On non-pragmatic Millianism

Philosophical Studies 166 (2):305-327 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Speakers often judge the sentence “Lois Lane believes that Superman flies” to be true and the sentence “Lois Lane believes that Clark Kent flies” to be false. If Millianism is true, however, these sentences express the very same proposition and must therefore have same truth value. “Pragmatic” Millians like Salmon and Soames have tried to explain speakers’ “anti-substitution intuitions” by claiming that the two sentences are routinely used to pragmatically convey different propositions which do have different truth values. “Non-Pragmatic” Millians like Braun, on the other hand, have argued that the Millian should not appeal to pragmatics and opt instead for a purely psychological explanation. I will present two objections against Non-Pragmatic Millianism. The first one is that the view cannot account for the intuitions of speakers who accept the identity sentence “Superman is Clark Kent”: applying a psychological account in this case, I will argue, would yield wrong predictions about speakers who resist substitution with simple sentences. I will then consider a possible response from the non-pragmatic Millian and show that the response would in fact require an appeal to pragmatics. My conclusion will be that Braun’s psychological explanation of anti-substitution intuitions is untenable, and that the Millian is therefore forced to adopt a pragmatic account. My second objection is that Non-Pragmatic Millianism cannot account for the role that certain commonsense intentional generalizations play in the explanation of behavior. I will consider a reply offered by Braun and argue that it still leaves out a large class of important generalizations. My conclusion will be that Braun’s non-pragmatic strategy fails, and that the Millian will again be forced to adopt a pragmatic account of intentional generalizations if he wants to respond to the objection. In light of my two objections, my general conclusion will be that non-pragmatic versions of Millianism should be rejected. This has an important consequence: if Millianism is true, then some pragmatic Millian account must be correct. It follows that, if standard objections against pragmatic accounts succeed, then Millianism must be rejected altogether

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,745

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Empty Names and Pragmatic Millianism.Seyed N. Mousavian - 2014 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 3 (1):49-58.
Frege's Puzzle and Descriptive Enrichment.Jeff Speaks - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):267-282.
A pragmatic defense of Millianism.Arvid Båve - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 138 (2):271 - 289.
A Defense of Millian Descriptivism.Philip Atkins - 2013 - Dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara
An Enlightenment Problem for Millianism.Tiddy Smith - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (1):173-179.
Profligate or abstemious Millianism.D. Sosa - 2013 - Analysis 73 (1):51-56.
Beyond Millianism.Leo Iacono - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 140 (3):423 - 436.
A Test for Theories of Belief Ascription.B. Frances - 2002 - Analysis 62 (2):116-125.
Simple Sentences, Speech Acts, and the ‘Enlightenment Problem’.Gerry Hough - 2010 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18 (4):539-546.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-10-18

Downloads
163 (#24,626)

6 months
14 (#987,135)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrea Onofri
Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí

Citations of this work

Schmidentity and informativity.Hannes Fraissler - 2020 - Synthese 198 (10):9963-9989.

Add more citations