"That's not the issue": against a lightweight interpretation of ontological disputes

Abstract

In this paper I argue against what I label as "Lightweight interpretation of ontological disputes". This interpretation criteria sees ontological disputes as metalinguistic negotiations concerning the pursuing of practical objectives. I have developed an argument, called "That's not the issue", which shows that this interpretation criteria is inapplicable to most ontological disputes.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

My notes

Similar books and articles

Verbalism and metalinguistic negotiation in ontological disputes.Delia Belleri - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (9):2211-2226.
What metalinguistic negotiations can't do.Teresa Marques - 2017 - Phenomenology and Mind (12):40-48.
Which Concepts Should We Use?: Metalinguistic Negotiations and The Methodology of Philosophy.David Plunkett - 2015 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 58 (7-8):828-874.
Metalinguistic Negotiation and Speaker Error.David Plunkett & Tim Sundell - 2021 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 64 (1-2):142-167.
Does Ontology Matter?Andrew Graham - 2014 - Disputatio 6 (38):67-91.
Ontological Commitment and Quantifiers.T. Parent - 2020 - In Ricki Bliss & James Miller (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Diagnosing Verbal Disputes: The Case of Ontology.Nathan Dahlberg - unknown
An Introduction to Metametaphysics.Tuomas E. Tahko - 2015 - United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Composition, colocation, and metaontology.Karen Bennett - 2009 - In David Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press. pp. 38.
Can metalinguistic negotiations and 'conceptual ethics' rescue legal positivism?Teresa Marques - 2017 - In Alessandro Capone & Francesca Poggi (eds.), Pragmatics and Law: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives. Barcelona: Springer. pp. 223-241.
Easy ontology, application conditions and infinite regress.Andrew Brenner - 2018 - Analysis 78 (4):605-614.
The privilege of the physical and the status of ontological debates.Nurbay Irmak - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (S1):1-18.
Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms.David Plunkett & Timothy Sundell - 2013 - Philosophers' Imprint 13 (23):1-37.
Identity display: another motive for metalinguistic disagreement.Alexander Davies - 2021 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 64 (8):861-882.
Linceo e la presbiopia ontologica. Considerazioni sul nominalismo di Achille Varzi.Francesco F. Calemi - forthcoming - Isonomía. Revista de Teoría y Filosofía Del Derecho.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-04-25

Downloads
222 (#90,185)

6 months
65 (#74,020)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Writing the Book of the World.Theodore Sider - 2011 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Thinking how to live.Allan Gibbard - 2003 - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Thinking How to Live.Allan Gibbard - 2004 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 66 (2):381-381.
Free will.Timothy O'Connor & Christopher Evan Franklin - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

View all 13 references / Add more references