"In “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951), Quine focuses on the notion of meaning. In keeping with his small-ontology philosophy (and an affection for behaviorism), he doesn’t like the division that thinkers since Kant
had made between claims whose truth or falsity is a matter of the state
of the world (“all bachelors are tidy”), and those made true (or not)
by virtue of the meanings of words (“all bachelors are unmarried”); this
is also known as the analytic/synthetic distinction. Quine thinks
defining “analytic” is problematic: we can try to define it in terms of
synonymy (words with the same meaning), but end up in a circle. Instead,
Quine thinks that supposedly analytic claims really can be (rationally)
changed in light of experience, and conversely that any claim can be
held even in the face of counter-evidence. This is because our beliefs
are a web, with some of them closer to the data of particular
experiences and some of them (like the laws of logic, basic laws of
science, and our definitions) closer to the center of that web.
The second “dogma” has to do with the behaviorist attempt to define
meaning in terms of behavior, i.e. we can tell what a word means by how
it is used, like what perceptual experiences it goes with. Despite his
behaviorist suspicion of terms like “meaning” (which connotes some
entity that he doesn’t want in his ontology, while “significance,” he
thinks does not), he doesn’t think that this kind of reduction works,
even in principle."
from the 'partially examined life':
http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2012/10/17/topic-for-66-quine-on-language-logic-and-science/
No comments:
Post a Comment