Language & Mind First Paper

This paper is an opportunity for you to pursue an extended treatment of some of the philosophy of language themes of our seminar. The suggested length of the paper is designed to give you enough space to develop your ideas, but is also intended to force you to focus your thoughts. At the end of page 10, I will simply stop reading, and will grade the material accordingly. You are allowed to include a 11^th page for references.

You are not required to seek additional sources for final papers, though you may. The additional readings suggested by Lycan are the best place to start if you are seeking additional material.

Writing a paper this long can be daunting, especially if this is only your second or third course in philosophy. The following suggested paper topics are intended to serve two purposes. The first and obvious purpose is to provide you with topics of the appropriate nature and scope for a final paper. The second is to indicate to you the sorts of questions that might figure in a final paper so that you have some framework for conceiving of your own topics. You will notice that none of the topics are as broad as, for example, "What is the relationship between language and society?" This is simply too open-ended to be tractable at this point in your philosophical career.

I do not have a preference with respect to your writing on these topics or your own. If you do elect to write on your own topic, please discuss it with me beforehand. One way to continue to preserve anonymity in grading will be to present me with several topics of your own, but not to specify which you intend to write on. Another would be to present the suggestion in writing with only your student ID.

Compare these two statements: "Necessarily, 9 is greater than 5" and "Necessarily, the number of planets is greater than 5". The first statement seems true and the second statement seems false (since our solar system might have had 4 planets and someday very probably will, at least for a short while). Give an account of what is going on here. If you use possible worlds in your essay, defend them.
Defend an ideational theory of meaning against the criticisms that we have encountered.
Reflect on the philosophical credentials of possible worlds. This will require that you reconstruct the rationale behind possible worlds accounts as found in Kripke as well as in possible world elaborations of truth-conditional accounts of meaning. You will also have to take a stand on what ontological commitment is entailed by these rationales.
Discuss and develop a solution to the cordate/renate problem for truth-conditional approaches to meaning that does not appeal to possible worlds. Naturally, this will require that you explicate in detail what the cordate/renate problem is, and how truth-conditions theories work.
A theory of meaning and a theory of reference are different, but Russell could not appreciate this difference because he gave the same account of both phenomena. One way the difference has been expressed can be captured in Kripke’s rigid designation and his causal theory of reference. Elaborate the causal theory and provide as much detail with respect to baptism as you are able. Then attempt to solve the difficult cases that we encountered.
Critically evaluate use theories of meaning. Please be very specific about what you take a use theory to be, and offer a deep and developed account of at least one such use theory. If you are defending use theories, be sure to attend to the hard cases for such theories. If you are criticizing use theories, be sure to attend to hard cases for their competitors.
Suppose you hear someone say, "Necessarily, 2+2=4." What is the meaning of that claim? Minimally, you will need to discuss the semantics of ‘necessary’ as well as the referent of symbols for numbers. Frame your discussion around Fregean theories, possible worlds theories, ideational theories, or use theories.
Arbitrate the debate between the descriptive theory of names (i.e., Russell’s ‘name claim’) and the causal theory of names. To what degree is Searle’s compromise ‘cluster-theory’ position acceptable (if, indeed, it is a compromise position)?
Defend Grice's psychological theory of meaning against the kinds of objections we have encountered.
Critically evaluate Russell’s research program with respect to language. Attend to the virtues and failures of Russell’s account, including the subtleties revealed by Strawson’s "On Referring." You may wish to include a discussion of the truth-conditional inheritors to Russell’s approach.