Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Meaning Isn’t (Only) Reference

What is the meaning of ‘Earth’?

Simple idea: ‘Earth’ means Earth.

The meaning of an utterance of a word is the thing it refers to.

Q1. If we take this view of meanings, can we explain the first fact in need of explanation?

We already asked this question; you can see in outline how it might be answered.

Q2. Is there anything meanings are needed to explain which we cannot explain if we take this view of them?

Siegel & Shuster, 1939 (Issue 1)

Lois knows that ‘Superman is superman’ is true.

Lois does not know that ‘Clarke Kent is superman’ is true.

A Simple Observation

\subsection{Observation} If we adopt the view that meaning is reference, then \begin{enumerate} \item ‘Superman’ means superman. \item ‘Clarke Kent’ means Clarke Kent. \end{enumerate} but: \begin{enumerate}[resume] \item Superman is Clarke Kent \end{enumerate} therefore: \begin{enumerate}[resume] \item ‘Clarke Kent’ means Superman. \end{enumerate} therefore: \begin{enumerate}[resume] \item ‘Clarke Kent’ and ‘Superman’ do not differ in meaning. \end{enumerate}
If we adopt the view that meaning is reference, ...

1. ‘Superman’ means Superman.

2. ‘Clarke Kent’ means Clarke Kent.

but:

3. Superman is Clarke Kent

therefore (from 2 & 3):

4. ‘Clarke Kent’ means Superman.

therefore (from 1 & 4):

5. ‘Clarke Kent’ and ‘Superman’ do not differ in meaning.

Fact in need of explanation:

Lois knows that ‘Superman is superman’ is true;

but

Lois does not know that ‘Clarke Kent is superman’ is true.

Postulates about meaning:

‘Superman’ means Superman.

‘Clarke Kent’ means Superman.

Is this a mistake? No!

Principle:

What makes a sentence true somehow depends on what its constituent words mean.

Can you see an impending problem?
\subsection{Argument} \begin{enumerate} \item The contrast in what Lois knows about the sentences is a fact in need of explanation. \item The explanation, whatever it is, will hinge on the meanings of the words ‘Superman’ and ‘Clarke Kent’. \item If meaning is reference, this explanation is impossible. \end{enumerate} therefore: \begin{enumerate}[resume] \item Meaning is not, or not only, reference. \end{enumerate} Should we reject a premise or accept the conclusion?

Contrast ‘Superman is Superman’ with ‘Clarke Kent is Superman’

ftbe: Lois may know that one is true but not that the other is.

idea: This difference is due to some difference in the meanings of the words ‘Superman’ and ‘Clarke Kent’.

There could be no such difference if the meaning of a word were merely the thing it refers to.

Conclusion: the meaning of a word is not, or not only, the thing it refers to.

What is the meaning of ‘Earth’?

Simple idea: ‘Earth’ means Earth.

The meaning of an utterance of a word is the thing it refers to.

Q1. If we take this view of meanings, can we explain the first fact fact in need of explanation?

We already asked this question; you can see in outline how it might be answered.

Q2. Is there anything meanings are needed to explain which we cannot explain if we take this view of them?