Lexicon of Arguments

 Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Avramides I 75
Def possible language/Loar: abstract entity, which must still be based on a speaker.
- - -
Loar II 146
Language/Loar: Community based. - Therefore intensions are important -> quantification into the semantic content of sentences.
>Language community, >Language use, >Intensions, >Content.
Problem: the p-position in the Tarski scheme only allows extensions.
>Tarski scheme.
Loar thesis: the semantic properties of the sentence components are a function of the propositional attitudes of the speakers.
>Propositional attitudes, >Semantic properties, >Sentences, >Compositionality.
II 149
Language/Loar: maybe a function of sentences on sentence-like intentions (which in turn are functions of possible worlds on truth values).
>Truth values, >Possible worlds, >Intentions.
Loar: Language is always relative to a community - not reducible to logical and syntactic terms. - Factual use is decisive, so psychological terms come into play.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.