Indexical contextualism and the challenges from disagreement

Carl Baker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper I argue against one variety of contextualism about aesthetic predicates such as “beautiful.” Contextualist analyses of these and other predicates have been subject to several challenges surrounding disagreement. Focusing on one kind of contextualism—individualized indexical contextualism—I unpack these various challenges and consider the responses available to the contextualist. The three responses I consider are as follows: giving an alternative analysis of the concept of disagreement; claiming that speakers suffer from semantic blindness; and claiming that attributions of beauty carry presuppositions of commonality. I will argue that none of the available strategies gives a response which both (a) satisfactorily explains all of the disagreement-data and (b) is plausible independent of significant evidence in favour of contextualism. I conclude that individualized indexical contextualism about the aesthetic is untenable, although this does not rule out alternative contextualist approaches to the aesthetic.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)107-123
Number of pages17
JournalPhilosophical Studies
Volume157
Issue number1
Early online date11 Sep 2010
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2012

Fingerprint

Contextualism
Aesthetics
Indexicals
Attribution
Blindness
Presupposition

Cite this

Indexical contextualism and the challenges from disagreement. / Baker, Carl.

In: Philosophical Studies, Vol. 157, No. 1, 01.2012, p. 107-123.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baker, Carl. / Indexical contextualism and the challenges from disagreement. In: Philosophical Studies. 2012 ; Vol. 157, No. 1. pp. 107-123.
@article{9a83934d34924dab9cc79892c482c0a1,
title = "Indexical contextualism and the challenges from disagreement",
abstract = "In this paper I argue against one variety of contextualism about aesthetic predicates such as “beautiful.” Contextualist analyses of these and other predicates have been subject to several challenges surrounding disagreement. Focusing on one kind of contextualism—individualized indexical contextualism—I unpack these various challenges and consider the responses available to the contextualist. The three responses I consider are as follows: giving an alternative analysis of the concept of disagreement; claiming that speakers suffer from semantic blindness; and claiming that attributions of beauty carry presuppositions of commonality. I will argue that none of the available strategies gives a response which both (a) satisfactorily explains all of the disagreement-data and (b) is plausible independent of significant evidence in favour of contextualism. I conclude that individualized indexical contextualism about the aesthetic is untenable, although this does not rule out alternative contextualist approaches to the aesthetic.",
author = "Carl Baker",
note = "Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Matthew Kieran, Aaron Meskin, Jonathan Robson, Alice Kay, Robbie Williams, Pekka Vayrynen and Wouter Kalf. I am also grateful to audiences at the SIFA Graduate Conference, the Western Michigan University Graduate Conference and the University of Leeds Postgraduate Seminar. Finally, I wish to thank an anonymous referee for this journal for valuable comments and suggestions.",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11098-010-9621-1",
language = "English",
volume = "157",
pages = "107--123",
journal = "Philosophical Studies",
issn = "0031-8116",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indexical contextualism and the challenges from disagreement

AU - Baker, Carl

N1 - Acknowledgements Thanks are due to Matthew Kieran, Aaron Meskin, Jonathan Robson, Alice Kay, Robbie Williams, Pekka Vayrynen and Wouter Kalf. I am also grateful to audiences at the SIFA Graduate Conference, the Western Michigan University Graduate Conference and the University of Leeds Postgraduate Seminar. Finally, I wish to thank an anonymous referee for this journal for valuable comments and suggestions.

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - In this paper I argue against one variety of contextualism about aesthetic predicates such as “beautiful.” Contextualist analyses of these and other predicates have been subject to several challenges surrounding disagreement. Focusing on one kind of contextualism—individualized indexical contextualism—I unpack these various challenges and consider the responses available to the contextualist. The three responses I consider are as follows: giving an alternative analysis of the concept of disagreement; claiming that speakers suffer from semantic blindness; and claiming that attributions of beauty carry presuppositions of commonality. I will argue that none of the available strategies gives a response which both (a) satisfactorily explains all of the disagreement-data and (b) is plausible independent of significant evidence in favour of contextualism. I conclude that individualized indexical contextualism about the aesthetic is untenable, although this does not rule out alternative contextualist approaches to the aesthetic.

AB - In this paper I argue against one variety of contextualism about aesthetic predicates such as “beautiful.” Contextualist analyses of these and other predicates have been subject to several challenges surrounding disagreement. Focusing on one kind of contextualism—individualized indexical contextualism—I unpack these various challenges and consider the responses available to the contextualist. The three responses I consider are as follows: giving an alternative analysis of the concept of disagreement; claiming that speakers suffer from semantic blindness; and claiming that attributions of beauty carry presuppositions of commonality. I will argue that none of the available strategies gives a response which both (a) satisfactorily explains all of the disagreement-data and (b) is plausible independent of significant evidence in favour of contextualism. I conclude that individualized indexical contextualism about the aesthetic is untenable, although this does not rule out alternative contextualist approaches to the aesthetic.

U2 - 10.1007/s11098-010-9621-1

DO - 10.1007/s11098-010-9621-1

M3 - Article

VL - 157

SP - 107

EP - 123

JO - Philosophical Studies

JF - Philosophical Studies

SN - 0031-8116

IS - 1

ER -