"rebuts" - 1 õppematerjal

Keelefilosoofia raamat

the Causal­Historical Theory is entirely beside the point. (However, this exacerbates objection 2.) Brandom's system is very complex, and we cannot examine it here. But I note that it overcomes some of the objections raised so far against the 84 Theories of meaning Wittgensteinian view. Against objection 5, it does distinguish linguistic utterances from "Slab," chess moves, and so on, since those are not the sorts of things in support of which one gives reasons, rebuts challenges, and so on. (One can of course offer practical reasons for having made a particular chess move or tennis shot, but Brandom means evidential reasons, utterances that give us reason to believe some statement of fact. Again, his paradigm is that of an inferential reason, and chess moves and the like are certainly not inferences.) Nor is objection 6 a problem, for Sellars himself gave an elegant inferentialist account of that clauses. Though Brandom holds that subsen-