Abstract

Sellars’s critics sometimes contend that his proposed via media between Cartesian mentalism and logical behaviorism entials a correlative via media between a mentalist and a behaviorist analysis of meaning. They then argue that mentalism and behaviorism about meaning are exhaustive alternatives and any attempt to spell out a third semantic view fails. Hence, Sellars’s via media also fails. Sellars tries to avoid this line of argument by maintaining that meaning is not an analyzable concept, that is, it cannot be defined in terms of mentalistic or behavioristic facts; nevertheless meaning can be explicated. Thus, no philosophy of mind will entail an analysis of meaning, although one can indeed be compatible with an explication of meaning and this is true of his “third way.” Commentators such as Chisholm and Young respond to this move by arguing that Sellars’s theory of meaning is successful only if it smuggles in a mentalist analysis of meaning and hence, Sellars’s revisionist semantics fail along with his revisionist philosophy of mind.