A Contribution to the Historiography of Analytical Philosophy Reviewing the Case of Donald Davidson: Different Readings of the Problem of Language Use

Analytical Philosophy and the Philosophy of Intellectual History: A Critical Comparison and Interpretation

Journal of the Philosophy of History ◽

10.1163/18722636-12341247 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 137-161

Author(s):

Admir Skodo

Keyword(s):

Intellectual History ◽

Ludwig Wittgenstein ◽

Donald Davidson ◽

Analytical Philosophy ◽

Critical Juncture ◽

Critical Comparison ◽

The Relationship ◽

The Way

Abstract This article argues that the relationship between analytical philosophy and the philosophy of intellectual history is conceptually uneasy and even antagonistic once the general philosophical viewpoints, and some particular topics, of the two perspectives are drawn out and compared. The article critically compares the philosophies of Quentin Skinner and Mark Bevir with the philosophies of Ludwig Wittgenstein, J.L. Austin, W.V.O. Quine and Donald Davidson. Section I compares the way in which these two perspectives view the task of philosophy. Section II points to a critical difficulty in Bevir and Skinner’s use of analytical philosophy in their discussions on objectivity. In section III, another such critical juncture is identified in the topic of explanation. Finally, section IV suggests an interpretation for the character of the comparison.

Download Full-text

RAZÃO E INTERPRETAÇÃO: DONALD DAVIDSON E A CONCEPÇÃO PÓS-ÉTICA DA AÇÃO E RACIONALIDADE

Síntese Revista de Filosofia ◽

10.20911/21769389v32n103p219-237/2005 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 32 (103) ◽

pp. 219

Author(s):

Waldomiro José Da Silva Filho

Keyword(s):

Causal Explanation ◽

Donald Davidson ◽

Analytical Philosophy ◽

Human Actions ◽

Contemporary Debate

A publicação, em 1963, de “Action, Reason, and Causes” foi uma das mais radicais e profícuas contribuições ao debate contemporâneo sobre razão, racionalidade e explicação da ação humana. O seu argumento era que a explicação da ação mediante razões ou pressupondo racionalidade constitui uma explicação causal, sendo as razões causas da ação. Ao defender esta tese que se opunha tanto ao racionalismo clássico e ao empirismo quanto às correntes hegemônicas da Filosofia Analítica na década de 60, Davidson abriu novos caminhos para a investigação sobre a racionalidade de crenças e ações. Ele deslocou o foco de perguntas como “O que faz com que uma ação ou crença seja racional ou irracional?” para a pergunta “O que há na ação, no pensamento e na linguagem que os torna interpretáveis?”.ABSTRACT: The 1963 publication of “Action, Reason, and Causes” was one of the most radical contributions to the contemporary debate about reason, rationality, and explanation for human actions. The argument put forward by the author was that since the reasons are the causes of the action, explaining actions through reasons or presupposing rationality constitutes a causal explanation. In defending the thesis that objects to classic rationalism, empirism and, at the same time, to the 1960’s hegemonic current of Analytical Philosophy, Davidson opened new ways for the enquiry about the rationality of beliefs and actions. He did change the focus of questions like “what makes an action or beliefs be rational or irrational?” to “ what is it that makes action, thought, and language intelligible?”

Download Full-text

Linguistic Competence in Aphasia

Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication ◽

10.1044/aac17.3.87 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 87-92

Author(s):

Leonard L. LaPointe

Keyword(s):

Language Use ◽

Linguistic Competence ◽

Careful Study ◽

Feral Children ◽

Performance Factors ◽

Performance Loss ◽

Linguistic Rules ◽

Communication Goals ◽

Aphasia Treatment ◽

And Performance

Abstract Loss of implicit linguistic competence assumes a loss of linguistic rules, necessary linguistic computations, or representations. In aphasia, the inherent neurological damage is frequently assumed by some to be a loss of implicit linguistic competence that has damaged or wiped out neural centers or pathways that are necessary for maintenance of the language rules and representations needed to communicate. Not everyone agrees with this view of language use in aphasia. The measurement of implicit language competence, although apparently necessary and satisfying for theoretic linguistics, is complexly interwoven with performance factors. Transience, stimulability, and variability in aphasia language use provide evidence for an access deficit model that supports performance loss. Advances in understanding linguistic competence and performance may be informed by careful study of bilingual language acquisition and loss, the language of savants, the language of feral children, and advances in neuroimaging. Social models of aphasia treatment, coupled with an access deficit view of aphasia, can salve our restless minds and allow pursuit of maximum interactive communication goals even without a comfortable explanation of implicit linguistic competence in aphasia.

Download Full-text