There is an interesting post on Brandom’s discussion of singular terms over at Jon Cogburn’s blog. It makes some good points about one of the hardest arguments in Articulating Reasons. Jon points out that indefinite descriptions don’t seem to fit the pattern Brandom argues singular terms must fit. I don’t think I’ve come across that before. A quick glance at the responses to objections to the corresponding argument in MIE doesn’t reveal any standing response to it either.
Author
Shawn Standefer, Ph.D. student in philosophy at Pitt. (More about me)
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
| Brenton Welford on Quine on analyticity | |
| Room 131 News … on On primary math education | |
| Eric Thomson on Brandomian inferentialism | |
| Eric Thomson on Brandomian inferentialism | |
| Ed Dean on Free logic books |
Categories
- Carnapia (7)
- Favorite posts (16)
- inference (36)
- inferentialism (26)
- language (87)
- logic (93)
- modality (5)
- philosophy of science (9)
- pragmatics (16)
- Quine (15)
- Uncategorized (191)
- Wittgenstein (26)
Archives
Blogroll
- 2009 Pitt-CMU Conference
- A brood comb
- Antimeta
- Brains
- Consequently.org
- Conundrum
- Crusty Philosopher
- Duckrabbit
- Grundlegung
- Honest Toil
- Inconsistent Thoughts
- It’s Only a Theory
- LogBlog
- Logic Matters
- Methods of Projection
- Nate Charlow
- Nothing of Consequence
- Obscure and Confused Ideas
- Philosophy Talk
- Possibly Philosophy
- SOH-Dan
- Soul Physics
- The boundaries of language
- The Excluded Middle
- Theories n things
- Thoughts Arguments and Rants
- wintry smile

No comments yet
Comments feed for this article