Philosophy of Language Senior Course Paper Essay

doctrine of Language Senior Course Paper - Es recite ExampleWhen a mathematician is presented with the equation, 38 + 16, instinctively, the mathematician would respond by adding the two terms while computing for its sum. Thus, the mathematician would reply, claiming that the sum of 38 and 16 is equal to 54. Given this example, what does + mingy? Does the mathematician re all in ally know what was think upt by + in the equation? Does it pertain to the computational procedure for adding two values, or does it pertain to something else? How grass one tell what the mathematician meant? This paper will attempt to formulate a fitted theory of meaning with regards to the use of +. In doing so, I will argue that an intensional framework essential be taken into account as opposed to a purely extensional framework. From a ordinary perspective, the issue revolves around the relation between two fundamental concepts, truth and meaning. Truth, from a logical halt of view, has traditional ly been thought of as extensional. So the truth of a given up expression is associated with its meaning in terms of logical structure, reference, and truth-value. This move of neglecting meaning in relation to that of the sense of a given expression is what this paper shall argue against by using + as its test case throughout the paper. For herein, to say that 36 + 16 = 54 could mean two things 36 plus 16, and 36 quus 16, with both referring to 54. It is in this regard that a theory of intensions must be taken into account. For, if a person is presented with an equation involving +, how can one know as to whether that person meant + as plus or + as quus? What makes the interlocutor meet what is being referred to by the use of +? Herein is where the problem of notice following comes into light, for if what we are after is semantics, so it seems paradoxical that we refer to general bumps from which a class participates in. Rule following applies in the level of syntax, for indir ect what the individual knows privately is not required in such cases. Indeed, the problem with +, as explicated by Kripke is that + is tacit to represent a semantic rule rather than a syntactical rule, and a semantic rule following leads to several problems with regards to the meaning and truth of + statements. Thus, Kripke argues that it is possible to construct an unlimited range of related scarce non-equivalent semantic rules, incorporating the potential truth conditions C1, C2, Cn respectively, such that there are simply no facts at all about the speakers use of + that determines which, if any, of these possible rules the speaker has actually adopted (Wilson, 2006, p.155). Therefore, this points towards the problem of indeterminacy, since consort to Kripke, discovering the truth conditions of the speakers use of + is not possible, since there is no specific semantic rule that underlies ones use of +, regardless of its truth function. However, this creates a problem with rega rds to the use of + in language, for if + could mean several things at the same time and in the same respect, then that would lead to the ambiguity of + which cannot be, for it is utilize in disciplines such as mathematics and logic. It is a common thing