02.11.2012 Views

Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences

Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences

Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

And <strong>in</strong> presum<strong>in</strong>g that given bn some value applies, <strong>the</strong><br />

question is if we do or don’t have to do with bn. b) Wea<strong>the</strong>r<br />

<strong>the</strong> calculation required to assign a value to some bn<br />

depends on best op<strong>in</strong>ion. This will depend lately on<br />

wea<strong>the</strong>r human needs <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terests, for example, can be<br />

determ<strong>in</strong>able <strong>in</strong>dependently of our own responses –. Both<br />

questions I shall leave open here.<br />

On <strong>the</strong> considerations made, however, some o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

dist<strong>in</strong>ction appears to be relevant. Contrary to concepts<br />

such as ‘red’, ‘tiger’, ‘cup’ or ‘tree’ whose mean<strong>in</strong>g is open<br />

to development on <strong>the</strong> way, so to speak.. Some o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

concepts are such that <strong>the</strong>ir extension is dependent upon<br />

prefixed operations <strong>and</strong> to this extent <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />

development of mean<strong>in</strong>g on application. Any change<br />

would require go<strong>in</strong>g backwards <strong>and</strong> prov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />

correctness of <strong>the</strong> calculations made <strong>in</strong> its establishment. If<br />

this is right, we may dist<strong>in</strong>guish between open-ended <strong>and</strong><br />

<strong>in</strong>variably prefixed rules. That this dist<strong>in</strong>ction is not to be<br />

put toge<strong>the</strong>r with that between extension-determ<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>and</strong><br />

extension-reflect<strong>in</strong>g concepts can be seen as ‘red’, for<br />

276<br />

Different Ways to Follow Rules? The Case of Ethics — Olga Ramírez Calle<br />

example, would be a extension-determ<strong>in</strong>ed but openended<br />

(susceptible of ref<strong>in</strong>ement or development). The<br />

dist<strong>in</strong>ction does not depend on wea<strong>the</strong>r best op<strong>in</strong>ion<br />

determ<strong>in</strong>es of truth, but on <strong>the</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>ateness of<br />

mean<strong>in</strong>g itself. Three fold concepts would fall under <strong>the</strong><br />

second category but <strong>the</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ction is not necessarily<br />

restricted to <strong>the</strong>m.<br />

Literature<br />

Blackburn, Simon 1981 <strong>in</strong>: S. Holtzman <strong>and</strong> C. Leich (eds) Wittgenste<strong>in</strong>:<br />

To Follow a Rule, London: Routledge<br />

McDowell, John 1981 “Non-Cognitivism <strong>and</strong> Rule Follow<strong>in</strong>g” see<br />

above.<br />

Wittgenste<strong>in</strong>, L 1967 Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edition Oxford:<br />

Basil Blackwell<br />

Wright, Crisp<strong>in</strong> 2002 ‘What is Wittgenste<strong>in</strong>’s po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rulefollow<strong>in</strong>g<br />

discussion?’ onl<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> Boghossian/Horwich Language<br />

<strong>and</strong> M<strong>in</strong>d sem<strong>in</strong>ar, NYU<br />

Wright, Crisp<strong>in</strong> 1992 Truth <strong>and</strong> Objectivity Cambridge MA: Harvard<br />

University Press

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!