I've read Two Dogmas of Empiricism, but it seems to me that any definition, if pushed far enough as Quine pushes this one will rely on either some undefined notion, or necessarily be circular. Is there something wrong with accepting the distinction as primitive? After all, it's easy enough to understand what we "mean" by the distinction.
Also what was Quine's motivation for rejecting this distinction? If I could understand his overall philosophical motivation, perhaps I could understand better why he would want to do away with this notion (and indeed, the notion of primitive "meaning" being associated with ideas which Quine seemed to dislike so much. After all, a theory of meaning may give new ground to plant the distinction in).
Also, what is the current status of the distinction?
2007-07-10
19:17:46
·
3 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Philosophy