In other words, you cannot understand the world without also understanding thought, but you can refer to the world (or parts of it) without referring to thought, and there is nothing more to ontological dependence than reference dependence. — Aaron R
Brandom's going to argue that "Harry Potter" is reference-dependent on "thought" because the concept "Harry Potter" applies to something iff the concept "thought" applies to it as well. — Aaron R
But the concept "hammer" does not apply to something iff the concept "thought" applies, therefore "hammer" is not reference dependent on "thought". — Aaron R
"extension" and "thought" are mutually exclusive ideas (i.e. they can be understood clearly and distinctly without reference to the other) — Aaron R
A realm of discourse is truth-apt just in case it follows the normative rules of rationality, for instance, that statements must be (and can be) justified by reasons when challenged, etc. Thus, to say that something “really exists” means nothing more than to say that it is the subject of a true claim made within a discourse respecting the rules of rational justification. — Aaron R
On this view “the world” necessarily becomes a kind-of mirror image of thought. For example, since claims are structured by subjects and predicates the world must be structured by some appropriate correlates (e.g. objects and properties). — Aaron R
In other words, you cannot understand the world without also understanding thought, — Aaron R
Or whatever entities are endorsed by our best scientific theories. I think of him as being pretty externalist, though.. which comes at a cost of a theory of meaning that slides toward behaviorism.. right?Quine opts for deflationary realism he holds that there is nothing more to existence than existential quantification, — Cavacava
What draws you to his view?I am more inclined towards Brandom's view, which I am still working on. — Cavacava
Robert Brandom distinguishes two types of dependency: sense dependency and reference dependency and claims that the world is only sense-dependent on thought, but not reference dependent on thought. In other words, you cannot understand the world without also understanding thought, but you can refer to the world (or parts of it) without referring to thought, and there is nothing more to ontological dependence than reference dependence. Therefore, the world is not ontologically dependent on thought.
Therefore, the world is not ontologically dependent on thought — OP
What does it mean for a concept to apply to something? — Michael
And in the case of me dressing up as Harry Potter, how do thoughts apply (in a way that they don't when I dress up as Obama)? — Michael
As my own take on deflationary realism, I think it just amounts to rejecting the metaphysics of realism but nonetheless insisting on talking about things as if metaphysical realism is true. — Michael
Is this just gearing up to support ordinary existence claims? If so, there are no ontological issues on the table. I'm not quite sure how that escapes essentially being anti-realism. Why else would one ignore ontological existence claims unless it's because they aren't considered to be truth-apt? — Mongrel
Actors who are incapable of acknowledging the independent existence of the world literally won't be capable of playing the game — Aaron R
...the semantics of human discourse is causally constrained a mind-independent physical world.
Is the "independent existence of the world" here to be understood in a deflationary sense or in a non-deflationary sense? — Michael
A sense other than the deflationary sense that you're trying to explain. — Michael
I wouldn't say that that's what "mutually exclusive" refers to, by the way. Mutual exclusivity obtains when insofar as we have A, we can't have B, and vice versa. — Terrapin Station
That part I certainly do not agree with. For one, I don't really agree with there being normative rules of rationality. — Terrapin Station
And this part seems to be positing the same old realist view rather than there being anything "deflationary" about it. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.