On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Hilpinen, Risto
Data de Publicação: 2013
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
Texto Completo: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13197
Resumo: According to C. S. Peirce, there are two ways of explaining what a sign (an expression or a concept) means, namely, a definition and a precept. A precept tells the interpreters of a sign what the sign means by prescribing what they have to do in order to find or become acquainted with an object of the sign. A precept for a concept specifies how an interpreter can determine whether the concept is applicable to a given situation or object. Peirce accepted the scholastic definition of truth, according to which a proposition is true if and only if its subject and predicate refer to the same thing, and applied this analysis to complex as well as singular propositions. However, this account does not tell how an interpreter can become acquainted with the objects of the predicate “true,” that is, true propositions: it is not a good precept for the concept of truth. On the other hand, the so-called pragmatic conception of truth, truth as the limit or end of inquiry, can be regarded as a precept for truth, or as a general form of such a precept. The requirement that concepts should have precepts attached to them is a version of Peirce’s principle of pragmatism. (Concepts without precepts are meaningless.) The availability of precepts should make it possible for an interpreter (inquirer) to determine whether a concept is applicable to a given situation, or whether a given proposition is true. Thus the principle of pragmatism is closely related to the principle knowability, according to which any truth should be knowable. Some formulations of the principle of knowability lead to a paradox. The paper discusses several forms of the principle of knowability, and it is argued that the existence of precept for a proposition entails only a relatively weak form of the principle.
id PUC_SP-15_d58b72b7b670cd3fd59618a09a3f67bb
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/13197
network_acronym_str PUC_SP-15
network_name_str Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and KnowledgeSobre uma Teoria Pragmática da Significação e do ConhecimentoAçãoInvestigaçãoConhecimentoSignificaçãoPeircePragmatismoPreceitoActionInquiryKnowledgeMeaningPeircePragmatismPreceptAccording to C. S. Peirce, there are two ways of explaining what a sign (an expression or a concept) means, namely, a definition and a precept. A precept tells the interpreters of a sign what the sign means by prescribing what they have to do in order to find or become acquainted with an object of the sign. A precept for a concept specifies how an interpreter can determine whether the concept is applicable to a given situation or object. Peirce accepted the scholastic definition of truth, according to which a proposition is true if and only if its subject and predicate refer to the same thing, and applied this analysis to complex as well as singular propositions. However, this account does not tell how an interpreter can become acquainted with the objects of the predicate “true,” that is, true propositions: it is not a good precept for the concept of truth. On the other hand, the so-called pragmatic conception of truth, truth as the limit or end of inquiry, can be regarded as a precept for truth, or as a general form of such a precept. The requirement that concepts should have precepts attached to them is a version of Peirce’s principle of pragmatism. (Concepts without precepts are meaningless.) The availability of precepts should make it possible for an interpreter (inquirer) to determine whether a concept is applicable to a given situation, or whether a given proposition is true. Thus the principle of pragmatism is closely related to the principle knowability, according to which any truth should be knowable. Some formulations of the principle of knowability lead to a paradox. The paper discusses several forms of the principle of knowability, and it is argued that the existence of precept for a proposition entails only a relatively weak form of the principle.Segundo C. S. Peirce, há dois modos de explicar o que um signo (uma expressão ou um conceito) significa, a saber, uma definição e um preceito. Um preceito diz aos intérpretes de um signo o que o signo significa, prescrevendo o que eles devem fazer para encontrar ou inteirar-se de um objeto do signo. Um preceito para um conceito especifica como um intérprete pode determinar se o conceito é aplicável a uma dada situação ou a um dado objeto.Peirce aceitou a definição escolástica de verdade, segundo a qual uma proposição é verdadeira se, e somente se, seu sujeito e seu predicado se referirem à mesma coisa, e aplicou essa análise tanto a proposições complexas quanto a singulares. Entretanto, essa visão não informa como um intérprete pode inteirar-se dos objetos do predicado “verdadeiro”, ou seja, proposições verdadeiras: não é um bom preceito para o conceito de verdade. De outro lado, a assim chamada concepção pragmática de verdade, a verdade como o limite ou fim da investigação, pode ser vista como um preceito para a verdade, ou como uma forma geral de tal preceito.A exigência de que conceitos tenham preceitos ligados a eles é uma versão do princípio do pragmatismo de Peirce (conceitos sem preceitos são vazios de sentido). A disponibilidade de preceitos deve tornar possível que um intérprete (investigador) determine se um conceito é aplicável a uma dada situação, ou seja, se certa proposição é verdadeira. Portanto, o princípio do pragmatismo está intimamente ligado ao princípio da cognoscibilidade, segundo o qual toda verdade pode ser conhecida. Algumas formulações do princípio da cognoscibilidade levam a um paradoxo. O artigo discute algumas formas não-paradoxais do princípio da cognoscibilidade, defendendo que a existência de um preceito para uma proposição exige apenas uma forma relativamente fraca do princípio.Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo2013-01-11info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13197Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 5 No. 2 (2004); 28-45Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; v. 5 n. 2 (2004); 28-452316-52781518-7187reponame:Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)instacron:PUC_SPenghttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13197/9716Copyright (c) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessHilpinen, Risto2024-07-01T13:09:30Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/13197Revistahttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofiaPRIhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/oairevcognitio@gmail.com2316-52781518-7187opendoar:2024-07-01T13:09:30Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
Sobre uma Teoria Pragmática da Significação e do Conhecimento
title On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
spellingShingle On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
Hilpinen, Risto
Ação
Investigação
Conhecimento
Significação
Peirce
Pragmatismo
Preceito
Action
Inquiry
Knowledge
Meaning
Peirce
Pragmatism
Precept
title_short On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
title_full On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
title_fullStr On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
title_full_unstemmed On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
title_sort On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
author Hilpinen, Risto
author_facet Hilpinen, Risto
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Hilpinen, Risto
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Ação
Investigação
Conhecimento
Significação
Peirce
Pragmatismo
Preceito
Action
Inquiry
Knowledge
Meaning
Peirce
Pragmatism
Precept
topic Ação
Investigação
Conhecimento
Significação
Peirce
Pragmatismo
Preceito
Action
Inquiry
Knowledge
Meaning
Peirce
Pragmatism
Precept
description According to C. S. Peirce, there are two ways of explaining what a sign (an expression or a concept) means, namely, a definition and a precept. A precept tells the interpreters of a sign what the sign means by prescribing what they have to do in order to find or become acquainted with an object of the sign. A precept for a concept specifies how an interpreter can determine whether the concept is applicable to a given situation or object. Peirce accepted the scholastic definition of truth, according to which a proposition is true if and only if its subject and predicate refer to the same thing, and applied this analysis to complex as well as singular propositions. However, this account does not tell how an interpreter can become acquainted with the objects of the predicate “true,” that is, true propositions: it is not a good precept for the concept of truth. On the other hand, the so-called pragmatic conception of truth, truth as the limit or end of inquiry, can be regarded as a precept for truth, or as a general form of such a precept. The requirement that concepts should have precepts attached to them is a version of Peirce’s principle of pragmatism. (Concepts without precepts are meaningless.) The availability of precepts should make it possible for an interpreter (inquirer) to determine whether a concept is applicable to a given situation, or whether a given proposition is true. Thus the principle of pragmatism is closely related to the principle knowability, according to which any truth should be knowable. Some formulations of the principle of knowability lead to a paradox. The paper discusses several forms of the principle of knowability, and it is argued that the existence of precept for a proposition entails only a relatively weak form of the principle.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-01-11
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13197
url https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13197
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitiofilosofia/article/view/13197/9716
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; Vol. 5 No. 2 (2004); 28-45
Cognitio: Revista de Filosofia; v. 5 n. 2 (2004); 28-45
2316-5278
1518-7187
reponame:Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron:PUC_SP
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron_str PUC_SP
institution PUC_SP
reponame_str Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
collection Cognitio (São Paulo. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Cognitio (São Paulo. Online) - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revcognitio@gmail.com
_version_ 1803387420443410432