On a Pragmatic Theory of Meaning and Knowledge
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |