EINFÜHRUNG IN DIE THEORETISCHE PHILOSOPHIE:

SPRACHPHILOSOPHIE

Nathan Wildman

LECTURE 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO AN INTRODUCTION TO

THEORETICAL PHILOSOPHY: THE PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE

MATTERS FOR TODAY

1. Organizational Formalities

2. Philosophy of Language: What, Why, & How

3. Philosophy of Language Fundamentals

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIES

Or, the administrative details required to make this course run

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESCOURSE AIMS

To allow students to think carefully about issues raised by philosophically reflecting upon language

(‘…something which no self-respecting philosopher, from any school at all, can hope to avoid.’ – Blackburn, Spreading the Word, pp. vii))

To enable students to grasp philosophically important points as well as appreciate the philosophical issues they stem from

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESCOURSE GOALS

To that end, students will be expected to:

1. Acquire knowledge of some of the main claims and arguments concerning philosophy of language

2. Acquire an understanding of how these claims and arguments relate to one another

3. Engage in close criticism with the claims and arguments studied

4. Develop their own powers of philosophical analysis and argument

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESSTRATEGY

Central Topics & Seminal Papers

G. Frege. ‘On Sense and Reference’

B. Russell. ‘On Denoting’ & ‘Descriptions’

S. Kripke ‘Naming & Necessity’ (parts thereof)

H. P. Grice ‘Meaning’ & ‘Logic and Conversation’

J. Austin ‘Performative Utterances’

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESPreliminary Schedule

Week 1 (04.04): Intro to Phil-Lang Week 2 (11.04): NO CLASS Week 3 (18.04): Frege’s On Sense & Reference Week 4 (25.04): More Sense, More Reference Week 5 (02.05): Russell’s Definite Descriptions Week 6 (09.05): NO CLASS Week 7 (16.05): Problems with Definite Descriptions Week 8 (23.05): NO CLASS Week 9 (30.05): Kripke’s Causal Theory of Names Week 10 (06.06): More on the Causal Theory Week 11 (13.06): Grice on Meaning Week 12 (20.06): Austin on Speech Acts Week 13 (27.06): Grice on Logic & Conversation Week 14 (04.04): TBD Week 15 (11.07): Exam

Reference/

Singular Terms

Pragmatics &

Speech Acts

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESCERTIFICATE ACQUISITION

CONDITIONS

1. Regular attendance to both lectures and tutorials

2. Regular participation in tutorials

3. Completion and Passing of weekly assignments

4. Passing the final exam

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESGRADING POLICY

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESGRADING POLICY

10% Attendance & Participation in Tutorials Show up, talk, be a part of the ‘learning experience’

30% Assignment Grades Best Three Grades, taken together

60% Final Exam Grade Details included below

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESTUTORS

Christian Foldechristian.folde@gmx.de

Mira Viehstädtmira@acrotanz.de

Lucy Schwarzlucia.schwarz@studium.uni-hamburg.de

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESTUTORIAL TIMES

Tuesday, 12:00 – 14:00 Room 1052

Wednesday, 12:00 – 14:00 Room 1072

Wednesday, 16:00-18:00Room 1009

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESTUTORIAL REGISTRATION

Name: Matriculation Number: E-Mail: Studium: Fächer: Angestrebter Abschluss: Fachsemester: Registered on STINE: Rank ordering of tutorials! Why are you taking the class?

- Nathan Wildman- 6439733- rid117@gmail.com- Philosophie- Chemistry, Physik- BA- 2- NOT REGISTERED (Wahlbereich)- Tues 12, Wed 14,

Wed 12- I‘m interested in

understanding the relation between names and the things they refer to.

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESWEEKLY ASSIGNMENTS

Will consist of questions concerning material already covered in lecture mixed with questions about the assigned reading for the upcoming week

These will be made available on the course webpage, available here:

http://nwwildman.wordpress.com/

Submit them to your tutor before your tutorial!

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESREADING

Most can be found in

A. Martinich, The Philosophy of Language, 5th edition (2008, OUP)

A copy of this is reserved in the library

The texts are also available online here:

www.jstor.org www.philpapers.org

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESREADING

However, I will also ensure that links to the reading

are on the course website, on the ‘Readings’ page. The password for this page is

B@tm@n

This means there is no excuse for not doing the reading!

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESREADING

A few general introductions to Philosophy of Language:

W. Lycan (2000) Philosophy of Language: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge)

M. Morris (2006) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language (CUP)

S. Blackburn (1984) Spreading the Word (OUP)

These are also on reserve in the Library/will be made available on the website

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESREADING

Where possible, both German and English copies of the texts have been reserved

Note : I – being the poor (mostly) monolingual sod that I am – will be talking exclusively about the English versions of the readings

Suggestion: Read the English version first. If you are struggling mightily, read the German version. Then come back to the English

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESREADING

Frequently, the readings will be difficult, meaning you will:

a) need to read the assignment thoroughly and carefully; &

b) likely have to read the paper more than once in order to process everything

Please do so!

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMALITIESEXAM DETAILS

True & False Questions – 10%

Multiple Choice Questions – 15%

Short Answer – 25%

Essay Questions – 50%

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUEAn analytic philosophy essay consists of a reasoned defence of some claim or claims.

Two consequences of this definition. First, philosophy essays must offer an argument. A mere report of opinion or historical fact is interesting, but not philosophy.

Second, philosophy essays must include reasons to believe what is asserted – that is the core of analytic philosophy!

Bad: ‘My view is that P’Bad: ‘Frege’s view was that P’Good: ‘Frege’s view was that P because of reasons X & Y’Good: ‘Reasons X & Y provide reasons for believing that P’

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUEAims of an analytic philosophy paper:1. Begins by advancing thesis 2. Follows this up with an argument for said thesis

Then some variation of the following: Criticizing the argument Defending argument from objections Offer support for thesis Offer counter-examples to thesis Discuss consequences of thesis Revise thesis in light of insurmountable objection

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUE Lazy: he does not want to figure out what your

convoluted metaphors and sentences are supposed to mean, nor what your argument is if it is not made obvious.

Stupid: you will have to explain everything you say in simple, bit-sized pieces, making the connections obvious and explicit.

Mean: he is not going to give you any charity. If something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he is going to assume you meant the least plausible one.

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUEA good philosophy essay is modest, making a small point.

However, this point is made clearly, straightforwardly, and carefully, offering good reasons in support.

Students frequently try to accomplish too much with a philosophy paper. This usually results in essays that are inadequate in their argumentation/too grand in their scope.

Do not fall into this trap. Remain focused on your point!

Analytic philosophy sacrifices wideness of scope in exchange for clarity. This is a good trade – especially once you see that wideness of scope is frequently a product of fuzzy reasoning, loose definitions, or jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUEWhat about exams?

The answer is easy: the same rules still apply!

Exam essays should be structured in the same way as papers: have a thesis (in this case, the answer to the question asked), and this thesis should be supported by an argument (which forms the core of the exam answer).

But, you might ask, about the material? I.e. what about your demonstrating that you know all of the information that you’ve read/picked up in the lectures/gathered from the Ether?

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUE

You still have plenty of opportunity to display your knowledge of the material, within the context of the argument you provide within the essay.

A lot of time is spent setting the questions.

The questions are designed so that an answer (and the argument in support thereof) cannot be phrased or expressed without also expressing the affiliated material.

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUEPhilosophers are not fact-reporting machines; they do not simply repeat material they have been told.

Philosophers are argument-making machines; they take in material, digest it, and produce arguments using said material.

Since this is a philosophy class, we are going to develop & test your philosophical ability – i.e. your ability to make an argument.

Of course, we also want to test your knowledge of the material - that’s why the questions are about what they are about!

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUESo what then are the basic rules for an exam essay?

1. Have an answer to the question asked (i.e. a thesis)

2. Make this answer explicit – frequently this will involve stating the thesis in the first line or two

3. Have an argument for your thesis4. Make your argument explicit5. Employ your knowledge of the relevant material

within your argument – use what you know in your answer!

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUEBASIC MARKING CRITERIA

1. Does it answer the question set?

2. Is the argument clear and well organized?

3. Do the answer include the relevant material we‘ve read & discussed?

4. Does the author show a clear understanding of the issues they are writing about?

5. How strong is the argument offered?

ESSAY & EXAM TECHNIQUEMore specifically, we will be asking questions like:

Did you clearly state your answer to the question asked?

Do you present the relevant material correctly? Is the material that you employ relevant to argument

you are making?Do you offer supporting arguments for your answer

and for any supplemental claims you make?Are these arguments clear and well-structured?Is the overall structure of the answer clear? Is it

obvious how your answer is a consequence of the argument you have given?

THE WHAT, WHY, & HOW

OF PHILOSOPHY

OF LANGUAGEOr, motivating, explicating, & generally justifying this course

WHAT, WHY, HOW?1. Syntax

A purely formal study of the rules concerning what counts as well-formed expression

(‘grammatical’) within a particular language

vsThis square has

five corners Ich spreche ein

bisschen Deutsch

Square corners has five this

Ich spricht ein bisschen Deutsch

WHAT, WHY, HOW?2. Semantics

The study of the meaning of expressions within a language. Closely tied up with

notions of truth and reference

Furiously sleep . ideas green colorless

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Bucephalus is a horse.

WHAT, WHY, HOW?3. Pragmatics

Study of how speakers perform or act using language. Looks at how we use words to promise, insult, swear, enrage, apologize,

forgive, etc.

‘A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat.’

WHAT, WHY, HOW?

1. History - Lots of ink has been split on the topic

2. Anthropology - Thinking carefully about language might tell us

something deep and important about what it is to be human

3. Brute Curiosity - It’s interesting, weird, and fun to think about!

WHAT, WHY, HOW?4. Language as a guide to reality

By understanding the structure of language, we better understand the structure of reality

E.g. Sentences have subject-predicate form (‘Socrates is wise’), therefore reality must have subjects-predicate structure (i.e. be made up of

complex facts and/or particulars + properties)

Wittgenstein’s Tractatus

WHAT, WHY, HOW?5. Language as the cause of/pathway

to avoiding error

By getting clear about language, we can come to resolve/avoid apparently intractable problems, philosophical and otherwise

Alice & the King, Odysseus & Polyphemus,

Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations

I. Hacking, Why does Language Matter for Philosophy?

WHAT, WHY, HOW?HOW TO DO PHILOSOPHY OF

LANGUAGE?!?!

Some: look at how ordinary people use words

Others: look at how a logically idealized language works

Better: somewhere between these two extremes

- Careful, logical argumentation, mixed with empirical evidence (where & when available)

FUNDAMENTALS OF

PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE

Or, what we’ll need to know in order to make sense of what we’re going to talk about

USE VERSUS MENTION

Cookie Monster Has bright blue fur

Has a crippling addiction Is not written in any font

‘Cookie Monster’ Lacks fur (but is a lovely ebony colour)

Has thirteen letters Is written Minion Pro

USE VERSUS MENTION

Cookie Monster has bright blue fur

‘Cookie Monster has bright blue fur’

USE VERSUS MENTIONWhen I want to talk about an expression, I mention it.

To talk about CM’s name, I mention ‘Cookie Monster’

To talk about Prof. Schnieder’s name, I mention ‘Schnieder’

An Analogy: akin to examining the doorway, instead of passing through it

USE VERSUS MENTIONSomething funny just happened

‘If I talk about CM’s name, I mention ‘Cookie Monster’.’

In this sentence, I used ‘‘Cookie Monster’’

(1) To use words, we don’t need to quote them, but to use the names of words, we do!

(2) We can iterate quotation marks to ensure that we are always being clear about use and mention.

USE VERSUS MENTION

USE VERSUS MENTIONIn technical terms, when I want to talk about what an expression refers to, I use it.

To talk about Cookie Monster, I use his name.

To talk about Prof. Schnieder, I use his name.

Think of expressions like doorways. Using an expression is like using a doorway – you just pass right through it to what’s beyond.

OBJECT VS META, FORMAL VS NATURAL-LANGUAGE

Take a language to be a collection of terms, the formulation rules for constructing expressions, and the semantic relations the expressions stand in (so a language L = L’s syntax + L’s semantics).

Suppose that we want to talk about L or about the expressions within L.

This might not be part of L!

OBJECT VS META, FORMAL VS NATURAL-LANGUAGETake the following language:Arabic Numeration Notation

(ANN for short)

Ten primitive terms:‘0’ refers to the number 0‘1’ refers to the number 1

…‘9’ refers to the number 9

OBJECT VS META, FORMAL VS NATURAL-LANGUAGEHow do we know that ‘767’ refers to 767?

The Rule:Suppose A, ..., An is a sequence of digits referring to the number k. Suppose B is an individual digit referring to a number j. Then

the sequence A,…,AnB refers to the number (10 x k) + j

‘767’ is the sequence ‘76’ with ‘7’ at the end. By Rule, it refers to (10 x whatever ‘76’ refers to) + what ‘7’ refers to (which was specified in the previous slide as one of the primitive terms!)

Applying Rule again, ‘76’ refers to (10 x whatever ‘7’ refers to) + what ‘6’ refers to. Since we know those already, we know what ‘767 refers to!

OBJECT VS META, FORMAL VS NATURAL-LANGUAGENote that “‘7’ refers to the number 7” isn’t something expressable in ANN –ANN’s syntax prevents the formulation of such an expression (same thing with the rule!)

But such expressions are within some language – English in this case – which we can use to talk about ANN.

ANN is the object language – the language we are talking about

English is the metalanguage – the language with which we talk about the object language

OBJECT VS META, FORMAL VS NATURAL-LANGUAGEThis Object-/Meta-Language distinction can come in handy when solving philosophical problems:

(1)This sentence is false(2)‘This sentence is false’ is true

“‘This sentence is false’ is true” is a sentence in the metalanguage, not in the object language

Funny thing about English: it seems to be its own metalanguage

Underlying distinction between formal & a natural languages

HOW MANY IN THE BOX?

WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORDWORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORDWORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORDWORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORDWORD WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD

WORD WORD WORD WORD WORD

A1: there are 35 words in the box.

Here we take each instance of the string of symbols ‘WORD’ to be a different

word.

A2: there is 1 word in the box.

Here we take the string of symbols ‘WORD’ to be a word, which happens

to be repeated 35 times.

TYPE VS. TOKEN

If we want to favour the first answer, we’re thinking of words as tokens – instances of a particular string of symbols

For the second, we’re thinking of word types – taking the string of symbols to be something that can be repeated.

Note: the Type/Token distinction extends beyond mere words into the realm of things.

A QUICK TEST?

How many dogs are in the box?

dog dog dog dogDOG DOG

DOG

A QUICK TEST ANSWERED

ZERONote the lack of quotes around ‘dog’ in the

question.

SENTENCE, UTTERANCE, PROPOSITION

UTTERANCEdf: The use by a particular person, on particular

occasion, of a piece of language, such as a sequence of sentences, a phrase, or even a word

Utterances are physical events

SENTENCEdf: The IDEAL grammatically complete string of

words expressing a complete thought behind the various realizations in utterances.

Relativized to a particular languages (i.e. Sentence-in-L, rather than Sentence simpliciter)

SENTENCE, UTTERANCE, PROPOSITION

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING OUT LOUD

The same sentence was involved in the readings, but you all made different utterances,

i.e. a whole bunch of unique physical events took place

I AM THE LIZARD KING… and I can do

anything

SENTENCE, UTTERANCE, PROPOSITIONTo go along with there being different utterances, there were also different propositions expressed

PROPOSITIONdf:That part of the meaning of the utterance of a (declarative) sentence which describes some state of affairs.  In uttering a (declarative) sentence a speaker

typically asserts a proposition. Truth can be used to decide whether two

sentences express different propositions. In a condition where a sentence is true while

the other is false, they express different propositions.

SENTENCE, UTTERANCE, PROPOSITION

Take the following trio of sentences:

Different sentences, same proposition:

ES: Snow is white

FS: La

neige est

blanche

DS: Schnee ist weiß

SENTENCE, UTTERANCE, PROPOSITION

SENTENCE, UTTERANCE, PROPOSITION

So we‘ve got something like the following:

A caveat:

‘David stood on the bank’ is ambiguous, such that the one sentence might express multiple propositions Debatable, however: according to some, once we

disambiguate, we get two distinct sentences

NEXT WEEKThere will be no class next week!

However, for the class in two week‘s time (i.e. 18 March), please read:

G. Frege – On Sense and Reference

&

G. Frege – Letter to Jourdain

The readings, as well as the assignment, are posted at the website!