tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post6482538202744896256..comments2024-03-28T13:23:50.623-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Where is my utterance?Alexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-54386819202646918722011-05-25T12:32:23.050-05:002011-05-25T12:32:23.050-05:00I was thinking of "utterance" in speech ...<i>I was thinking of "utterance" in speech as parallel to "inscription" in writing. You're taking "utterance" in speech to be parallel to "inscribing" in writing. </i><br /><br />Not quite; I was taking "utterance" in speech as something like "instance of written communication" in writing. Any utterance or inscription can have multiple meanings and truth values. (You're talking on two phones at once; you put a post-it on the door.) I think the unit of phil-language evaluation ought to be whatever bears a single meaning/truth value, which near as I can tell is the speech (or written) act. The mental correlate I guess is a "thought".Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-2572978901802346222011-05-24T15:31:10.165-05:002011-05-24T15:31:10.165-05:00They're not in the head: they're propertie...They're not in the head: they're properties of the mind qua mind. :-)<br /><br />I'm with Descartes in thinking the mental is the less obscure. <br /><br />'I would think that the relevant sense of "utterance" would be something like "speech act," and since actions are defined in terms of the reasons for them, they don't have locations, strictly speaking.'<br /><br />Maybe, but I was thinking of "utterance" in speech as parallel to "inscription" in writing. You're taking "utterance" in speech to be parallel to "inscribing" in writing.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-81721067294576673062011-05-24T14:43:09.327-05:002011-05-24T14:43:09.327-05:00I think this is going to recapitulate all the prob...I think this is going to recapitulate all the problems with utterances at the level of mental states. Where are they? Even if we could solve problems of semantic externalism, and say that mental states are "inside the head," you still have the challenge of picking out exactly *where* inside the head they are. <br /><br />Moreover, I tend to think that explanations of linguistic meaning in terms of mental meaning are cases of explaining the obscure by the more obscure.<br /><br />I would think that the relevant sense of "utterance" would be something like "speech act," and since actions are defined in terms of the reasons for them, they don't have locations, strictly speaking.Heath Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13535886546816778688noreply@blogger.com