Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T04:57:40.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changing the Subject

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2020

Timothy Sundell
Timothy Sundell*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky Department of Philosophy Lexington, Kentucky
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Fixing Language, Herman Cappelen defends the project of conceptual engineering from a family of objections that he calls “the Strawsonian challenges.” Those objections are all versions of this: “If I ask you a question about the F’s, and you give me an answer that’s not about the F’s but rather about the G’s, then you haven’t answered my question. You have changed the subject.” I argue that Cappelen’s response succeeds in reply to one understanding of the Strawsonian challenge—on which it is motivated by ordinary judgments of samesaying and continuity of topic—but that it fails as a response to another version—on which a parallel objection is motivated by philosophical considerations and is stated in a theoretical register.

Keywords

philosophy of languageconceptual engineeringconceptual analysisdisagreementspeech reports
Type
Author meets critics
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 50 , Issue 5 , July 2020 , pp. 580 - 593
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cappelen, Herman. 2018. Fixing Language: An Essay on Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, Herman, and Dever, Josh. 2016. Context and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, Herman, and Lepore, Ernest. 1997. Liberating Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorr, Cian, and Hawthorne, John. 2014. “Semantic Plasticity and Speech Reports.” Philosophical Review 123 (3): 281–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2000. Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them to Be? Noûs 34 (1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lepore, Ernest, and Cappelen, Herman. 2005. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ludlow, Peter. 2005. “Contextualism and the New Linguistic Turn in Epistemology.” In Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth, edited by Preyer, Gerhard and Peter, Georg, 11–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plunkett, David, and Sundell, Tim. 2013. “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terminology.” Philosopher’s Imprint 13: 1–37.Google Scholar
Railton, Peter. 1989. “Naturalism and Prescriptivity.” Social Science and Policy 7 (1): 151.Google Scholar
Richard, Mark. 2019. Meanings as Species. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1963. “Carnap’s Views on Conceptual Systems versus Natural Languages in Analytic Philosophy.” In The Philosophy of Rudolph Carnap, edited by Schilpp, P. A., 503–18. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
Sundell, Timothy. 2011a. “Disagreement, Error, and an Alternative to Reference Magnetism.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90: 743–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundell, Timothy. 2011b. “Disagreements about Taste.” Philosophical Studies 155 (2): 267–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundell, Timothy. 2017. “Aesthetic Negotiation.” In Semantics of Aesthetic Judgment, edited by Young, James. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomasson, Amie. 2016. “Metaphysical Disputes and Metalinguistic Negotiation.” Analytic Philosophy August: 1–28.Google Scholar
Thomasson, Amie. 2019. “A Pragmatic Model for Conceptual Ethics.” In Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics, edited by Burgess, Alexis, Cappelen, Herman, and Plunkett, David. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2007. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar