It Refers To Verbal Disagreement
Balcerak Jackson, B. (shortly). Metaphysics, verbal arguments and the limits of charity. Philosophy and phenomenological research. However, there are situations in which the parties involved must choose a particular interpretation. For example, there may be only one prize to be awarded to the best student, so it is necessary to choose between the two definitions to decide whether Cindy or Betty should receive the award. This is therefore the second way to resolve a verbal dispute with two definitions – we opt for a precise definition by looking very carefully at the function it should serve. If, in the example on the exam, you have to choose between teacher definitions A and B, which you will choose the definition of and why? In this case too, Kermit and Gonzo are not divided on the meaning of the symbolic expression of the “metaphysics” of the third, so that their dispute should always be seen as a case of disagreement? Not necessarily: Kermit and Gonzo could both believe that the symbolic expression of the third has the meaning of the philosopher, when it may not be the meaning that the third party intends to convey. The dispute will still be only verbal as long as Kermit and Gonzo make conflicting assumptions about what third party interested in communicating. (Thanks to an anonymous referee for raising this point.) A related point: Williamson (2007) (Chapter 4) articulates a radically externalistic view of the linguistic meaning of logical constants; One of the motivations is that it allows us to view quarrels over logical truth and coherence as real quarrels, not cases where the parties are simply passing on to each other. But for the reasons that have just been praised, such a view does not automatically guarantee the non-verbality of such disputes.
Chalmers (2011), 557. If simple verbality is characterized by the best interpretation of the parties, then Chalmers` dialectical analythia is more or less synonymous with what I call irrévistion elsewhere for a subject. (see Balcerak Jackson). One could reasonably assume that “threatening” is semantically under-drawn, but even if it is, it is not the source of the simple verbality of the feud between Rolf and Scooter. Hirsch (2011b), 228-229. Hirsch changed his relationship somewhat in response to the concern for anti-individualism in the style of the castle (see Castle of 1979). The concern seems to be that, while anti-individualism is true, the better overall interpretation of the various parties does not reflect the actual social meanings of their statements.