Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Lewd, the Rude and the NastyA Study of Thick Concepts in Ethics$

Pekka Vayrynen

Print publication date: 2013

Print ISBN-13: 9780199314751

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2014

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199314751.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 24 February 2017

(p.255) { Appendix: A List Of Named Theses }

(p.255) { Appendix: A List Of Named Theses }

Source:
The Lewd, the Rude and the Nasty
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

For ease of reference, this appendix collects, in alphabetical order, all named theses which appear in more than one place in the book.

  • Cooperative Principle Make your conversational contribution such as is required by the accepted purpose or direction of the conversation in which you are engaged (Grice 1975, 26).

  • CSI (Conversational Implicature) View Global T-evaluations are conversational implicatures of T-utterances.

  • CVI (Conventional Implicature) View Global T-evaluations are conventional implicatures of T-sentences.

  • Descriptive Equivalence For every thick term or concept, someone has or could acquire an independently intelligible purely nonevaluative description with the same extension.

  • Extension The extensions of (paradigmatic) thick terms and concepts (relative to context) are determined in part by global T-evaluations.

  • Inherently Evaluative The meanings of thick terms and concepts somehow or other contain global evaluation.

  • Inseparability Thick terms and concepts are or represent irreducible fusions of evaluation and nonevaluative description; these aspects cannot be “disentangled” from one another.

  • Irreducible Thickness Thick terms and concepts are evaluative somehow “in their own right,” independently of their relationship to any other evaluations characterizable in independently intelligible terms.

  • Meaning-Extension Link Meaning determines extension (relative to context).

  • Metalinguistic Negation A use of negation which targets aspects of utterances other than their semantic content, and is thereby a device for denying various nonsemantic utterance implications (Horn 1989, ch. 6).

  • NAI (Not-At-Issue) View Global T-evaluations are implications of T-utterances which are normally “not at issue” in their literal uses in normal contexts.

  • No Priority Thick terms and concepts and thin terms and concepts are conceptually and explanatorily interdependent.

  • Non-Centralism Thick terms and concepts and thin terms and concepts in general exhibit no interesting relations of conceptual and/or explanatory priority or interdependence.

  • Parochiality The application of a (paradigmatic) thick term or concept tends to derive its point or interest from the term’s or concept’s relation to the evaluative perspective reflected in its application.

  • (p.256) PP (Pragmatic Presupposition)View Global T-evaluations are pragmatic presuppositions of T-utterances.

  • Pragmatic View Global T-evaluations are implications of T-utterances which are normally “not at issue” in their literal uses in normal contexts, and which arise conversationally.

  • Projection An implication projects if and only if it survives as an utterance implication when the expression that triggers the implication occurs under the syntactic scope of an entailment-canceling operator (Simons et al. 2010, 309).

  • Semantic View The semantic (truth-conditional) meanings of thick terms and concepts contain global T-evaluations.

  • Separability The evaluative and nonevaluative aspects of thick terms and concepts or their use are distinct components that can at least in principle be “disentangled” from one another.

  • Shapelessness The extensions of evaluative terms and concepts aren’t unified under nonevaluative similarity relations.

  • This thesis takes a more precise form in chapter 8:

  • (ST) The extensions of evaluative terms and concepts aren’t unified under independently intelligible nonevaluative relations of real similarity, not even as a matter of synthetic a posteriori truth that isn’t settled by the meanings of evaluative terms or concepts.

  • SP (Semantic Presupposition)View Global T-evaluations are semantic presuppositions of T-sentences.

  • Thick Centralism Thick terms and concepts are conceptually and/or explanatorily prior to thin terms and concepts.

  • Thick Concepts The official statement of my working characterization of the thick is as follows:

    (TC) A term T stands for a thick concept if (i) x is T entails, as a conceptual matter, that x falls under some distinct concept or concepts N1,…, Nn (not specified) of a certain (specified) general type A (where A and N1,…, Nn may be purely nonevaluative descriptions or involve embed evaluations) and (ii) literal uses of x is T in normal contexts somehow convey global evaluations to the effect that x is good, or bad, in a certain way.

  • Thin Centralism Thin terms and concepts are conceptually and/or explanatorily prior to thick terms and concepts.

  • Underdetermination Even the strongest nonevaluative descriptions and embedded evaluations that are built into the meanings of (paradigmatic) thick terms and concepts underdetermine their extensions (relative to context).

  • (p.257) Underdetermination+ The nonevaluative aspects and embedded evaluative aspects of the meanings of (paradigmatic) thick terms underdetermine the dimension(s) on which such a term grades things (relative to context), not just the value on the dimension(s) needed to make the grade which determines T-extension (relative to context).