The article reveals the pragmatic implications of Herman Cappelen’s account of ‘topics’ in his contribution to the conceptual engineering literature. I show that Cappelen’s introduction of the category of ‘topics’ serves the pragmatic goal of having a convenient handle to account for ‘continuity in revision’, and that his general insistence on ‘continuity’ is motivated morally and strategically. In asking what accounts for continuity, Cappelen’s ‘topics’ are not defined by content or any other fixed set of rules or criteria. Topics are metaphysically lightweight and defined pragmatically and as we go: speakers talk about the same topic when we (and they) attribute that they do. But why should we do that? Why should we aim for continuity and why should we think it is possible in general? I contrast Cappelen’s insistence on continuity with Rorty’s appeal for discontinuity, and trace both of their positions back to their respective moral background assumptions and their assumptions about what communication is (and is for) and, in turn, what philosophy is (and is about). Further, I question the role the ‘continuity’ claim plays in the current redefinition of linguistic philosophy after the ‘death of the linguistic turn’.

Do you value topic-continuity? The moral foundations of Cappelen’s insistence on ‘topic-continuity’ and reasons for resisting them / Huetter-Almerigi, Yvonne. - In: INQUIRY. - ISSN 1502-3923. - ELETTRONICO. - 67:3(2024), pp. 891-911. [10.1080/0020174X.2022.2155237]

Do you value topic-continuity? The moral foundations of Cappelen’s insistence on ‘topic-continuity’ and reasons for resisting them

Huetter-Almerigi, Yvonne
2024

Abstract

The article reveals the pragmatic implications of Herman Cappelen’s account of ‘topics’ in his contribution to the conceptual engineering literature. I show that Cappelen’s introduction of the category of ‘topics’ serves the pragmatic goal of having a convenient handle to account for ‘continuity in revision’, and that his general insistence on ‘continuity’ is motivated morally and strategically. In asking what accounts for continuity, Cappelen’s ‘topics’ are not defined by content or any other fixed set of rules or criteria. Topics are metaphysically lightweight and defined pragmatically and as we go: speakers talk about the same topic when we (and they) attribute that they do. But why should we do that? Why should we aim for continuity and why should we think it is possible in general? I contrast Cappelen’s insistence on continuity with Rorty’s appeal for discontinuity, and trace both of their positions back to their respective moral background assumptions and their assumptions about what communication is (and is for) and, in turn, what philosophy is (and is about). Further, I question the role the ‘continuity’ claim plays in the current redefinition of linguistic philosophy after the ‘death of the linguistic turn’.
2024
Do you value topic-continuity? The moral foundations of Cappelen’s insistence on ‘topic-continuity’ and reasons for resisting them / Huetter-Almerigi, Yvonne. - In: INQUIRY. - ISSN 1502-3923. - ELETTRONICO. - 67:3(2024), pp. 891-911. [10.1080/0020174X.2022.2155237]
Huetter-Almerigi, Yvonne
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2024 Huetter-Almerigi Do you value topic continuity_Cappelen.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo
Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate (CCBYNCND)
Dimensione 1.78 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.78 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/909542
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact