Semantic scepticism : normativity and naturalism
The present thesis is a response to Kripke's sceptical argument for the conclusion that there are no facts of the matter concerning what any speaker means by any expression. This conclusion gives rise a paradox: if true, it is meaningless, and if it is meaningless it cannot be true. I focus on two main topics. The first of these is the putative normativity of meaning, which is taken by Kripke to provide an a priori reason to reject any putative naturalistic or reductive theory of meaning. The second is the naturalisation of meaning. The sceptical challenge is ultimately to account for semantic facts in terms of non-semantic ones. It seems that this would be achieved through a successful naturalisation of the semantic relations. I argue against the claim that meaning is normative in any sense that could provide an a priori argument against factualism about meaning. I then consider the most prominent naturalistic responses to Kripke's argument and find all of these to be unsatisfactory. I then attempt to provide a partial dissolution of the sceptical paradox by arguing that there are reasons to expect naturalising project in semantics to fail other than the truth of Kripke's sceptical conclusion. First, I contend
Jones, Matthew
Semantic scepticism : normativity and naturalism. The present thesis is a response to Kripke's sceptical argument for the conclusion that there are no facts of the matter concerning what any speaker means by any expression. This conclusion gives rise a paradox: if true, it is meaningless, and if it is meaningless it cannot be true. I focus on two main topics. The first of these is the putative normativity of meaning, which is taken by Kripke to provide an a priori reason to reject any putative naturalistic or reductive theory of meaning. The second is the naturalisation of meaning. The sceptical challenge is ultimately to account for semantic facts in terms of non-semantic ones. It seems that this would be achieved through a successful naturalisation of the semantic relations. I argue against the claim that meaning is normative in any sense that could provide an a priori argument against factualism about meaning. I then consider the most prominent naturalistic responses to Kripke's argument and find all of these to be unsatisfactory. I then attempt to provide a partial dissolution of the sceptical paradox by arguing that there are reasons to expect naturalising project in semantics to fail other than the truth of Kripke's sceptical conclusion. First, I contend
semantic scepticism normativity naturalism present response kripke sceptical_argument conclusion fact matter_concern speaker mean expression conclusion give_rise paradox true meaningless meaningless true focus two_main topic first putative normativity meaning take kripke provide priori reason reject putative naturalistic reductive theory_meaning second naturalisation meaning sceptical challenge ultimately account semantic fact term non semantic seem would achieve successful naturalisation semantic relation argue_claim mean normative sense could provide priori argument meaning consider prominent naturalistic response kripke argument unsatisfactory attempt_provide partial dissolution sceptical paradox argue reason expect naturalise project semantics fail truth kripke sceptical conclusion first contend