Compilation of two papers, the first of which was accepted for publication in the South African Journal of Philosophy in the second half of 2001. / Why metaphors have no meaning : considering metaphoric meaning in Davidson. -- Bare idea of a conceptual scheme : relativism, intercultural communication and Davidson. / Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2000. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: WHY METAPHORS HAVE NO MEANING: CONSIDERING METAPHORIC MEANING IN DAVIDSON Since the publication of Donald Davidson's essay 'What Metaphors Mean' (1984c) - in which he famously asserts that metaphor has no meaning - the views expressed in it have mostly met with criticism: prominently from Mary Hesse and Max Black. This article attempts to explain Davidson's surprise-move regarding metaphor by relating it to elements in the rest of his work in semantics, such as the principle of compositionality, radical interpretation and the principle of charity. I conclude that Davidson's views on metaphor are not only consistent with his semantic theory generally, but that his semantics also depend on these insights. Eventually, the debate regarding Davidson's views on metaphor should be conducted on the level of his views on the nature of semantics, the relationship between language and the world and the possibility of there existing something like conceptual schemes. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: THE BARE IDEA OF A CONCEPTUAL SCHEME: RELATIVISM, INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND DAVIDSON Donald Davidson's paper 'On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme' ('OVICS') has become famous for the refutation accomplished in it of conceptual relativism. Via an argument that, essentially, all languages are intertranslatable, Davidson rejects the notion that different conceptual schemes can inhere in the supposed 'un-translatable' languages said to exist by, for instance, Whorf and Kuhn. Critics of Davidson's position have mainly focussed on practical issues, with many holding that his arguments in 'OVICS' ignore the realities of the real intercultural communication situation. In the present paper, I address criticisms of this sort. Davidson's arguments are reconstructed, with attention being paid to their dependence on the idea of practical application in the real intercommunication situation. With the aid of practical examples, the implications of elements of Davidson's philsophy of interpretation for intercultural communication are evaluated. Finally, radical interpretation is presented as a better model for intercultural dialogue than linguistically relativist ones. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: WHY METAPHORS HAVE NO MEANING: CONSIDERING METAPHORIC MEANING IN DAVIDSON Sedert die publikasie van Donald Davidson se opstel 'What Metaphors Mean' (1984c) - waarin hy die berugte stelling maak dat metafoor geen betekenis het nie - is sy sieninge meestal begroet met kritiek, ook van prominente figure soos Mary Hesse en Max Black. Hierdie artikel poog om 'n verduideliking te vind vir Davidson se verassende skuif aangaande metafoor, deur sy sieninge hieroor te kontekstualiseer teen die agtergrond van elemente uit die res van sy werk in semantiek, soos die beginsel van komposisionaliteit, radikale interpretasie en die beginsel van rasionele akkomodasie ('charity'). Ek kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat Davidson se sieninge aangaande metafoor nie slegs naatloos aansluit by sy algemene sieninge aangaande semantiek nie, maar dat die res van sy semantiese teorie ook afhang van sy sieninge aangaande metafoor. Uiteindelik behoort die debat rakende Davidson se sieninge aangaande metafoor gevoer te word op die vlak van die aard van semantiek, die verhouding tussen taal en die werklikheid en die moontlike bestaan van konseptueie skemas. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: THE BARE IDEA OF A CONCEPTUAL SCHEME: RELATIVISM, INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND DAVIDSON Donald Davidson se artikel 'On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme' het beroemdheid verwerf as teenargument vir die idee van konseptuele relativisme. By wyse van 'n argument dat alle tale in beginsel vertaalbaar is, verwerp Davidson die idee dat verskillende konseptueie skemas kan skuilgaan in die veronderstelde 'onvertaalbare' tale waarvan daar sprake is by byvoorbeeld Whorf en Kuhn. Kritici van Davidson se posisie beperk hul hoofsaaklik tot praktiese besware en 'n vername aanklag teen Davidson is dat hy die realiteite misken van werklike interkulturele gesprek. In hierdie artikel spreek ek sodanige kritiek aan. Ek herkonstrueer Davidson se argumente en voer aan dat dit deurgaans afhanklik is van die idee van toepassing in 'n praktiese situasie van interkulturele dialoog. By wyse van praktiese voorbeelde evalueer ek die implikasies van Davidson se filosofie van interpretasie vir interkulturele kommunikasie. Laastens bied ek radikale interpretasie aan as 'n beter model vir interkulturele dialoog as linguisties relativistiese modelle.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T13:55:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 397517.pdf: 366103 bytes, checksum: bee6237c5a651542294a2ab9ddfc889b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-01-07 / Esta pesquisa visa discutir aspectos importantes da filosofia de Donald Davidson, um dos mais influentes fil?sofos da tradi??o anal?tica da segunda metade do s?culo XX. Para tanto, foram escolhidos dois conceitos-chave de sua obra: Interpreta??o Radical e Princ?pio de Caridade. Por meio desses conceitos, Davidson defende a possibilidade de falar em objetividade, uma vez que, se a comunica??o entre pessoas ocorre, ent?o ? porque uma parte consider?vel do que partilhamos ? comum. A primeira pessoa perde seu privil?gio ontol?gico e epistemol?gico e passa a ser vista como um p?lo em rela??o com o mundo e com as outras pessoas, pois o homem est? inserido em um mundo social e natural, interagindo com ele. Sua obra oferece uma imagem coerente da mente, linguagem e racionalidade humana, aliando uma argumenta??o rigorosa com um di?logo vivo

Donald Davidson cherche à montrer comment le langage est produit et compris. Parti de la conviction que l'on ne peut parler de langage que dans le contexte social d'une « triangulation » qui marque l'interaction mutuelle entre les interlocuteurs et leur interaction avec un environnement qu'ils partagent, il appréhende la signification au sein de la communication. Pour l'expliquer et élaborer une théorie qui en rend compte, il replace le langage dans le contexte global de ce qu'on a pris l'habitude de qualifier de « programme sémantique de Davidson », qui soulève plusieurs questions eu égard essentiellement à la vérité, à l'interprétation et à la nature de la relation qui relie le langage à la pensée et à la réalité. Ce mémoire présente alors le fruit d'un travail tout au long duquel on a retracé élément par élément les composantes de l'environnement philosophique dans lequel Davidson insère son programme sémantique. C'est ainsi qu'on a pu le reconstituer et en donner un aperçu assez complet, à partir duquel l'originalité et l'unité du projet de ce philosophe peuvent être mises en évidence. Ce faisant, on a pu montrer que Davidson offre à la philosophie du langage une nouvelle perspective dans laquelle il conçoit le langage dans l'unité organique qui le rattache, par une relation de survenance mutuelle, autant à la pensée qu'à la réalité, formant ainsi la triade Langage-Pensée-Réalité. Désormais, il est possible de voir comment le fonctionnement du langage, de la signification, de la vérité et de l'interprétation culmine dans et est porté par la structure, le contenu et la dynamique que représente cette Triade. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : langage, signification, vérité, interprétation, interprétation radicale, réalité, pensée, sémantique, triade, ontologie, métaphysique, épistémologie.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Tulsa. / Includes bibliographies.

BONFIM, Jonatan Henrique Pinho. A semântica de Davidson: verdade, referência e mundo. 2015. 100f. – Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Federal do Ceará, Programa de Pós-graduação em Filosofia, Fortaleza (CE), 2015. / Submitted by Márcia Araújo (marcia_m_bezerra@yahoo.com.br) on 2015-12-14T15:25:22Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2015_dis_jhpbonfim.pdf: 570430 bytes, checksum: dd1853860ade8efbe993a541f0e4a9fc (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Márcia Araújo(marcia_m_bezerra@yahoo.com.br) on 2015-12-14T16:53:22Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2015_dis_jhpbonfim.pdf: 570430 bytes, checksum: dd1853860ade8efbe993a541f0e4a9fc (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-12-14T16:53:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2015_dis_jhpbonfim.pdf: 570430 bytes, checksum: dd1853860ade8efbe993a541f0e4a9fc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 / É possível elaborar uma teoria do significado sem levar em conta o mundo como referência? Por meio dessa inquietação propormos analisar as críticas de Donald Davidson a teoria da verdade como correspondência e a semântica clássica, cujas entidades extralinguísticas e o mundo “desnudo” são determinantes para compor a significação. Por meio da investigação do seu programa – Programa de Davidson – indicaremos a) as possíveis soluções e dissoluções de problemas gerados por tais teorias, muitas vezes, provenientes da concepção de linguagem subjacente a elas e b) a construção de uma teoria adequada do significado que tem como ponto nevrálgico mostrar que na comunicação entre falantes competentes há uma construção de uma teoria da verdade para a linguagem do outro. Davidson convida-nos a trilhar outro percurso teórico que pensam os conteúdos, dentre eles a referência, sendo construído dentro da linguagem e não mais fora dela, sem, contudo, cair no problema da vacuidade da linguagem, portanto, de uma explicação da significação completamente desconectada do mundo.

Dissertação (mestrado) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Curitiba, 2011 / Bibliografia: f. 108-110 / As abordagens da metáfora de Donald Davidson e John Searle são consistentes com as respectivas teorias do significado nas quais estão baseadas. Enquanto ambos os filósofos concordam que a falsidade patente geralmente se evidencia nos casos em que a metáf / Donald Davidson's and John Searle's approach to metaphor is consistent with their respective theory of meaning on which it is based. While both philosophers agree that patent falsity is the usual case with metaphor in their literal interpretation, they di

Les théories de la signification de W. V. O. Quine et de Donald Davidson rendent compte de la signification sur la base de données publiquement accessibles. Par contre, la notion de stimulation sensorielle qu'utilise Quine ainsi que la thèse de la relativité de l'ontologie qu'il propose créent une tension dans sa théorie de la signification en regard de son projet initial. Je mets en lumière ce fait d'abord en analysant deux critiques que formule Davidson à l'égard de la notion de stimulation sensorielle. La première veut que cette notion permet de soutenir une dichotomie schème conceptuel—contenu non interprété, mais elle n'est pas concluante. La deuxième, plus décisive, montre que les stimulations sensorielles ne sont pas les données publiquement accessibles sur lesquelles doit reposer une analyse de la notion de signification. Je critique ensuite la thèse de la relativité de l'ontologie, pour finalement faire valoir que la théorie de la signification de Davidson permet de l'éviter.

Zugl.: Basel, Univ., Diss., 2002

Zugl.: Canberra, Univ., Diss.

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2014. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis has two aims. The first is to assess the cogency of the three most influential theories of intention – namely those of Elizabeth Anscombe, Donald Davidson and Michael Bratman. I identify five requirements that a convincing account of intention must fulfil, and then assess each of these theories in light of these five requirements. In the course of this analysis, I demonstrate that, while each of these theories contributes to our understanding of intention, none of them meet all the specified requirements. This leads to the second aim of this thesis, which is to develop an account of intention capable of overcoming the problems inherent in the foregoing theories of intention and hence fulfilling the specified requirements. This account is built around the definition of intention as a complex mental entity, consisting of two components: a revisable pro-attitude and a belief that the agent will try to fulfil this pro-attitude. It must further be possible for the agent to reflexively reconstruct the belief component without external information. I begin by setting out the five requirements for a convincing account of intention. In each case, I explain why it is necessary for a theory of intention to meet the relevant requirement, and elaborate on what is needed for an account of intention to fulfil this requirement. The five requirements for a convincing account of intention are: 1) It must explain the unity of the three seemingly irreconcilable uses of intention; 2) it must explain the epistemic requirements for intention; 3) it must clarify the relationship between intention and motivation, intention and causes, and intention and reasons; 4) it must explain the relationship between intention and practical reasoning, and 5) it must clarify the relationship between intention and moral responsibility. Together, these five requirements form the yardstick against which I evaluate the different theories of intention. With this yardstick in mind, I am then able to assess each of the influential theories of intention developed by Anscombe, Davidson, and Bratman. In each case, I examine how the relevant theory of intention fares in meeting each of the five requirements. This analysis shows that, while each theory provides a number of important insights, none of them succeeds in meeting all five requirements. Such analysis further enables me to identify the specific difficulties that have stymied the attempts of all three thinkers to develop a convincing account of intention. Having identified the strengths and weaknesses of the three preceding accounts of intention, I then try to work out an alternative account of intention that would not fall prey to the same complications. Following the same modus operandi as before, I evaluate my proposed account against the five requirements for a convincing theory of intention. In each case, I show that my account not only succeeds in meeting the specified criterion, but also, crucially, that it is able to overcome the difficulties that have plagued previous attempts to fulfil this criterion. I conclude that, while this account is not necessarily conclusive, it does meet the conditions for a convincing account of intention and thereby casts some light into the conceptual darkness surrounding intention that Anscombe identified more than half a century ago. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis het twee oogmerke. Die eerste is om die oortuigingskrag van die drie mees invloedryke teorieë van intensie te beoordeel – naamlik die van Elizabeth Anscombe, Donald Davidson en Michael Bratman. Ek identifiseer vyf vereistes waaraan ‘n oortuigende verklaring van intensie moet voldoen en beoordeel dan elk van hierdie teorieë aan die hand van hierdie vyf vereistes. In die loop van hierdie analise wys ek dat, alhoewel elkeen van hierdie teorieë tot ons verstaan van intensie bydra, geeneen aan al die gespesifiseerde vereistes voldoen nie. Dit lei tot die tweede oogmerk van die tesis, wat die ontwikkeling van ‘n teorie van intensie behels wat daartoe in staat is om die probleme wat inherent aan die voorgenoemde teorieë is, te oorkom en wat dus aan die gespesifiseerde vereistes voldoen. Hierdie teorie berus op die definisie van intensie as ‘n komplekse mentale entiteit wat uit twee komponente bestaan: ‘n wysigbare pro-houding en ‘n oortuiging dat die agent hierdie pro-houding sal probeer vervul. Dit moet verder ook vir die agent moontlik wees om die oortuigingskomponent refleksief te rekonstrueer sonder eksterne inligting. Ek begin deur die vyf vereistes vir ‘n oortuigende verklaring van intensie uiteen te sit. In elke geval verduidelik ek hoekom dit nodig is vir ‘n teorie van intensie om aan die relevante vereiste te voldoen en werk ek uit wat nodig is vir ‘n verklaring van intensie om aan hierdie vereiste te voldoen. Die vyf vereistes vir ‘n oortuigende verklaring van intensie is: 1) Dit moet die ooreenstemming tussen die drie skynbaar onversoenbare gebruike van intensie verduidelik; 2) dit moet die epistemiese vereistes vir intensie verduidelik; 3) dit moet die verhouding tussen intensie en motivering, intensie en oorsake, en intensie en redes verhelder; 4) dit moet die verhouding tussen intensie en praktiese redenering verhelder; en 5) dit moet die verhouding tussen intensie en morele verantwoordelikheid verhelder. Gesamentlik vorm hierdie vyf vereistes die maatstaf waarvolgens ek die verskillende teorieë van intensie evalueer. Met hierdie maatstaf in gedagte is ek dan in staat daartoe om elkeen van die invloedryke teorieë van intensie, wat ontwikkel is deur Anscombe, Davidson en Bratman, te beoordeel. In elke geval ondersoek ek hoe die relevante teorie van intensie vaar in die voldoening aan elkeen van hierdie vyf vereistes. Hierdie analise wys dat, alhoewel elke teorie ‘n aantal belangrike insigte bied, geen van hul daarin slaag om aan al vyf vereistes te voldoen nie. So ‘n analise stel my verder in staat om die spesifieke probleme te identifiseer waardeur die pogings van al drie denkers om ‘n oortuigende verklaring van intensie te ontwikkel, gestuit is. Nadat ek die sterk en swakpunte van die drie voorafgaande verklarings van intensie geïdentifiseer het, probeer ek dan om ‘n alternatiewe teorie van intensie uit te werk wat nie aan hierdie selfde komplikasies onderhewig is nie. Deur dieselfde modus operandi as voorheen te volg, evalueer ek my voorgestelde verklaring aan die hand van die vyf vereistes vir ‘n oortuigende teorie van intensie. In elke geval wys ek dat my verklaring nie bloot daaraan slaag om aan die gespesifiseerde kriterium te voldoen nie, maar ook, van deurslaggewende belang, dat dit in staat daartoe is om die probleme te oorkom waardeur vorige pogings om die kriterium te vervul, geteister is. Ek kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat, alhoewel hierdie teorie nie noodwendig afdoende is nie, dit wel die voorwaardes vir ‘n oortuigende verklaring van intensie vervul en hierdeur lig werp op die konseptuele duisternis waarin intensie gehul is en wat meer as ‘n halfeeu gelede deur Anscombe geïdentifiseer is.