Stanley Cavell on What We Say
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v9i9.4915Abstract
In his early essay, “Must We Mean What We Say”, Cavell argues that the claims of ordinary language philosophers regarding “what we say when” are not empirical generalizations about a given group of speakers but are rather to be understood as measuring the limits of what counts as a coherent act of thinking and speaking. Cavell’s charge against the skeptic about the external world is that he seeks to think and speak beyond these limits. In this paper I compare Cavell’s response to the skeptic to Davidson’s. Both base their responses on a broadly Kantian approach that appeals to the conditions under which thinking or speaking about objects is possible. On this approach the skeptic isn’t giving a false answer to an intelligible question, but rather, the question to which the skeptic is giving an answer is shown to be in some way unintelligible. But while Davidson’s critique of the skeptic is based on the conditions of ascribing meaning to one’s words, and contents to one’s beliefs, Cavell’s critique is based on the failure of the skeptic to mean the words he uses in the way that he needs. This difference expresses an underlying disagreement about the meaning of “meaning”: for Davidson the world comes into view through the meaning of our words and concepts, through the contents of our beliefs; for Cavell, the world comes into view through the agreement in “criteria” that are a condition of applying words and concepts to the world. This difference illuminates what Cavell calls “the truth of skepticism”: the idea that “my relation to the world and to others in general is not one of knowing”.
References
Austin, J. L., 1979. In Philosophical Papers, edited by J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock, pp. 76–116. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Benveniste, Emile, 1971. “Subjectivity in Language.” In Problems in General Linguistics, edited by Mary Elizabeth Meek, p. 223–30. Miami: University of Miami Press.
Cavell, Stanley, 1979. The Claim of Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———, 2002. Must We Mean What We Say. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———, 2002a. “The Avoidance of Love: A Reading of King Lear.” In Cavell (2002), pp. 267–353.
———, 2002b. “Aesthetic Problems of Modern Philosophy.” In Cavell (2002), pp. 73–96.
Clarke, Thompson, 1972. “The Legacy of Skepticism.” Journal of Philosophy 69(20): 754–69.
Conant, James, 2020. “Reply to Hamawaki and Stroud.” In The Logical Alien, edited by Sofia Miguens, pp. 758–82. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Davidson, Donald, 2001a. “A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge.” In Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, pp. 137–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———, 2001b. “The Second Person.” In Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, pp. 107–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diamond, Cora, 1988. “Throwing Away the Ladder.” Philosophy 63(243): 5–27.
Foster, M. B., 1957. “ ‘We’ in Modern Philosophy.” In Faith and Logic, edited by Basil Mitchell, p. 194–220. London: Allen and Unwin.
Frege, Gottlob, 1964. The Basic Laws of Arithmetic. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
———, 1967. “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry.” In Philosophical Logic, edited by P. F. Strawson, p. 17–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hamawaki, Arata, 2014. “Cavell, Skepticism, and the Idea of Philosophical Criticism.” In Varieties of Skepticism, edited by James Conant and Andrea Kern, pp. 389–428. Berlin: de Gruyter.
———, 2022. “Philosophic and Aesthetic Appeal: Stanley Cavell on the Irreducibility of the First Person in Aesthetics and in Philosophy.” In Cavell’s Must We Mean What We Say at 50, edited by Grege Chase, Juliet Floyd, and Sandra Laugier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel, 2003. Critique of Pure Reason, edited by Norman Kemp Smith. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kripke, Saul, 1982. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McDowell, John, 1998. “In Defense of Modesty.” In Meaning, Knowledge, and Reality, p. 87–107. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moran, Richard, 2001. Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self-knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———, 2018. The Exchange of Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, John, 1969. Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stroud, Barry, 1984. The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———, 2000. “Transcendental Arguments.” In Understanding Human Knowledge, pp. 9–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———, 2018. “Meaning and Understanding.” In Seeing, Knowing, Understanding, pp. 233–54. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Bernard, 1981. “Wittgenstein’s Idealism.” In Moral Luck, pp. 144–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1961. Tractatus Logic-Philosophicus, translated by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness. London: Routledge.
———, 1953. Philosophical Investigations, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan.
———, 1974. Philosophical Grammar, edited by Anthony Kenny. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The Public Knowledge Project recommends the use of the Creative Commons license. The Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy requires authors to agree to a Creative Commons Attribution /Non-commercial license. Authors who publish with the Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC license.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
