Advertisement

Philosophia

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 7–17 | Cite as

Precis of Jonathan Berg, Direct Belief: An Essay on the Semantics, Pragmatics, and Metaphysics of Belief

Mouton Series in Pragmatics, 13. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2012
  • Jonathan BergEmail author
Article
  • 135 Downloads

Abstract

In Direct Belief I argue for the Theory of Direct Belief, which treats having a belief about an individual as an unmediated relation between the believer and the individual the belief is about. After a critical review of alternative positions, I use Grice’s theory of conversational implicature to provide a detailed pragmatic account of substitution failure in belief ascriptions and go on to defend this view against objections, including those based on an unwarranted “Inner Speech” Picture of Thought. The work serves as a case study in pragmatic explanation, dealing also with methodological issues about context-sensitivity in language and the relation between semantics and pragmatics.

Keywords

Propositional attitudes Belief Conversational implicature Frege Grice Pragmatics 

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1973). Belief, truth and knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, L. R. (1995). Explaining attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, J. (1988). The pragmatics of substitutivity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 11, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, J. (2012) Direct belief: An essay on the semantics, pragmatics, and metaphysics of belief. Mouton Series in Pragmatics, 13. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, L. J. (1971). Some remarks on Grice’s views about the logical particles of natural language. In Y. Bar-Hillel (Ed.), Pragmatics of natural languages (pp. 50–68). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donnellan, K. (1970) Proper names and identifying descriptions. Synthese, 21, 335–358. Rpt. In D. Davidson, & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 356–379). Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1972.Google Scholar
  7. Frege, G. (1893) Uber sinn und bedeutung. Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50. Translated as On sense and reference. In P. T. Geach & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the Philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 56–78). Oxford: Blackwell, 1952. Rpt. In R. M. Harnish (Ed.), Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language (pp. 142–160). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Green, M. (1998). Direct reference and implicature. Philosophical Studies, 91, 61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kaplan, D. (1978). Dthat. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Rpt. in Peter A. French, T. E. Uehling Jr., and H. K. Wettstein, (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language, (pp. 383–400). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplan, D. (1979). On the logic of demonstratives. In P. A. French, T. E. Uehling Jr., & H. K. Wettstein (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language (pp. 401–414). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kripke, S. (1972) Naming and necessity. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 253–355, 763–769). Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Rpt., revised, as Naming and Necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. Kripke, S. (1979). A puzzle about belief. In A. Margalit (Ed.), Meaning and use (pp. 239–283). Dordrecht: Reidel. Rpt. In R. M. Harnish (Ed.), Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language (pp. 352–392). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. Price, H. H. (1969). Belief. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In his Philosophical Papers II: Mind, Language, and Reality (pp. 215–271). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Quine, W. V. O. (1956). Quantifiers and propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 53, 177–187. Rpt. and revised in his Ways of Paradox and Other Essays (pp. 185–196). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  18. Ramsey, F. P. (1931). General propositions and causality. In his Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays (pp. 237–255). London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trubner.Google Scholar
  19. Recanati, F. (1993). Direct reference. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Richard, M. (1990). Propositional attitudes: An essay on thoughts and how we ascribe them. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  24. Salmon, N. (1986). Frege’s puzzle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Saul, J. M. (1998). The pragmatics of attitude ascription. Philosophical Studies, 92, 363–389.Google Scholar
  26. Schiffer, S. (1987). The ‘Fido’-Fido theory of belief. Philosophical Perspectives, 1, 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwitzgebel, E. (2002). A phenomenal, dispositional account of belief. Noûs, 36, 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stich, S. P. (1983). From folk psychology to cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Thau, M. (2002). Consciousness and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations