Jason Stanley

In this short piece belonging to a book symposium on my book How Propaganda Works (Oxford University Press, 2015), I reply to the objections, comments and suggestions provided by the contributors: Bianca Cepollaro and Giuliano Torrengo, Olúfémi O. Táíwò, and Maria Cristina Amoretti. I show how some of the objections can be accommodated by the framework adopted in the book, but also how various comments and suggestions have contributed to the development, in future work, of several threads pertaining to the general view put forward in How Propaganda Works.

This chapter discusses a version of the descriptive account of content which is compatible with rigidity thesis (RT) and critiques of RT. The rigidity of proper names demonstrates that utterances of sentences containing proper names, and utterances of sentences differing from those sentences only in containing non‐rigid descriptions in place of the proper names, differ in content. The fact that natural‐language proper names are rigid designators is an empirical discovery about natural language. The chapter intends to be a survey of both the background and contemporary discussion of this discovery. However, the survey takes place in the context of an evaluation of the extent to which the discovery that English proper names are rigid itself threatens the descriptive picture of the content of names. The goal is to show that the exact philosophical significance of the discovery that natural‐language proper names are rigid designators is still, and should still be, a matter of controversy.

Many expressions in natural language, such as adjectives like tall and flat, or verbs such as like and regret are gradable, meaning that they occur in comparative constructions. It makes sense to speak of something being taller than another thing, or regretting something more than something else. It is argued that ‘know’ is not a gradable expression. This raises serious worries for versions of contextualism that treat ‘know’ as denoting relations of varying strength, relative to different contexts of use.

Semantic theory has been used for many different philosophical purposes. This thesis investigates two such uses of semantic theory. The first is the use of semantic theory in providing a justification for a formal theory. The second is the use of semantic theory in yielding an account of understanding. ;The first paper is "Truth and Metatheory in Frege". In this paper, it is contended, against much recent work in Frege interpretation, that Frege should be credited with the first semi-rigourous formulation of a semantic theory. In so doing, it attempts to show that many of the arguments which purport to establish that Frege could not have engaged in semantic theorizing suffer from two kinds of misconceptions. The first misconception involves the notion of truth which a philosopher must accept in order to engage in such theorizing. The second misconception involves the sort of justification which these arguments assume a semantic theory attempts to provide. ;The second paper is "Frege's Thesis". For each primitive expression in a language, two questions may be asked. The first is: what is it in virtue of which that expression has the semantic value it does? The second is: what is it in virtue of which a speaker counts as understanding that expression? Frege's Thesis states that one answer can be given to both of these questions: that the account of what it is in virtue of which a speaker understands an expression can also serve as the account of why that expression has the semantic value it does. In this paper, Frege's Thesis is defended. First, it is argued that some objections against it result from a confusion between semantics and metasemantics. Second, the Thesis is defended against traditional objections from Kripke and Putnam. ;The third paper is "Rigidity and Content". According to much recent philosophy of language, if two utterances differ in modal semantic value, then they must express different things. In this paper, it is argued that this view is false. In particular, it is argued that the notion of content which results from this consensus is incompatible with fundamental philosophical principles relating content to use