more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 4606

[filed under theme 19. Language / A. Nature of Meaning / 7. Meaning Holism / b. Language holism ]

Full Idea

There is something puzzling about the notion that someone could understand the sentences "birds warble" and "tigers growl", yet have no idea what the sentence "tigers warble" meant.

Gist of Idea

To understand 'birds warble' and 'tigers growl', you must also understand 'tigers warble'

Source

John Heil (Philosophy of Mind [1998], Ch.5)

Book Ref

Heil,John: 'Philosophy of Mind' [Routledge 1998], p.136


A Reaction

True enough, but this need not imply the full thesis of linguistic holism. Words are assembled like bricks. I know tigers might warble, but stones don't. Might fish warble? Or volcanoes? I must know that 'birds warble' is not a tautology.


The 16 ideas with the same theme [meaning always involves an entire language]:

Holism says all language use is also a change in the rules of language [Frege, by Dummett]
To understand a sentence means to understand a language [Wittgenstein]
There is an attempt to give a verificationist account of meaning, without the error of reducing everything to sensations [Dennett on Quine]
Meaning holism tried to show that you can't get fixed meanings built out of observation terms [Putnam]
Understanding a sentence involves background knowledge and can't be done in isolation [Putnam]
Holism seems to make fixed definition more or less impossible [Putnam]
Can meanings remain the same when beliefs change? [Rorty]
The pattern of sentences held true gives sentences their meaning [Davidson]
If to understand "fish" you must know facts about them, where does that end? [Fodor]
For holists no two thoughts are ever quite the same, which destroys faith in meaning [Fodor]
If the meanings of sentences depend on other sentences, how did we learn language? [Dancy,J]
Meaning holism is a crazy doctrine [Fodor]
Holism cannot give a coherent account of scientific methodology [Wright,C, by Miller,A]
Semantic holism means new evidence for a belief changes the belief, and we can't agree on concepts [Rey]
If some inferences are needed to fix meaning, but we don't know which, they are all relevant [Fodor/Lepore, by Boghossian]
To understand 'birds warble' and 'tigers growl', you must also understand 'tigers warble' [Heil]