An Unintentional Defense of the Indeterminacy of Meaning?

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Kupffer_0-327529.pdf
Kupffer_0-327529.pdfGröße: 99.99 KBDownloads: 402
Datum
2008
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Green
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung

Markus Werning attempts to refute Quine’s thesis that meaning is indeterminate. To this purpose he employs Hodges’ theorem about extensions of cofinal meaning functions. But the theorem does neither suffice to solve Quine’s problem nor the problem Werning mistakenly identifies with Quine’s. Nevertheless it makes sense to employ the methods used in Werning’s paper with regard to Quine’s thesis, only that they tell in favour of the thesis instead of against it.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
100 Philosophie
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Zitieren
ISO 690KUPFFER, Manfred, 2008. An Unintentional Defense of the Indeterminacy of Meaning?. In: Erkenntnis. 2008, 68(2), pp. 225-238. ISSN 0165-0106. eISSN 1572-8420. Available under: doi: 10.1007/s10670-007-9090-x
BibTex
@article{Kupffer2008-03Unint-33699,
  year={2008},
  doi={10.1007/s10670-007-9090-x},
  title={An Unintentional Defense of the Indeterminacy of Meaning?},
  number={2},
  volume={68},
  issn={0165-0106},
  journal={Erkenntnis},
  pages={225--238},
  author={Kupffer, Manfred}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/33699">
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2016-04-27T07:57:54Z</dc:date>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dc:creator>Kupffer, Manfred</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/45"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2016-04-27T07:57:54Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:contributor>Kupffer, Manfred</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:title>An Unintentional Defense of the Indeterminacy of Meaning?</dcterms:title>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/33699/1/Kupffer_0-327529.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:issued>2008-03</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/33699/1/Kupffer_0-327529.pdf"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/33699"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Markus Werning attempts to refute Quine’s thesis that meaning is indeterminate. To this purpose he employs Hodges’ theorem about extensions of cofinal meaning functions. But the theorem does neither suffice to solve Quine’s problem nor the problem Werning mistakenly identifies with Quine’s. Nevertheless it makes sense to employ the methods used in Werning’s paper with regard to Quine’s thesis, only that they tell in favour of the thesis instead of against it.</dcterms:abstract>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Nein
Begutachtet
Diese Publikation teilen