Home Substitutional Accounting for Singular Terms: Some Problems and a Slightly More Kantian Solution for Brandom
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Substitutional Accounting for Singular Terms: Some Problems and a Slightly More Kantian Solution for Brandom

  • Micah Lewin EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 1, 2022

Abstract

This article grapples with Robert Brandom’s account of singular terms. I argue that neither Brandom’s answer to the question “What are singular terms?” nor his answer to the question “Why are there any singular terms?” works as they currently stand. Brandom’s substitution-inferential semantic account of what singular terms are fails to distinguish between the semantic role of singular terms and indefinite descriptions, and Brandom’s “expressive transcendental deduction” for why there are any singular terms fails to deciseively show that singular terms are expressively necessary for the use of logical vocabulary. Still, I then characterize how Brandom does have resources within his substitution-inferential semantics to give a better, revised answer to the question “What are singular terms?” that both fits programmatically within his framework and has a curious Kantian parallel. I leave the matter offering a Brandom-friendly replacement account for why there are any singular terms thus conceived for another occasion.


Corresponding author: Micah Lewin, Humanities, Georgia State University Perimeter College, 555 N Indian Creek DR, CE-2211, 30021-2361, Clarkston, GA, USA, E-mail:

References

Anderson, R. L. 2015. The Poverty of Conceptual Truth: Kant’s Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724575.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. 1994. Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. 2000. Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674028739Search in Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. 2008. Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199542871.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. 1987. “Singular Terms and Sentential Sign Designs.” Philosophical Topics, 15(1): 125–67, https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics198715114.Search in Google Scholar

Kant, I. 1992. Lectures on Logic. J. Michael Young (ed and trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511810039Search in Google Scholar

Kant, I. 1993. Opus Postumum. E.Förster & M.Rosen (trans). E.Förster (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625169Search in Google Scholar

Kant, I. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. P.Guyer & A. Wood (eds and trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511804649Search in Google Scholar

Kant, I. 2004. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. M.Friedman (ed and trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511809613Search in Google Scholar

Lewin, M. 2016. “Recovering a Kantian Analytic/Synthetic Distinction Through Incompatibility.” PhD diss., Stanford University. http://purl.stanford.edu/vj220tb4751.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-04-01
Published in Print: 2022-04-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 21.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/jtph-2022-0004/html
Scroll to top button