Pragmatic antirealism: a new antirealist strategy
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
In everyday speech we seem to refer to such things as abstract objects, moral properties, or propositional attitudes that have been the target of metaphysical and/or epistemological objections. Many philosophers, while endorsing scepticism about some of these entities, have not wished to charge ordinary speakers with fundamental error, or recommend that the discourse be revised or eliminated. To this end a number of non-revisionary antirealist strategies have been employed, including expressivism, reductionism and hermeneutic fictionalism. But each of these theories faces forceful objections. In particular, we argue, proponents of these strategies face a dilemma: either concedes that their theory is revisionary, or adopt an implausible account of speaker-meaning whereby the content of certain types of utterance is opaque to their speakers. In this paper we introduce a new type of antirealist strategy, which is thoroughly non-revisionary, and leaves speaker-meaning transparent to speakers. We draw on work on pragmatics in the philosophy of language to develop a theory we call ‘pragmatic antirealism’. The pragmatic antirealist holds that while the sentences of the discourses in question have metaphysically contentious truth conditions, ordinary utterances of them are pragmatically modified in context in such a way that speakers do not incur commitment to those truth conditions. After setting out the theory, we show how it might be developed for both mathematical and ethical discourse, before responding to some likely objections.
- Bach, K. (1994). Conversational implicature. Mind & Language, 9, 124–162.
- Blackburn, S. (1984). Spreading the word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Brink, D. (1989). Moral realism and the foundations of ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Burgess, J. P. (2004). Mathematics and Bleak House. Philosophia Mathematica, 12, 18–36. CrossRef
- Burgess, J. P., & Rosen, G. (1997). A subject with no object. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRef
- Churchland, P. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 67–90. CrossRef
- Dennett, D. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Dreier, J. (2004). Meta-ethics and the problem of creeping minimalism. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 23–44. CrossRef
- Eklund, M. (2009). The Frege-Geach problem and Kalderon’s moral fictionalism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 59, 705–712. CrossRef
- Field, H. (1989). Realism, mathematics and modality. Oxford: Blackwell.
- FitzPatrick, W. J. (2008). Robust ethical realism, non-naturalism, and normativity. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics 3 (pp. 159–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- FitzPatrick, W. J. (2009). Recent work on ethical realism. Analysis, 69(4), 746–760. CrossRef
- Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Garner, R. 2010. Abolishing Morality. In R. Joyce & S. Kirchin (eds.) A World Without Values: Essays on John Mackie’s Moral Error Theory. Springer: New York.
- Goodwin, G., & Darley, J. (2008). The Psychology of meta-ethics: exploring objectivism. Cognition, 106, 1339–1366. CrossRef
- Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Jenkins, C. S. (2005). Realism and independence. American Philosophical Quarterly, 42, 199–209.
- Joyce, R. (2001). The myth of morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Kalderon, M. E. (2005). Moral fictionalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CrossRef
- Korsgaard, C. (1996). The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: inventing right and wrong. London: Pelican.
- Melia, J. (1995). On what there’s not. Analysis, 55, 223–229. CrossRef
- Melia, J. (2000). Weaseling away the indispensability argument. Mind, 109, 455–479. CrossRef
- Miller, C. (2009). The conditions of moral realism. The Journal of Philosophical Research, 34, 123–155.
- Putnam, H. (1979). Philosophy of logic. Reprinted in mathematics matter and method: philosophical papers (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ridge, M. (2006). Ecumenical Expressivism: the best of both worlds? Oxford Studies in Metaethics 2. (pp. 302–336). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Schroeder, M. (2008). Being for. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral realism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CrossRef
- Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
- Stanley, J. (2001). Hermeneutic fictionalism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 25, 36–71.
- Street, S. (2008). Constructivism about Reasons. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics (3rd ed., pp. 159–205). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Tappolet, C. (2000). Truth pluralism and many-valued logics: A reply to beall. Philosophical Quarterly 50: 250.
- Wiggins, D. (2002). Needs, Values, Truth, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Wright, C. (1992). Truth and Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Yablo, S. (2000). Apriority and Existence. In P. Boghossian & C. Peacocke (Eds.), New Essays on the A Priori. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Yablo, S. (2001). Go figure: A path through fictionalism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 25, 72–102.
- Pragmatic antirealism: a new antirealist strategy
Volume 161, Issue 3 , pp 349-366
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links