Philosophia

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 55–73

Expressivism and the Layer Cake Picture of Discursive Practice

Article
  • 122 Downloads

Abstract

Robert Brandom defends the intelligibility of the notion of a fully discursive practice that does not include any kind of logical vocabulary. Logical vocabulary, according to his account, should be understood as an optional extra to discursive practice, not as a necessary ingredient. Call this the Layer Cake Picture of the relation of logical to non-logical discursive practices. The aim pursued in this paper is to show, by way of an internal critique, that the Layer Cake Picture is in fact incompatible with the most central claims of Brandom’s philosophy. A way is sketched how to give up the Layer Cake Picture and still hold on to a position that is central to Brandom’s philosophical outlook, namely his expressivism about logic.

Keywords

Intentionality Language Pragmatism Discursive practice Objectivity Logical vocabulary Expressivism 

References

  1. Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making it explicit. reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  2. Brandom, R. B. (1997). Replies. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 57, 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandom, R. B. (2002). Tales of the mighty dead. Historical essays in the metaphysics of intentionality. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  4. Brandom, R. B. (2005). Responses. Pragmatics and Cognition, 13, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandom, R. B. (2008). Between saying and doing. Towards an analytic pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandom, R. B. (2010). Reply to Mark Lance and Rebecca Kukla’s »Perception, language, and the first person«. In B. Weiss & J. Wanderer (Eds.), Reading Brandom: On making it explicit (pp. 316–319). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, D. (2001). Rational animals. In: Subjective, intersubjective, objective (pp. 95–105). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dennett, D. (2010). The evolution of »Why?«. In B. Weiss & J. Wanderer (Eds.), Reading Brandom: On making it explicit (pp. 48–62). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Laurier, D. (2005). Pragmatics, Pittsburgh style. Pragmatics and Cognition, 13, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Loeffler, R. (2005). Normative phenomenalism: On Robert Brandom’s practice-based explanation of meaning. European Journal of Philosophy, 13, 32–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McDowell, J. (2005). Motivating inferentialism. Comments on making it explicit (Ch. 2). Pragmatics and Cognition, 13, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations