking them more seriously.
A few specific concerns: one thing that is related to the advocacy issue is that a
significant portion of my papers were written in the third person, which makes arguing
for a particular side of things pretty awkward. Another relatively common error that
plagued the clarity of these papers was not giving a precise understanding of the
question such that it was clear whether the considerations they were giving in favor or
against a position were really answering the question. I think it needs to be clear that
they can devote part of the paper simply to the issue of what the question they are
trying to answer really is (e.g. what would even count as mind control by language such
that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis would give us reason to think it's possible).
Suggested Readings:
Further reading:
language?
Suggested reading:
Ch 7
Further reading:
approach to meaning? I
Recommended Reading:
Chapter Two
Further reading:
8
and as Martinich, Ch 39
Philosophy 74 (1977)
Suggested reading:
Further reading:
(1967)
of Language
S. Schiffer, Meaning
Suggested reading:
appears as Martinich, Ch 43
Further reading:
as Martinich, Ch 44
Language
Suggested readings:
160–89.
265–77.
Press.
1990) 79-104.
9. Can you name something that does not yet exist? Given the
The lawyer then shows a video showing that the witness was at a
true.
Suggested Readings:
Clarendon.
57.
plausible?
Suggested readings:
1975).
10: 239-253.
521-534.
18
315.
Press).
Fodor, Jerry, The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and its Semantics, Cambridge: MIT Press,
1995.
Macmillan.
wearing togas?
READINGS:
20
25-45.
7, 573-605;
Suggested Readings:
Studies 99 (3):297-318.
21
element with atomic number 79. Yet he also holds that this
Kripke correct?
Suggested Readings
are possible.
Suggested Readings:
Language
Volume: 5, Issue: 1.
otherwise chapter 10