Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:06:03.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyticity by Way of Presumption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Edna Ullmann-Margalit  and
Avishai Margalit
Edna Ullmann-Margalit
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Avishai Margalit
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Given a descriptive word, what is the nature of the relation between it and the features of the object(s) to which it is supposed to apply? What is it that entitles one to assert ‘this is a horse’?

A traditional answer has been in terms of ‘Merkmal’: a (minimal) collection of features, or properties, severally necessary and Jointly sufficient for the application of the word in question. This relation - call it the Merkmal relation - between word and features is common to a variety of theories of meaning that may otherwise be in disagreement about the status of the features themselves in their relation to the object: whether they be actual or believed, perceptual or ‘essential,’ phenomenal or ‘real,’ etc.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 1982 , pp. 435 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1982

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

[1] Cortes, Alberto ‘Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of lndiscernibles: A False Principle.' Philosophy of Science, 43 (1976) 491–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Grice, H.P. and Strawson, P.F. ‘In Defense of a Dogma’ (1956), reprinted (e.g.) in Sumner, L.W. and Woods, John (eds.), Necessary Truth (New York: Random House 1969) 141-59Google Scholar
[3] Hacker, P.M.S. Insight and Illusion (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1972)Google Scholar
[4] Harman, Gilbert Thought (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press 1973)Google Scholar
[5] Lewis, David K. Convention (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press 1969)Google Scholar
[6] Margalit, Avishai, Meaning and Metaphor. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
[7] Edward J., Nell ‘No Statement is Immune to Revision.’ Social Research, 44 (1977) 801-23Google Scholar
[8] Putnam, Hilary Philosophical Papers, Vols. I & 3. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1975)Google Scholar
[9] Hilary, Putnam “'Two Dogmas” Revisited,’ in Ryle, Gilbert ed., Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy (London: Oriel Press 1976) 202-13Google Scholar
[10] Quine, W.V. ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’ (1951), reprinted in his From a Logical Point of View (New York: Harper & Row 1953 [1961])Google Scholar
[11] Quine, W.V. ‘Necessary Truth’ (1963), reprinted in his The Ways of Paradox (New York: Random House 1966)Google Scholar
[12] Israel, Scheffler Science and Subjectivity (Indianapolis/New York: The BobbsMerrill Company Inc. 1967)Google Scholar
[13] Edna, Ullmann-Margalit The Emergence of Norms (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1977)Google Scholar
[14] Ullmann-Margalit, Edna, ‘On Presumption,’ Journal of Philosophy (forthcoming 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar