Year: 2019
Type: dissertation
Abstract: When speakers defend conflicting understandings of a concept that plays a fundamental role in how they make sense of the world, it is unclear whether they can rationally resolve their disagreement. To address this epistemological puzzle, I argue that we first need to confront the question of what speakers are doing when they defend or articulate an understanding of a concept – what kind of speech act they are performing. I argue that speakers are carrying out acts of stipulation. I propose a detailed account of the pragmatics of stipulation and argue that with this pragmatic structure clarified, we can open up novel resources for defusing the epistemological challenge of deep, conceptual disagreement.
Author: Matthew Shields
Language: English
Subfield: Philosophy
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W3020970462