|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910467425203321 |
|
|
Titolo |
Subjective meaning : alternatives to relativism / / edited by Cécile Meier and Janneke van Wijnbergen-Huitink |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
Berlin, [Germany] ; ; Boston, [Massachusetts] : , : De Gruyter, , 2016 |
|
©2016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
3-11-040211-4 |
3-11-040200-9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (260 pages) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collana |
|
Linguistische Arbeiten, , 0344-6727 ; ; Volume 559 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Subjectivity |
Relativity |
Electronic books. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Description based upon print version of record. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references at the end of each chapters and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Front matter -- Contents -- Preface -- Subjective meaning: An introduction -- If expressivism is fun, go for it! -- Doing without judge dependence -- Predicates of personal taste and the evidential step -- Contextualism and disagreement about taste -- Two kinds of subjectivity -- Evaluative propositions and subjective judgments -- Predicates of experience -- Propositions and implicit arguments carry a default general point of view -- Subjective meaning and modality -- Index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
A dish may be delicious, a painting beautiful, a piece of information justified. Whether the attributed properties "really" hold, seems to depend on somebody like a speaker or a group of people that share standards and background. Relativists and contextualists differ in where they locate the dependency theoretically. This book collects papers that corroborate the contextualist view that the dependency is part of the language. |
This volume contributes to the debate on relativism vs. contextualism. It comprises a collection of papers that take the problem of “faultless disagreement” as their starting point. The contributors all criticize the |
|
|
|
|