In the introduction the paper presents, based on the work of Michael Devitt, the conflicting ontological positions of Realism and Constructivism. The former insists on the independence of the nature of the world from our conceptual apparatus, language or scientific theories, whereas the latter affirms its dependence. The central part of the paper is concerned with showing that the Realism/Constructivism dispute is unsolvable by way of a thought experiment followed by refutation of the arguments of key constructivists and realists . (...) The views of Hilary Putnam are also briefly assessed and rejected. In conclusion it is argued, partly with recourse to Carnap’s arguments, that the dispute cannot be resolved, that it is a kind of Kantian antinomy, and that being a realist or a constructivist is therefore a matter of decision. In the course of the article a view is also expressed with regard to the nature of philosophy. (shrink)

The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, four types of meaning theories are presented (namely, formal or truth-conditional theories, use theories, structuralism and the cognitivist and conceptualist approaches) with respect to how crucial they consider the notion of truth to be in the explication of meaning. In the second part, Conceptual Semantics, as the theory that understands the inquiry into meaning as an investigation of our conceptual structure, and doesn't use truth as a key notion, is (...) advocated as a very promising approach. In the final part of the paper, a construal of truth as a matter of multiple fit is proposed as onethat both sits well with the framework of Conceptual Semantics and also sheds some light on the ways in which our cognitive system operates with the notion of truth. (shrink)

This paper claims that what philosophy primarily does is interpret our notions, offer ways of understanding these notions that are not scientific in nature but not contrary to science either. The paper draws a distinction between conceptual analysis, a highly constrained enterprise that is supposed to bring to light what was in the concept all along, and the interpretation of notions, a creative enterprise that offers ways of understanding notions that were not already prefigured by the content of these notions—philosophy (...) consists in the latter, not the former. It explains how these interpretations are justified and what the difference is between better and worse interpretations. The remainder of the paper is organized around three headings: philosophy and science, philosophy and language, and philosophy and progress. It claims that in philosophy there is no real progress, but that philosophy does move forward because the notions at issue are endlessly interpretable. (shrink)

Članak razmatra konstruktivističke pozicije Ernsta Cassirera i Nelsona Goodmana, prema kojima svijet nikad nije naprosto dan, već je uvijek stvoren semiotičkom, simboličkom djelatnošću duha, uzimajući ponajprije u obzir Cassirerovo djelo Filozofija simboličkih oblika te Goodmanovo Ways of Worldmaking. Prvotni impetus takvog gledišta Kantovo je naglašavanje spontaniteta mišljenja, gdje zatim Cassirerova razrada takve koncepcije u okviru opće teorije simbola utječe na Goodmana. Članak analizira utjecaje, sličnosti i razlike među koncepcijama ovih autora, uključujući također u raspravu gledišta francuskog semiotičara Greimasa te suvremenog (...) njemačkog filozofa G. Abela, te ukazuje na teškoće na koje konstruktivizam nailazi, kako one koje proizlaze iz sukoba sa suprotstavljenom pozicijom, realizmom, tako i one koje su imanentne samoj konstruktivističkoj koncepciji.The paper discusses the constructivist positions of Ernst Cassirer and Nelson Goodman, according to which the world is never simply given, rather, it is made by the semiotic, symbolic activity of the mind, taking primarily into consideration Cassirer’s work Philosophy of Symbolic Forms and Goodman’s Ways of Worldmaking. The initial impetus for such a view is Kant’s accent on the spontaneity of thinking, developed by Cassirer in the framework of a general theory of symbols, which then influenced Goodman. The paper analyses the influences, similarities and differences in the approaches of these authors, takes also into account the views of the French semiotician Greimas and the contemporary German philosopher G. Abel, and it points to the difficulties that constructivism faces, both those that arise from the conflict with the opposing view, namely realism, as well as those that are immanent to the constructivist conception itself. (shrink)

This theory tries to shed light on how we understand and use the notion of truth. It draws on some views of Putnam and Goodman, but it develops these views by claiming that truth is a matter of a statement fitting one or more of the following: the criterion of internal consistency; sensory data; data from memory; non-verbalized beliefs; other parts of discourse. The common cognitive structure, as delineated by Ray Jackendoff, that serves as a locus of convergence for meaning (...) conveyed via language, background knowledge, perception, inference, etc. is identified as the medium of the fit that results in the “that’s true” effect. The theory also claims that truth is a family, encompassing different kinds of truths. It is pointed out that truth has a normative dimension, which is cashed out as the possibility of challenge to truth-claims, which in turn presupposes a regulative ideal of universal human rationality. (shrink)

The paper is a discussion of Charles Taylor’s recent book The Language Animal. The criticism of Taylor’s view of language clusters around two main themes: first, that he seems to “mysterianize” language somewhat, whereas the topics he addresses can be adequately dealt with within standard formal approaches in the philosophy of language and cognitive science; second, that his focus on language is in many cases misplaced, and should indeed be replaced with a focus on human conceptual structure, which language only (...) fragmentarily expresses. (shrink)

The central aim of the inquiry begun in this text is to reach a semantic characterisationof philosophical discourse, that is, to describe the »language«, or the code, ofphilosophy. This inquiry contains an examination of the views on the nature andpurpose of philosophy held by Immanuel Kant and Ludwig Wittgenstein, but manyother philosophers, semioticians, linguists and literary theorists are brought into thediscussion.In the first part of the text, the view is expressed that, with regard to the peculiarphenomena that characterize philosophy , (...) a theory of philosophy itself is needed, but such that would notitself be caught in the same kind of discourse. Then some methodological restrictionsare introduced: mainly, that the »philosophy« to be dealt with is the classicalcontinental philosophy, which is percieved as a body of texts. The aim of the inquiryis then formulated as the description of the code by which these texts are organized;the method of the inquiry is specified as a deductive-hypothetical one. In the end,an outline of a semantic theory is offered, as a basis for this description.The second part of the text starts the examination of Kant’s and Wittgenstein’sphilosophical views and their views on philosophy. Kant’s theory of knowledge ispresented as one which asserts the primary role of subjective a priori forms whichshape what we know as »reality«, and is therefore opposed to Wittgenstein’s picturetheory of language, where language simply mirrors what is given. The conclusion isreached, however, that both Kant and Wittgenstein propose a parallel dichotomybetween that which can be known/said, and the thing-in-itself or the mystical, andwith regard to this they both claim that the aims of philosophy as seen traditionallymust be reconcieved to a great extent.The inquiry is continued in an another article. (shrink)