Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:40:39.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expressivism and Cognitive Propositions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2019

JAMES L. D. BROWN Open the ORCID record for JAMES L. D. BROWN [Opens in a new window]
JAMES L. D. BROWN*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Expressivists about normative thought and discourse traditionally deny that there are nondeflationary normative propositions. However, it has recently been suggested that expressivists might avoid a number of problems by providing a theory of normative propositions compatible with expressivism. This paper explores the prospects for developing an expressivist theory of propositions within the framework of cognitive act theories of propositions. First, I argue that the only extant expressivist theory of cognitive propositions—Michael Ridge's ‘ecumenical expressivist’ theory—fails to explain identity conditions for normative propositions. Second, I argue that this failure motivates a general constraint—the ‘unity requirement’—that any expressivist theory of propositions must provide a unified nonrepresentational explanation of that in virtue of which propositional attitudes have the content that they have. Third, I argue that conceptual role accounts of content provide a promising framework in which to develop an expressivist theory of cognitive propositions.

Keywords

metaethicsexpressivismpropositionscognitive propositionsecumenical expressivism
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , Fall 2019 , pp. 371 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Matthew Chrisman, Giles Howdle, Jessica Isserow, Silvia Jonas, Jiwon Kim, Sebastian Köhler, Nicholas Laskowski, Michael Ridge, Saranga Sudarshan, Christine Tiefensee, Teemu Toppinen, Herman Veluwenkamp, Silvan Wittwer, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments and feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. Thanks also to audiences at Arché at the University of St Andrews, the Mind, Action, and Language Group at the University of Porto, and the University of Manchester.

References

Båve, Arvid. (2013) ‘Compositional Semantics for Expressivists’. The Philosophical Quarterly, 63, 633–59.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. (1998) Ruling Passions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. (2006) ‘The Semantics of Non-factualism, Non-cognitivism, and Quasi-realism’. In Devitt, Michael and Hanley, Richard (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell), 244–51.Google Scholar
Block, Ned. (1986) ‘Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 10, 615–78.Google Scholar
Carruthers, Peter. (1989) Tractarian Semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cartwright, R. (1962) ‘Propositions’. In Butler, R. J. (ed.), Analytical Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell), 81–103.Google Scholar
Chrisman, Matthew. (2016) The Meaning of ‘Ought’. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chrisman, Matthew. (2017) ‘Conceptual Role Accounts of Meaning in Metaethics’. In McPherson, Tristram and Plunkett, David (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics (London: Taylor and Francis), 260–74.Google Scholar
Davis, Wayne. A. (2003) Meaning, Expression, and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dreier, James. (2004) ‘The Problem of Creeping Minimalism’. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 23–44.Google Scholar
Dummett, Michael. (1991) ‘Frege's Myth of the Third Realm’. In Dummett, , Frege and Other Philosophers (Oxford: Clarendon), 249–62.Google Scholar
Field, Hartry. (1977) ‘Logic, Meaning, and Conceptual Role’. Journal of Philosophy, 74, 379–409.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. (2003) Thinking How To Live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. (2012) Meaning and Normativity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, Peter. (2015) Propositional Content. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. (1973) Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Horwich, Paul. (1993) ‘Gibbard's Theory of Norms’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22, 67–78.Google Scholar
Kalderon, Mark. (2007) Moral Fictionalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, Anthony. (1963) Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Köhler, Sebastian. (2017) ‘Expressivism, Belief, and All That’. Journal of Philosophy, 114, 189–207.Google Scholar
McGrath, Matthew, and Frank, Devin. (2018) ‘Propositions’. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A. P. D. (1978) ‘Events, Processes and States’. Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 415–34.Google Scholar
Peacocke, Christopher. (1992) A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Price, Huw. (1994) ‘Semantic Minimalism and the Frege Point’. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives (New York: Routledge), 132–55.Google Scholar
Ridge, Michael. (2014) Impassioned Belief. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Mark. (2013a) ‘Two Roles for Propositions: Cause for Divorce?’ Nous, 47, 409–30.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Mark. (2013b) ‘Tempered Expressivism’. In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, volume 8 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 283–313.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Mark. (2015) ‘Introduction’. In Schroeder, , Expressing Our Attitudes (New York: Oxford University Press), 1–28.Google Scholar
Schroeter, L., and Schroeter, F.. (2003) ‘A Slim Semantics for Moral Terms?’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81, 191–207.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Neil. (2017) ‘Conceptual Role Semantics and the Reference of Moral Concepts’. European Journal of Philosophy, 26, 95–121.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2010) What Is Meaning? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2014) ‘Cognitive Propositions’. In King, J., Speaks, J., and Soames, S. (eds.), New Ways of Thinking about Propositions (New York: Oxford University Press), 91–124.Google Scholar
Soames, Scott. (2015) Rethinking Language, Mind, and Meaning. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Steward, Helen. (1997) The Ontology of Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Toppinen, Teemu. (2013) ‘Believing in Expressivism’. In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, volume 8 (New York: Oxford University Press), 252–82.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph. (2007) The Nature of Normativity. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Whiting, Daniel. (2006) ‘Conceptual Role Semantics’. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/.Google Scholar