Martin Montminy

L'objectif de cette these est d'etudier les fondements empiriques de notions semantiques telles que la signification, l'analyticite et la reference. J'essaie entre autres choses de defendre l'idee qu'il n'existe pas de critere permettant de definir strictement ces notions. Dans un premier temps, j'examine les critiques formulees par W. V. Quine contre la distinction analytique-synthetique. Il n'existe pas d'argument general pour rejeter cette distinction. Pour critiquer celle-ci, on doit examiner individuellement les diverses tentatives visant a l'etablir. ;Tout d'abord, j'examine les objections de Quine contre le point de vue selon lequel la distinction analytique-synthetique aurait un caractere fondationnel. Ces objections sont rapprochees du paradoxe sceptique de Ludwig Wittgenstein, qui concerne le concept normatif de signification, selon lequel la signification d'un enonce justifierait son usage. ;J'aborde ensuite la question de savoir s'il est possible de tracer la distinction analytique-synthetique dans le cadre d'une theorie verificationniste de la signification, qui est fondee sur la maniere dont les locuteurs s'y prennent pour etablir la verite de leurs enonces. Une telle approche ne permet pas d'assigner aux enonces theoriques une signification determinee a cause du holisme, qui affirme que les enonces theoriques ne sont pas liees individuellement aux experiences qui les confirment , mais seulement en tant que fragments plus ou moins importants de theorie. Je tente de clarifier la these du holisme, et en etudie la source. ;Je presente ensuite le compte rendu de la signification propose par Quine, qui est fonde sur l'experience de pensee de la traduction radicale. Un manuel de traduction radicale doit organiser les donnees empiriques a partir desquelles il est construit, i.e. les dispositions verbales des locuteurs, conformement a certaines contraintes comme la contrainte de la communaute et le principe de charite. J'explique comment ces contraintes doivent etre comprises et appliquees. Le compte rendu de Quine est compare et contraste a celui de Donald Davidson, qui presente plusieurs points en commun. J'examine les principales differences qui les separent et essaie d'en decouvrir les motivations. Je montre par exemple pourquoi la theorie distale de Davidson est preferable a la theorie proximale de Quine. ;Enfin, la these de l'indetermination de la traduction est presentee. Je propose une formulation de cette these, selon laquelle l'indetermination de la traduction est directement liee a l'absence de critere empirique permettant de tracer la distinction analytique-synthetique. J'illustre ensuite cette these au moyen d'exemples et examine certaines de ses consequences, qui n'ont pas toutes ete envisagees par Quine, notamment celles qui concernent la notion de contenu empirique

I examine the claim, made by some authors, that we sometimes acquire knowledge from falsehood. I focus on two representative cases in which a subject S infers a proposition q from a false proposition p. If S knows that q, I argue, S's false belief that p is not essential to S's cognition. S's knowledge is instead due to S's belief that p′, a proposition in the neighbourhood of p that S believes . S thus knows despite her false belief. The widely accepted and plausible principle that inferential knowledge requires known premises is unscathed

La thèse de l'indétermination de la traduction de W. V. O. Quine est certainement une des thèses les plus controversées de la philosophie du langage. Le présent article explique en quoi consiste cette thèse et examine les liens qu'elle entretient avec la thèse de la sous-détermination des théories scientifiques. La première section montre comment la thèse de l'indétermination de la traduction découle de la conception behavioriste du langage de Quine. Les sections suivantes exposent deux façons de dériver la thèse de l'indétermination: par le holisme et le vérificationnisme dans la section 2 et par la thèse de la sous-détermination dans la section 3. La section 4 précise la formulation de la thèse de la sous-détermination proposée dans «On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World» et la section 5 expose les critiques exprimées par W. Bechtel à propos de cette formulation. Ces critiques témoignent d'une mauvaise compréhension de la position de Quine et j'essaierai de montrer en quoi elles sont fautives. La section 6 traite des deux façons de dériver la thèse de l'indétermination, à la lumière des modifications apportées à la formulation de la thèse de la sous-détermination. Enfin, la section 7 s'intéresse aux questions de fait relatives à la sous-détermination des théories et à l'indétermination de la traduction.

I consider three challenges to the traditional view according to which moral responsibility involves an epistemic condition in addition to a freedom condition. The first challenge holds that if a person performs an action A freely, then she thereby knows that she is doing A. The epistemic condition is thus built into the freedom condition. The second challenge contends that no epistemic condition is required for moral responsibility, since a person may be blameworthy for an action that she did not know was wrong. The third challenge invokes the quality of will view. On this view, a person is blameworthy for a wrong action just in case the action manifests a bad quality of will. The blameworthy person need not satisfy an additional epistemic condition. I will argue that contrary to appearances, none of these challenges succeeds. Hence, moral responsibility does require a non-superfluous epistemic condition.

Abstract: Several critics of contextualism claim that this view cannot consistently maintain its advertised neutrality between skepticism and anti-skepticism. Some critics contend that contextualists are forced to side with the skeptic, since any defense of contextualism unavoidably puts in place the skeptic's high requirements for knowledge; others hold that the contextualists' claim to have knowledge of what their own view entails forces them to reject the skeptic's knowledge denial. I show that these arguments misconstrue the role of context in contextualism, and explain how we are to understand the contextualist's proposed agreement with both the skeptic's knowledge denial and the anti-skeptic's knowledge attribution.

Quine’s negative theses about meaning and analyticity are well known, but he also defends a positive account of these notions. I explain what his negative and positive views are, and argue that Quine’s positive account of meaning entails that two of his most famous doctrines, namely the claim that there are no analytic statements and the indeterminacy of translation thesis, are false. But I show that the falsity of these doctrines doesn’t affect his criticisms of traditional conceptions of meaning. This is because the class of analytic statements that his account of meaning enables us to isolate is of no philosophical interest, and because we can hold that translation is determined without admitting that meaning is.

I examine the radical contextualists’ two main arguments for the semantic underdeterminacy thesis, according to which all, or almost all, English sentences lack context-independent truth conditions. I show that both arguments are fallacious. The first argument, which I call the fallacy of the many understandings , mistakenly infers that a sentence S is semantically incomplete from the fact that S can be used to mean different things in different contexts. The second argument, which I call the open texture fallacy , wrongly concludes that a sentence S lacks context-independent truth conditions from the fact that there are circumstances in which the truth value of S would be indeterminate. I do however defend the claim that a certain class of sentences not containing any indexicals do lack context-independent truth conditions, and put forward an argument to that effect. But this argument, as I show, does not generalize to all sentences, and thus fails to support the semantic underdeterminacy thesis.

I defend a contextualist account of bare epistemic modal claims against recent objections. I argue that in uttering a sentence of the form ‘It might be that p,’ a speaker is performing two speech acts. First, she is (directly) asserting that in view of the knowledge possessed by some relevant group, it might be that p. The content of this first speech act is accounted for by the contextualist view. But the speaker's utterance also generates an indirect speech act that consists in a weak suggestive that p. Since this second speech act is typically the main point of a bare epistemic modal utterance, our (negative or positive) responses to the utterance actually target this second speech act. I show how this two-speech-act account can explain the data recently adduced against contextualism

According to a popular view, resultant luck does not affect the overall degree of responsibility of an agent. A lucky reckless driver who does not harm anyone is overall just as blameworthy as an unfortunate reckless driver who accidentally kills a pedestrian. This view appears to contradict a very plausible thesis about character formation, according to which responsibility for one’s character can increase one’s degree of responsibility for the actions motivated by that character. Given that character formation is ridden with resultant luck, it seems that one cannot hold both that responsibility is immune to resultant luck and that responsibility is increased by prior character-forming actions. I argue that there is no tension between the two theses. Given that agents exercise control over their character-forming actions, character formation is not a purely lucky process, and deniers of resultant luck can consistently hold the plausible thesis about character formation.

I defend the principle that a person is blameworthy for her action only if that action was morally wrong. But what should we say about an agent who does the right thing based on bad motives? I present three types of cases that have these features. In each, I argue, the agent is not culpable for her action; however, she violates the norm of moral responsibility, and thus acts in a morally irresponsible way. This analysis, I show, has several virtues. It also has important theoretical ramifications: it allows for a more nuanced approach to moral luck and paves the way for an unexplored line of defense in favor of a particular norm of moral responsibility.

According to a popular objection against epistemic contextualism, contextualists who endorse the factivity of knowledge, the principle of epistemic closure and the knowledge norm of assertion cannot coherently defend their theory without abandoning their response to skepticism. After examining and criticizing three responses to this objection, we offer our own solution. First, we question the assumption that contextualists ought to be interpreted asassertingthe content of their theory. Second, we argue that contextualists need not hold that high epistemic standards govern contexts in which they defend their theory.

ABSTRACT: Christopher Peacocke defends a sophisticated version of Conceptual Role Theory. For him, the nature of a concept is completely determined by an account of what it is to possess that concept. The possession conditions he puts forward rest on the notion of primitively compelling transitions or, more recently, on the idea of implicit conceptions. I show that his account is circular and appeals to a dubious distinction between constitutive transitions and transitions that depend on factual beliefs. I also point out that his possession conditions violate the Publicity Constraint; and, finally, I raise doubts about the psychological reality of primitively compelling transitions and implicit conceptions.

Epistemic contextualism, many critics argue, entails that ordinary speakers are blind to the fact that knowledge claims have context-sensitive truth conditions. This attribution of blindness, critics add, seriously undermines contextualism. I show that this criticism and, in general, discussions about the error theory entailed by contextualism, greatly underestimates the complexity and diversity of the data about ordinary speakers? inter-contextual judgments, as well as the range of explanatory moves that are open to both invariantists and contextualists concerning such judgments. Contextualism does entail that some speakers suffer from semantic blindness; however, at its roots, this blindness concerns not the context-sensitivity of knowledge claims, but the question whether knowledge sentences possess context-independent truth conditions. I argue that this blindness should not be deemed problematic, but that invariantism entails an error theory that is, by comparison, much more troubling

This paper explores the relationships between Davidson's indeterminacy of interpretation thesis and two semantic properties of sentences that have come to be recognized recently, namely semantic incompleteness and semantic indecision.1 More specifically, I will examine what the indeterminacy thesis entails for sentences of the form 'By sentence S (or word w), agent A means that m' and 'Agent A believes that p.' My primary goal is to shed light on the indeterminacy thesis and its consequences. I will distinguish two kinds of indeterminacy that have very different sources and very different consequences. But this does not purport to be an exhaustive study: there may well be other forms of indeterminacy that this ..

Contextualism, in its standard form, is the view that the truth conditions of sentences of the form ‘S knows that P’ vary according to the context in which they are uttered. One possible objection to contextualism appeals to what Keith DeRose calls a warranted assertability maneuver (or WAM), according to which it is not our knowledge sentences themselves that have context-sensitive truth conditions, but what is pragmatically conveyed by the use of such sentences. Thus, proponents of WAMs argue, the context sensitivity of knowledge attributions is not a semantic phenomenon but a pragmatic one. I examine a number of WAMs and show that each (i) is seriously flawed, or (ii) undercuts standard contextualism if we hold a minimalist conception of semantic content. I propose an alternative form of contextualism that accommodates minimalism and is immune to the second type of WAM, and show that this new form of contextualism shares the virtues of standard contextualism.