Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

3 Karczewska N.

Znaleziono wyników: 3

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Disagreement about Taste as Disagreement about the Discourse: Problems and Limitations

100%

Karczewska N.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

2016

tom 46

nr 1

103-117

In the present paper I present the metalinguistic solutions to the ‘lost disagreement’ problem proposed (independently) Sundell and Plunkett [2013] and Barker [2012]. I argue that metalinguistic negotiations about taste, even though successful in explaining the intuition of disagreement in a vast number of cases, are not an accurate solution to the disagreement problem in contextualism when it comes to the most paradigmatic case of “tasty”. I also argue against the account of faultless disagreement explained via vagueness of taste predicates [Barker, 2012]. I believe that the notion of faultlessness employed in the discussion of vagueness [Wright, 1994] is a different notion than the one employed in the discussion of taste discourse [Kölbel, 2003].

Karl Kraus und seine Zeit. Das Wien des Fin de siècle - Metropole oder kosmopolitische Provinz

100%

Karczewska N.

Studia Germanica Posnaniensia

2002

tom 27

71-89

Disagreements about Taste as Metalinguistic Negotiations - Some Critical Remarks

100%

Karczewska N.

Filozofia Nauki

2016

tom 24

nr 1

27-39

Disagreements about taste are often considered a problematic case for contextualism. The contextualist is committed to the claim that when a person A says: "This is tasty", and a person B replies: "No, it's not tasty", they are not really disagreeing since the semantic content of A's utterance is This is tasty to A, while the content of B's utterance is This is tasty to B. Thus the contextualist is forced to admit that whenever people seem to disagree about taste, they are in fact just talking past each other. In this paper, I examine a solution to the "lost disagreement" problem which is supposed to be consistent with contextualism. It is an analysis proposed by Timothy Sundell and David Plunkett (2013), according to which when people take themselves to be disagreeing about whether some food has the quality of tastiness, they are in fact disputing whether the term "tasty" is applicable in the given context. I take this analysis to be insightful, but I also argue that it is not an adequate solution to the "lost disagreement" problem. I point to a non-negotiable subjective semantic component of "tasty" and put forward the idea of a "personal algorithm" to illustrate where this subjectivity of taste predicates might come from.