Robert Brandom on pragmatism and language (Part 1)

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V_YhcvanuE

Interview on philosophy of language and anaytic pragmatism with Robert Brandom (University of Pittsburgh) taken in Genoa (Italy) during the seminar "Towards an Analytic Pragmatism" (april 2009).

see more at: http://www.dif.unige.it/tap09

Category:

Education

Tags:

• brandom
• pragmatism
• language
• philosophy
• unige

[carlopenco]

Right (more or less at 2.57) axiological => sociological. I hope we can "repair" it. Thanks

[xpressivist]

@FunkyFips Which is also exactly my point against Brandom's understanding of philosophy. Topics in philosophy, like modern semantics, cannot be independent from scientific inquiry because, as Chomsky correctly put it, the distinction between science and philosophy is artificial & not a real one. Dan Dennet was right on this point: philosophy, like science, is a truth seeking discipline. So, Brandom is wrong that philosophy is not science.

[xpressivist]

@FunkyFips Wrong, man. The meaning of a concept is not inferred from other concepts. The meaning of a concept is what we intend it to be about (i.e., its reference or its external content). There are many evidence for this in cognitive science. You cannot argue for pragmatism/holism from what some venerable dead philosophers said decades ago. We also need empirical evidence to argue for pragmatism/holism in order for it to be considered knowledge.

[xpressivist]

@FunkyFips Brandom's pragmatism & holism about content is an error. "Thought about the world is prior to thought about how to change the world", as Fodor correctly put it. You cannot use concepts unless you already have them. And you can only have them by being reperesentational/intentional/­referential. The content of a concept is referential or what it's about (imaginary or real) & not inferential. Do i need to have other concepts to know what a given concept means?

[hu1235]

Dear Expressivist, r u doing empirical science? Where does the idea of Brandom being mistaken? From an empirical test, or by inference from your assumptions?

[xpressivist]

Brandom is mistaken. Normativity and the acquisition of concepts are not inferential. Normativity and the acquisition of concepts are simply caused by facts and properties in the world. They are not inferred from other beliefs or concepts. This is an empirical claim of course because causalism about normativity and concepts is falsifiable. Brandom's claim is not for the simple reason that he thinks philosophy is not science.

[NathanZimmerman]

Where the subtitles say "axiological", I think Brandom said, rather, "sociological".

[entropia34332]

thanx a lot for uploading !!!