Davidson's Second Person

According to Donald Davidson, language is social in that only a person who has interacted linguistically with another could have a language. This paper is a discussion of Davidson's argument in defence of that claim. I argue that he has not succeeded in establishing it, but that he has provided many of the materials out of which a successful argument could be built. Chief among these are the claims that some version of externalism about meaning is true, that possession of a language requires possession of the concept of objectivity, and hence that the issue here concerns the identity of the external event that makes possible possession of the concept of objectivity. I end by presenting some reasons for thinking that only interpersonal linguistic interaction could play this role.     

Davidson's Transcendental Externalism

One of the chief aims of Donald Davidson's later work was to show that participation in a certain causal nexus involving two creatures and a shared environment–Davidson calls this nexus "triangulation"–is a metaphysically necessary condition for the acquisition of thought. This doctrine, I suggest, is aptly regarded as a form of what I call transcendental externalism. I extract two arguments for the transcendental-externalist doctrine from Davidson's writings, and argue that neither succeeds. A central interpretive claim is that the arguments are primarily funded by a particular conception of the nature of non-human animal life. This conception turns out to be insupportable. The failure of Davidson's arguments presses the question of whether we could ever hope to arrive at far-reaching claims about the conditions for thought if we deny, as does Davidson, the legitimacy of the naturalistic project in the philosophy of mind.     

Davidson's Argument for Monism

Two criticisms of Davidson's argument for monism are presented. The first is that there is no obvious way for the anomalism of the mental to do any work in his argument. Certain implicit premises, on the other hand, entail monism independently of the anomalism of the mental, but they are question-begging. The second criticism is that even if Davidson's argument is sound, the variety of monism that emerges is extremely weak at best. I show that by constructing ontologically ``hybrid' events that are consistent with the premises and assumptions of Davidson's argument, but entail ontological dualism.My guess is thatif you want to get a lot of physicalism out [ofDavidson's argument], you're going to have to put a lot of physicalism in.Jerry Fodor 1989, 159     

论戴维森的真之理论

毫无疑问,真之理论在戴维森的哲学理论中扮演着核心地位,如果不理解他的真之理论也就无法理解他的整个哲学思想。虽然在他的哲学生涯中,戴维森对真的理解并非完全保持一致,甚至在某些地方曾出现过重大转变,但这并不妨碍他的真之理论形成一个整体。因为戴维森在很多关键地方,对真的理解保持着不变。戴维森对真的理解可以从两个方面进行阐述。从否定方面看,戴维森认为真是不可被定义的,因为它是一个最简单的概念;其次,真之紧缩论对真的解释是不能成立的,因为它并不能把握真的实质。从积极方面看,戴维森肯定了真与人之间的紧密关系,并认为人是真的前提;同时,他又强调了真与信念、愿望以及意义之间的联系,认为对这些概念的解释必须以真为基础。     

Fear of the Dark

Meditating on the liturgy of Holy Week, Aemiliana Lohr insisted that “the real Christian Pasch remains the mysterium of night”. The Christian mysterium is “always entire”, but its entirety we can never directly state or see; the darkness of our circumstance wans and waxes. We fear the dark, but what kind of fear is compatible with the command to “fear not”? Exploring this question in relation to Mark's passion narrative, the paper considers the kinds of context in which such reassurance as the first Christians sought might still be needed, for what is required of Christians is “patience”: the of staying awake in the dark. The paper concludes with remarks on the trinitarian grounds and christological character of patience.