When we teach people about what words mean, what are we teaching them? Is the meaning of a word based on what the word refers to in the world? Is it based on some sort of convention about what such words mean? Or is the meaning of a word based on something else entirely? This paper looks at two philosophers who agree on an 'externalist' conception of meaning, that is, that meaning is based on what the word refers to in the world. But is there, as Saul Kripke would argue, a necessary connection between meaning and the object being referenced? Hilary Putnam offers a 'twin earth' argument where, say, we use the word 'water' in the same way, but where the actual substance of water isn't H2O, it's XYZ. Meaning could still depend on what we refer to, but it's not necessary that we always refer to the exact same thing. This is a fun paper describing these considerations and it offers the sort of argument that makes me think meaning isn't externally based at all. 32 page MS-Word. Image: Philosophy Now.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
