more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
How could we know whether a sentence is verifiable unless we already knew what it says?
Gist of Idea
Meaning must be known before we can consider verification
Source
William Lycan (Philosophy of Language [2000], Ch. 8)
Book Ref
Lycan,William G.: 'Philosophy of Language' [Routledge 2000], p.120
A Reaction
This strikes me as a devastating objection to verificationism. Lycan suggests that you can formulate a preliminary meaning, without accepting true meaningfulness. Maybe verification just concerns truth, and not meaning.
| 7755 | Singular terms refer, using proper names, definite descriptions, singular personal pronouns, demonstratives, etc. [Lycan] |
| 7763 | It is hard to state a rule of use for a proper name [Lycan] |
| 7764 | Could I successfully use an expression, without actually understanding it? [Lycan] |
| 7766 | Meaning must be known before we can consider verification [Lycan] |
| 7768 | The truth conditions theory sees meaning as representation [Lycan] |
| 7770 | Truth conditions will come out the same for sentences with 'renate' or 'cordate' [Lycan] |
| 7773 | A sentence's truth conditions is the set of possible worlds in which the sentence is true [Lycan] |
| 7774 | Possible worlds explain aspects of meaning neatly - entailment, for example, is the subset relation [Lycan] |