Tag: Justification

Anaphora and Prosentences

This will conclude an examination of Brandom’s early programmatic work “Assertion and Conceptual Roles”. At one point he pithily comments that he is developing an account of saying that does not depend on a prior account of naming. Once again, at a broad level I think that is also something that Aristotle does. Saying viewed this way is more oriented toward valuation than toward representation.

I would suggest that naming is a kind of shorthand for a description or classification that is sufficient to pick something out from other things in the applicable context. What a name cannot be counted on to do is to unambiguously specify an essence or an adequate definition. The very first topic raised in Aristotle’s Categories — which was traditionally placed first in the order of instruction — is “things said in many ways”.

The young Brandom says, “Our strategy now is to use the conditionals we have constructed to develop precise representations of the conceptual contents sentences acquire in virtue of playing a material inferential role in some justificatory system. The most sophisticated use of the notion of a conceptual role has been made by Sellars, who in Science and Metaphysics and elsewhere develops a theory of meaning couched in terms of dot-quoted expressions, where such dot-quotation of an expression results in a term referring to the conceptual (inferential-justificatory) role of that expression” (p. 34).

Every concept worth its salt carries its justification with it. We don’t properly understand an expression if we are unable to justify its use. As Aristotle says, the mark of knowing something is the ability to explain why it is the case. I would maintain that there isn’t any knowing “never you mind how”. The latter is rather the mark of what Plato calls mere opinion.

“According to the present view, it is the defining task of a logic or logical construction that it make possible the explicit codification in a conceptual role of what is implicit in the inferential and justificatory employment of an expression…. [C]onceptual roles in Frege’s and Sellars’ sense can be expressed, using the conditionals of our formal logic not only as the means of expression of roles, but also as providing the model according to which we understand such roles.”

On this view, ordinary if-then reasoning turns out to be a kind of key to understanding meaning. But considerable care is required in working out the details. The conditional that codifies material inferences has different detailed behavior than the common one based on a truth table, and that is a good thing, because the truth table one has significant defects.

“The key to this line of thought is the observation that the only sentences whose roles we understand explicitly are the conditionals. We understand them because we constructed them, stipulating their introduction conditions, and deriving the consequences of such introduction (the validity of detachment)” (ibid).

If-then conditionals allow us to explicitly express the reasons and dependencies that implicitly guide judgment and thought.

“We propose to generalize this clear case, and conceive the mastery of the use of an expression which one must exhibit in order to properly be said to understand it (‘grasp’ its conceptual role) as consisting of two parts, knowing when one is entitled to apply the expression, and knowing what the appropriate consequences of such application are (what justifies using the expression, and what inferences one licenses by so doing). Applying the expression is thus assimilated to performing an inference from the circumstances of appropriate application of the expression to the consequences of its application” (ibid).

But “applying the expression” is just what assertion is. By these lights, every asserting is an inferring.

“On this model, suggested by the later Carnap’s use of partial reduction forms, the conceptual role of any expression is the pair of its circumstances of appropriate application and the consequences of such application, that is, of its (individually) sufficient conditions and of its (jointly) necessary conditions. The application of that expression is to be thought of as an inference from the former to the latter. Assertion thus becomes a limiting case of inference” (p. 35).

It is inference that grounds assertion, not the reverse. Only through inference can anyone understand the significance of an assertion.

“More must be said, however, about the ramifications of taking conditionals to be the models for the conceptual roles of basic sentences, insasmuch as our strategy has been to construct a conditional as stating explicitly (as a license) what is implicit in an inference from its antecedent to its consequent, and then to assimilate the content of basic statements to the model of these constructed conditional statements” (ibid).

“In general, one might think that it was incoherent or circular to define the contents of the categorical sentences of an idiom in terms of the contents of hypothetical sentences of that idiom…. Our construction avoids this worry, since we define conditionals in terms of the contents of basic sentences only in the sense in which those contents are implicit in the informal inferential practices which are the use of the basic sentences.” (pp. 35-36).

Kant already questioned the primitiveness of categorical judgments. My take is that they constitute a form of shorthand for what are really reasonings or interpretations.

“Nor is there anything peculiar about taking a sub-class of sentences as the paradigms to which all others are assimilated in a theory of meaning. Frege, for instance, treats all sentences as implicit identity statements (involving names of the True or the False)…. Thus Frege constructs a theory of meaning based on terms explicated with the logical device of identity, where we base our account on sentences explicated by means of the logical device of conditionals” (p. 36).

Brandom has a complex relation to Frege, championing some of his early work and questioning some of his later work.

“We attempt to give a direct account of saying and what is said which does not appeal to naming and what is named” (ibid).

“This is the essential difference between conceptual role semantics inspired by the sort of concerns articulated by the later Wittgenstein, and referential semantics inspired by Frege” (ibid).

“As Dummett points out, the later Frege broke from previous logicians in treating logic not as the study of inference, but of a special kind of truth…. This view seems to have been motivated by his presentation of logic as an axiomatic system, where some truths are stipulated and other truths are derived from them by a minimum of purely formal inferential principles. The philosophical critique in terms of linguistic practice of the distinction between meaning-constitutive stipulated truths and empirically discovered truths, together with Gentzen’s achievement of parity of formal power between proof-theoretic methods of studying consequence relations and the truth-oriented methods epitomized by matrix interpretations … require us to reassess the relations of explanatory priority between the notions of inference and truth” (p. 36).

Brandom makes a good case for seeing the early Frege as a proto-inferentialist concerned with the formalization of material inference. The later Frege propounded an original and rather strange notion of truth and truth-values as foundational. He held that truth is a (unique) object referred to by all true statements, rather than a property.

“One of Frege’s achievements is his formulation of the principle of semantic explanation, according to which the appropriateness of a form of inference is to be accounted for by showing that it never leads from true premises to conclusions which are not true. The usual way in which to exploit this principle is to begin with an account of truth (typically in representational or referential terms) and partition a space of abstractly possible inferences and forms of inference into those which are appropriate and those which are not appropriate according to the semantic principle, as Frege does in the Begriffschrift. Our approach in effect reverses this order of explanation, beginning analysis with a set of appropriate inferences and explaining semantic interpretants, including truth-values, in terms of them” (pp. 36-37).

The idea of this “principle of explanation” is that sound reasoning from true premises cannot yield a false conclusion. This is not a fact, but a definition that also has characteristics of a Kantian imperative. It is up to us to make it true.

He considers possible objections to the idea of treating hypothetical judgments as more originary than categorical judgments. This should not be taken to apply at the level of truths. In a similar vein, he also says that what our words mean does not determine what we believe.

“Just as it is implausible to take what is possible as determining what is actual, so it is implausible to take the totality of conditional truths as determining the totality of unconditional truths. Indeed, the possession by a formal system of this semantic property would be a strong reason to take its conditional as not a reasonable rendering of the English hypothetical construction ‘if … then’. Embarrassingly enough, the standard truth-functional (mis-named ‘material’) conditional which Frege employs has just this property, namely that if the truth-values of all of the conditionals of the language are settled, then the truth-values of all the sentences of the language are settled. This is proven in Appendix II” (p. 37).

This surprising proof really turns things around. I suppose this result is related to the concerns about “logical omniscience” in classical logic. It is not reasonable to suppose that if a human knows A, then she necessarily knows all the consequences of A. But this is independent of the question of whether we really know anything unconditionally (I tend to think not). There is a also question whether we are properly said to “know” abstract tautologies like A = A, without necessarily knowing what A is (I am inclined to use some other word than knowledge for these cases).

“Our genuine conditional, introduced as codifying a set of non-formal inferences, will not have this undesirable property…. We avoid that result by taking the principle that appropriate inference should never lead from true premises to conclusions which are not true as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for appropriateness of inference. The truth-functional conditional results from taking the principle to provide sufficient conditions as well” (ibid).

Again, this falls within the tradition of alternative, “better” definitions of implication.

“Taking Frege’s semantic explanatory principle as a necessary condition on an account of inferential relations settles that the primary semantic notion will be whatever it is that is preserved by appropriate inferences. Frege calls this ‘truth’, but abstractly there are other properties which could also play this role (e.g., justificatory responsibility) and there are good reasons to expect an adequate semantic theory to account as well for the preservation of ‘relevance’ of some kind by appropriate inferences. This primary semantic notion, however, pertains only to the use of a sentence as a free-standing assertive utterance. A full notion of sentential content must specify as well the role a sentence has as a component in other, compound, sentences, paradigmatically in conditionals. It cannot be determined a priori that these two roles coincide. If with Frege we take the first semantic property to be a truth-value either possessed or not by any sentence, then the assumption that the second or componential notion coincides with the first results in classic two-valued truth-functional logic” (p. 38).

It is noteworthy that even the later Frege’s concern in this context was with “whatever it is that is preserved by appropriate inferences”.

He has previously used the term “designatedness”, which names that “whatever it is that inference preserves” that plays a role in multi-valued logics broadly analogous to that played by truth in two-valued logics.

“[M]any-valued semantics requires the assignment to each sentence of two different sorts of semantic interpretant: a designatedness value indicating possession or lack by a sentence used as a free-standing utterance of the property which appropriate inference must preserve, and a multivalue codifying the contribution the sentence makes to the designatedness value of compound sentences containing it, according to the principle … Two sentences have the same multivalue if and only if they are intersubstitutable salva designatedness value in every sort of compound sentence” (p. 39).

He relates the current development to technical work on the algebraic interpretation of logics.

“A matrix is characteristic for a logic if it verifies just the theorems of that logic. Lindenbaum showed that every logic has a characteristic matrix, namely the one gotten by taking the set of multivalues to be classes of inferentially equivalent sentences, and the designated multivalues to be the theorems of the logic in question” (ibid).

“We are now in a position to notice that a repertoire, together with the partial ordering induced on the sentences of a repertoire by the conditionals contained in its formally expanded consequence extension constitute such a Lindenbaum matrix” (ibid).

The conditional as Brandom has defined it provably meets Frege’s criterion of inference preservation. Brandom has extended algebraic logic to include patterns of material inference.

“Theorem 1 above shows that modus ponens preserves designatedness, that is membership in the extended repertoire. Or, to put the same point another way, that result shows that our constructed conditional satisfies Frege’s semantic explanatory principle when membership in a repertoire is taken as the prime semantic notion, and social practice determines an antecedent class of appropriate material inferences. The formally extended repertoire thus is, in a precise sense, the characteristic semantic matrix not for a logic or a set of formal inferences, but for a set of material inferences” (p. 40).

“There are three specific points which should be made concerning this interpretation. First, what is captured by semantic matrices is taken to be a matter of formal inferences first, and logical truths verified by the matrix only second, although this is not how such matrices are usually thought of. Second, we generalize the notion of a characteristic matrix for a set of formal inferences to apply to material inferences as well. Finally, notice that in addition to the structure of material inference codified in each repertoire-matrix we can in fact identify a logic with regard to the whole idiom, insofar as some complicated conditionals will appear in all repertoires. We have not constructed a characteristic matrix for this logic by ordering the sentences of the language according to repertoire-designated conditionals. In some ways it is accordingly more appropriate to say that each repertoire expresses a single matrix valuation characteristic of a set of material inferences, and that the whole idiom comprising all admissible repertoires is characteristic of the formal or logical inferences involving the conditional we used to make explicit the materially appropriate inferences” (ibid).

“In this way, then, we can exploit Frege’s semantic explanatory principle and the truth-oriented matrix semantics it inspired as theoretical auxiliaries useful in the formal analysis of a socially specified set of appropriate inferences” (ibid).

“Seeing logic in the way I have been recommending, however, as a formal tool for the explicit expression of inferential roles, obviates the need for appealing to prior notions of truth or truth-value. We have interpreted Frege’s truth-values as they figure in his semantic principle first as the designatedness values of multivalued logic, and then moving from concern with the codification of formal inference to concern with the codification of material inference, interpreted as expressing membership in a repertoire. Recalling the social practical origins of these repertoires, it would be appropriate to call the two circumstances of membership and non-membership in a particular repertoire assertibility values with respect to that repertoire. We have given a much more precise sense to this term than semantic theorists who advocate the primacy of assertibility over truth typically manage to do, however” (pp. 40-41).

“We represent the matrix valuation on the language induced by a formally expanded repertoire by associating with each sentence its repertoire-relative conceptual role, consisting of inferential circumstances and consequences of assertion. It is clear that this is an adequate representation in that this set of roles, together with the repertoire generating them, determines the partial order of the language by the conditional which is the Lindenbaum matrix. These conceptual roles are thus taken as multivalues, with repertoire membership identified as designatedness with respect to the semantic principle. The multivalues must, of course, determine compounding behavior according to our motivation…. It is … a criterion of adequacy of this representation that sentences with the same conceptual role, that is, multivalue, should be intersubstitutable in conditionals preserving both designatedness values and multivalues” (p. 41).

So far he has focused on a notion of the conditional that is a primitive “arrow” rather than something defined by a truth table. He briefly considers how to define other connectives that work off of the designatedness that plays a truth-like role in multi-valued logics, but again affirms the special importance of conditionals.

” ‘Truth-functional’ connectives can now be introduced using designatedness values as the extensions of sentences…. We would like to be able to semantically interpret all forms of sentence compounding by means of functions taking conceptual roles, or sets of them, into conceptual roles, as we can do for conditionals…. Our use of the conditional as both the model of and a tool for the expression of conceptual roles embodies the belief that the contribution a sentence makes to the roles of conditional it is a component in suffices to determine its role in other compounds” (p. 42).

He quotes Frege saying that the kernel of the problem of judgment splits into that of truth and that of what he calls “a thought”, which refers to some declarative content. Given Frege’s unitary view of “truth”, this thought-content identified with saying and conceptual roles has to be responsible for all differentiation.

“By a thought, Frege makes clear, is intended what is referred to in English by that-p clauses. We have identified these judged contents as conceptual roles. In what follows, we try to exhibit a representative variety of uses of such that-p clauses in terms of conceptual roles” (p. 43).

Finally we come to prosentences.

“Our starting point is the prosentential theory of truth of Grover, Camp, and Belnap. That account can best be sketched as the product of three different lines of thought: i) the redundancy theory of Ramsey and others, which says that the conceptual content of ‘it is true that-p‘ is always just the same as that of p…. ii) an account of truth in terms of infinite conjunctions and disjunctions…. [T]he best succinct statement of this view is in Putnam’s Meaning and the Moral Sciences…. ‘If we had a meta-language with infinite conjunctions and infinite disjunctions (countable infinite) we wouldn’t need “true”!…. [F]or example, we could say … “He said ‘P1‘ & P1” (ibid).

“iii) Finally, and this is what is distinctive to the view under discussion, it is observed that pronouns serve two sorts of purposes. In their lazy use, … they may simply be replaced by their antecedents (salva conceptual role). In their quantificational use, as in ‘Each positive number is such that if it is even, adding it to 1 yields an odd number’, the semantic role of the pronoun is determined by a set of admissible substituends (in turn determined by the pronomial antecedent)” (p. 44).

“Thus ‘Everything he said is true’ is construed as a quantificational prosentence, which picks up from its anaphoric antecedent a set of admissible substituends (things that he said), and is semantically equivalent to their conjunction” (ibid).

“The authors of the prosentential theory are concerned that ‘is true’ be taken to be a fragment of a prosentence, not a predicate which characterizes sentence-nominalization…. The authors are worried that if the first part of a sentence of the form ‘X is true’ is taken to be a referring sentential nominalization that, first, ‘is true’ will inevitably be taken to be a predicate, and second, the anaphoric prosentential reference of the whole sentence will be passed over in favor of the view that the nominalization does all the referring that gets done, and would vitiate the view” (p. 45).

“In fact this is a situation in which we can have our cake and eat it too. We consider ‘X is true’ as composed of a sentence nominalization X which refers to sentences, and a prosentence-forming operator ‘is true’.” (ibid).

“Our construction of conceptual roles in terms of conditionals of course presents natural criteria of adequacy for translation functions between repertoires contained in a single idiom, or which are members of different idioms” (p. 51).

“We show now how those semantic facts about the idiom can be expressed explicitly as the content of claims made within that idiom. We use the logical vocabulary of conditionals and repertoire attributions we have already constructed to define a further bit of expressive machinery, that-clauses, which will thus have a logical function in making explicit semantic features implicit in the idiom” (p. 53).

“[T]he account of conceptual roles is novel in being entirely non-representational. In the formal idiom we develop, it is not a necessary feature of a saying that-p that the sentence involved represent some state of affairs. Of course sentences used to say things may also be representations, and this fact might be crucial for the understanding of the use of language in empirical inquiry. But our model is broader, and we may hope that it can find application in the explication of other forms of discourse (e.g., literary and political discourse) where the representational paradigm is less apt than it perhaps is for scientific idioms” (p. 55).

“Perhaps the most important feature of our account is the crucial place given to logic, as providing the formal means by which an idiom can come to express explicitly crucial semantic facts which are implicit in the system of justificatory practices which are the use of a language. We argued that the function thus assigned to logic as a formal auxiliary in a theory of meaning is that which Frege originally envisioned and pursued. Our own development looked at he codification of inferential practices in conditionals in some detail, and somewhat less closely at the codification of repertoires in prosentences containing ‘is true’ and in propositional attitudes, and at the codification of roles in ‘that’-clauses. The basic claim here is that logic must not be restricted to the analysis of the meanings sentences acquire in virtue of the formal inferences they are subject to, as is the usual procedure). Logic should not be viewed as an autonomous discipline in this way, but as a tool for the analysis of material inference, and for making explicit the roles played by sentences in systems of material inferential practice. Using logical devices so interpreted, we were able to specify not only what role a performance needs to play in a system of social practices in order to be a saying (asserting, professing, claiming, etc.) that-p, but also to show what it is about that system of practices in virtue of which the content of such a saying can be that someone else has said (asserted, etc.) something. Indeed the only sort of ‘aboutness’ we ever employ is the reference of one bit of discourse to another (anaphoric reference if performance or sentence tokens are at issue, and mediated by conceptual roles otherwise)” (pp. 55-56).

When Aristotle discusses saying something about something, implicitly that second something is also something said. This phrase refers to that phrase. The kind of reference that is most relevant in all this is what I think of as constitutive cross-reference, or as Brandom calls it, back-reference or anaphora. Less adequately, it has been called “self” reference, but if we examine this closely, it does not involve a unitary self or a pure undifferentiated reflexivity, but rather parts referring to other parts.

Conceptual content emerges out of a sea of cross-reference. A constitutive molecular cross-reference of Fregean declarative “thoughts” or “content” or Aristotelian “sayings” precedes sedimentation into molar subjects and objects.

Epilogue to this series: Anaphora and Reason Relations

Conditionals and Conceptual Roles

Saying something is more than the material fact of emitting sounds in conventionalized patterns. We ought to be able to say more about that “more”.

This is part two of a look at an early programmatic document in which Brandom first develops his highly original approach to meaning and logic. Brandom’s “logical expressivism” treats logic as a tool for explaining meaning, rather than a discipline with its own distinctive subject matter. That logic is such a tool and not a science is an Aristotelian view (or, I would say, insight) that has been mostly ignored by subsequent traditions.

The dominant modern tradition treats meaning as representation by pointing or reference. But pointing is rather trivial and uninformative. By contrast, I normally think of meaning in terms of something to be interpreted. But this hermeneutic approach tends to focus attention on concrete details. Brandom ambitiously wants to say meaningful things about meaning in general, and I think he succeeds.

As in the first installment, I will continue to focus on the discursive parts of the text, while skirting around the formal development. (There is more formal logical development in this text than anywhere else in Brandom’s corpus, at least until this year’s publication of the collaborative work Reasons for Logic, Logic for Reasons, which returns to the current text’s aim of implementing his program of logical expressivism.)

Brandom begins with the early work of Frege, who pioneered modern mathematical logic.

“To make out the claim that the systems of social practices we have described implicitly define assertion, we need to supplement that account of assertings with a story about the contents which are thereby asserted. Our starting point is Frege’s discussion in the Begriffschrift, where the distinction between force and content was first established…. First, Frege identifies conceptual content with inferential role or potential. It is his project to find a notation which will allow us to express these precisely. Second, sentences have conceptual contents in virtue of facts about the appropriateness of material inferences involving them. The task of the logical apparatus of the conceptual notation which Frege goes on to develop is to make it possible to specify explicitly the conceptual contents which are implicit in a set of possible inferences which are presupposed when Frege’s logician comes on the scene. The task of logic is thus set as an expressive one, to codify just those aspects of sentences which affect their inferential potential in some pre-existing system” (“Assertion and Conceptual Roles”, p. 21).

Meaningful “content” is to be identified with the inferential roles of things said, which are each in turn defined by the pair consisting of the conditions of their application and the consequences of their application. The novelty of what is expressed here is tactfully understated by the reference to “facts” about the appropriateness of material inferences. This tends to downplay the “fact” that the inquiry into conditions of application is really a normative inquiry into judgments about appropriateness more than an inquiry into facts.

What is being said here also needs to be sharply distinguished from the nihilistic claim that there are no facts. There are facts, and they need to be respected. The point is that this respect for facts ought to be opposed to taking them for granted.

“We will derive conceptual contents from the systems of practices of inference, justification, and assertion described above. Following the Fregean philosophy of logic, we do so by introducing formal logical concepts as codifications of material inferential practices. First we show how conditionals can be introduced into a set of practices of using basic sentences, so as to state explicitly the inference license which the assertion of one sentence which becomes the antecedent of the conditional can issue for the assertion of another (the consequent of the conditional). With conditionals constructed so as to capture formally the material inferential potential of basic sentences, we then show how conceptual contents expressed in terms of such conditionals can be associated with basic sentences on the model of the introduction and elimination rules for compound sentence forms like the conditional” (ibid).

Introduction and elimination rules are characteristic of the natural deduction and sequent calculi due to Gentzen. This style of formalization — common in proof theory, type theory, and the theory of programming languages — is distinctive in that it is formulated entirely in terms of specified inference rules, without any axioms or assumed truths.

Until Sellars and Brandom, modern logic was considered to be entirely about formal inference. Brandom argues that the early Frege correctly treated it instead as about the formalization of material inference. Brandom also endorses Quine’s logical holism against atomistic bottom-up views like that defended by Russell.

“We cannot in general talk about ‘the consequences’ of a claim (for instance, that the moon is made of green cheese) without somehow specifying a context of other claims against the background of which such consequences can be drawn. (Can we use what we know about the mammalian origins of cheese and take as a consequence that at one time the moon was made of milk, for instance?) Quine, in “Two Dogmas [of Empiricism]”, may be seen as arguing against the possibility of an atomistic theory of meaning (e.g. one which assigns to every sentence its ‘conceptual content’) that such meanings must at least determine the inferential roles of sentences, and that the roles of each sentence in a ‘web of belief’ depends on what other sentences inhabit that same web. In particular, whether anything counts as evidence for or against a certain claim … depends on what other sentences are held concurrently. Given any sentence, … and given any second sentence there will be some webs in which the second counts as evidence for the first, and some where it counts as evidence against the first, where what ‘web of belief’ is considered determines what other sentences are available as auxiliary hypotheses for inferences. Accepting the general Fregean line that meanings as theoretical constructs are postulated to express inferential potentials, Quine reminds us of basic facts about our inferential practices … to impugn the comprehensibility of assignments of conceptual role to individual sentences, unrelativized to some doxastic context. Conceptual roles can only be specified relative to a set of other sentences which are all and only those which can be used as auxiliary hypotheses, that is, as Quine puts it, at the level of whole theories-cum-languages, not at the level of individual sentences” (pp. 22-23).

Much of the ensuing discussion will revolve around conditionals, and what logicians call the implicational fragment of a logic, in which only implication is considered. This is a kind of minimal form for what constitutes a logic — if you specify a notion of implication, you have a logic. But the common modern truth-table definition of implication has been criticized from many quarters. Much work has been done on the precise definition of alternate or “better” notions of implication. This is one of the things Brandom will be doing here.

One of the most important questions about implication is whether it is “primitive” — i.e., something in terms of which other things are defined, which is itself considered to be defined only operationally (indirectly, by its use) — or whether it is to be defined in terms of something else, such as a truth table. For instance, category theory (by which all of mathematics can be interpreted) can be elaborated entirely in terms of primitive “arrows” or morphisms, which generalize both the notion of a mathematical function and that of logical implication. Arrow logics, which generalize modal logic, also start from a primitive notion of arrows. Later in this text, Brandom will develop his own notion of arrows as a primitive, alternate form of implication.

In the context of the debate about holism and atomism, it is interesting to consider the scholastic practice of debating for and against individual propositions. At top level, it seems atomistic, in that the propositions are taken up one at a time. But at a detailed level, the arguments turn out to be mostly about the consequences of accepting or rejecting the proposition under discussion. Brandom will argue that propositions are to be understood by the combination of their consequences and their conditions of appropriate use.

He turns to the question of what assertion is. The novelty here is that assertion will be explained in terms of primitive conditionals, rather than treated as primitive.

“The first step in our account of the semantic contents or conceptual roles sentences acquire in virtue of being used according to the practices expressed in some idiom is the introduction of some logical vocabulary. We understand the inference-licensing function of assertion by our model of justificatory systems of social practices. We will introduce the conditional as a compound sentence-form constructed out of the basic sentences on which some idiom is defined. The conceptual content of the conditionals will be stipulated; a sentence of the form p→q is to have as content the inference-license of a statement of the appropriateness of an inference from the assertion of p to the assertion of q. Various formal inferential connections between such conditional sentences will then be elicited. For these formal principles to comprise a logic is for them to make possible the explicit formal codification of the material inferential and justificatory practices of some conceptual idiom. This is the task Frege sets for logic in the Begriffschrift — although in that work he succeeded only in completely codifying the formal inferences involving his logical constructions, his discussion makes clear that the ultimate criterion of adequacy for his conceptual notation is its capacity to express explicitly and precisely the contextual material inferences which define the conceptual roles of non-logical sentences” (p. 23).

We see here too some of the motivation for focusing on compound sentences — all sentences that include explicit conditionals are compound. But according to his analysis, it will turn out that simple sentences of the form “A is B” implicitly express a sort of minimal form of material inference.

I would suggest that the allegedly unconditional or categorical judgment “A is B” is best understood as a kind of shorthand for a judgment like A(x)→B(x). Aristotle’s concern with sayings leads him to treat the sentences that express propositions in a non-atomic way. He glosses “A is B” as expressing “combination” and “A is not B” as expressing “separation”. I have suggested that “combination” could be read as a relation of material consequence, and “separation” as a relation of material incompatibility. This means that for Aristotle too, a proposition can be considered a kind of minimal material inference. (See Aristotelian Propositions.)

“Once the conditional has been introduced as codifying the consequence relation implicit in material inferential practice, and its formal logical properties have been presented, we will use such conditionals both as models for the conceptual roles of non-logical sentences (which will have analogues of introduction and elimination rules, and will be given content as licensing inferences from their circumstances of appropriate application to the consequences of such application) and as tools for making those roles explicit” (ibid).

Treating conditionals as models for the conceptual roles of simple “non-logical” sentences like “A is B” begins from the intuition that these simple assertions are the potential antecedents or consequents of inferences, and that this role in possible inferences is what gives them specifiable meaning.

“We may think of the relation between basic and extended repertoires in a conceptual idiom as defining a consequence function on admissible sets of sentences. For the extended repertoire … comprises just those sentences which an individual would socially be held responsible for (in the sense that the relevant community members would recognize anaphoric deference of justificatory responsibility for claims of those types to that individual) in virtue of the dispositions that individual displays explicitly to undertake such responsibility for the sentences in his basic repertoire. The extended repertoire consists of those claims the community takes him to be committed to by being prepared to assert the claims in his basic repertoire. These community practices thus induce a consequence function which takes any admissible basic repertoire and assigns to it its consequence extension. The function only represents the consequences of individual sentences relative to some context, since we know what the consequences are of p together with all the other sentences in a basic repertoire containing p, but so far have no handle on which of these various consequences might ‘belong’ to p. Thus we have just the sort of material inferential relations Frege presupposes when he talks of the inferences which can be drawn from a given judgment ‘when combined with certain other ones’…. The idiom also expresses a material consistency relation…. The sets which are not idiomatically admissible repertoires are sets of sentences which one cannot have the right simultaneously to be disposed to assert, according to the practices … of the community from which the idiom is abstracted. The final component of a conceptual idiom as we have defined it is the conversational accessibility relation between repertoires” (pp. 23-24).

The accessibility relation will turn out to correspond to whether a sentence makes sense or is categorial nonsense like “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”.

“Given such an idiom defined on a set of non-logical sentences, we will add conditional sentences p → q to each of the consequence-extended repertoires in which, intuitively, p is inferentially sufficient for q, in such a way that the newly minted sentences have the standard inferential consequences of conditionals such that this formal swelling of the original repertoires is inferentially conservative, that is does not permit any material inferences which were not already permitted in the original idiom” (p. 24).

He defines an idiom as a triple consisting of a set of sets of sentences or basic repertoires, a function from basic repertoires to their consequence extensions, and a function from repertoires to the other repertoires “accessible” from each.

“Recalling the constitutive role of recognitions by accessible community members in determining consequence relations, we may further define p as juridically (inferentially) stronger than q at some repertoire R just in case p is actually stronger than q at every repertoire S accessible from R. This natural modal version of inferential sufficiency will be our semantic introduction rule for conditional sentences…. The conditional thus has a particular content in the context of a given repertoire, a content determined by the inferential roles played by its antecedent and consequent” (p. 25).

“We must show that the important formal properties of idioms are preserved by the introduction of conditionals, and that the conditionals so introduced have appropriate properties. In order to permit sentences with more than one arrow in them, we must swell the basic idiom with conditionals first, and then iterate the process adding conditionals which can have first-order conditionals as antecedents or consequents, and so on, showing that the relevant properties of conceptual idioms are preserved at each stage. Our procedure is this. Starting with a basic idiom …, we define a new idiom … with repertoires defined not just over the original set of non-logical sentences, but also containing first-order conditionals, as well as consequence and accessibility relations between them. The same procedure is repeated, and eventually we collect all the results” (ibid).

“The properties of conceptual idioms which must be preserved at each stage in this construction are these. First is the extension condition, that for any admissible repertoire R, R [is a subset of its consequence extension]. The motive for this condition is that the consequence extension c(R) of R is to represent those claims one is taken to be committed to in virtue of being prepared explicitly to take responsibility for the members of R, and certainly one has committed oneself to the claim one asserts, and licenses the trivial inference which is re-assertion justified by anaphoric deferral to one’s original performance. Second of the properties of conceptual idioms which we make use of is the interpolation condition, which specifies that any basic repertoire R which can be exhibited as the result of adding to some other repertoire S sentences each of which is contained in the consequence extension of S, has as its consequence extension c(R) just the set c(S).” (pp. 25-26).

“The idempotence of the consequence function, that for all [repertoires in the domain], c(c(R)) = c(R), is a consequence of the interpolation property. Of course this is a desirable circumstance, since we want idempotence in the relation which is interpreted as the closure under material inference (as constituted by social attributions of justificatory responsibility) of admissible basic repertoires” (p. 26).

“The consequence relation is contextual, in that a change in the total evidence which merely adds to that evidence may entail the denial of some claims which were consequences of the evidential subset. Allowing such a possibility is crucial for codifying material inferential practices, which are almost always defeasible by the introduction of some auxiliary hypothesis or other…. [B]oth ‘If I strike this match, it will light’, and ‘If I strike this match and I am under water, it will not light’, can be true and justified. Denying monotonicity (that if [one repertoire is a subset of another], then [its consequence extension is a subset of the consequence extension of the other]) forces our logic to take account of the relativity of material inference to total evidence at the outset, with relativity to context made an explicit part of the formalism instead of leaving that phenomenon to the embarrassed care of ceteris paribus [other things being equal] clauses because standard conditionals capture only formal inference, which is not context-sensitive” (p. 27).

Real things are in general sensitive to context, whereas formal logical tautologies are not.

Monotonicity is a property of logics such that if a conclusion follows from a set of premises, no addition of another premise will invalidate it. This is good for pure mathematics, but does not hold for material inference or any kind of causal reasoning, where context matters. The match will light if you strike it, but not if you strike it and it is wet, and so on.

“We are now in a position to investigate the logic of the arrow which this formal, non-substantive expansion of the basic idiom induces. To do so, we look at the sentences which are idiomatically valid, in that every repertoire in the formally expanded idiom contains these sentences in its consequence extension. First, and as an example, we show that if p is in some consequence-extended repertoire, and p→q is also in that repertoire, then so is q, that is, that modus ponens is supported by the arrow” (p. 29).

What he calls a basic repertoire is defined by some set of simple beliefs, assumptions, or presumed facts, with no specifically logical operations defined on it. Non-substantive expansion leaves these unchanged, but adds logical operations or rules.

At this point he proves that modus ponens (the rule that p and (p implies q) implies q, which he elsewhere refers to as “detachment” of q) applies to the conditional as he has specified it. Additional theorems are proved in an appendix.

“[T]he most unusual feature of the resulting logic is its two-class structure, treating conditionals whose antecedents are other conditionals rather differently from the way in which it treats conditionals involving only basic sentences. This feature is a direct consequence of the introduction of first-order conditionals based on material inferential circumstances of the repertoire in question, and higher-order conditionals according to purely formal, materially conservative criteria. Thus it is obvious from inspection of the … steps of our construction of the hierarchy of conditionals that the complement of basic sentences in a consequence extended repertoire is never altered during that construction, and that the novel repertoires introduced always have first-order restrictions which are elements of the original set…. Higher-order conditionals, of course, are what are added to the original idiom, and … those conditionals obey a standard modal logic. The principles governing conditionals with basic sentences as antecedents or consequents, however, are those of the pure implicational fragment of Belnap and Anderson’s system EI of entailment” (ibid).

Belnap and Anderson worked on relevance logic, which restricts valid inference to the case where premises are relevant to the conclusion. The premises of a material inference are always “relevant” in this sense. Formal inference on the other hand doesn’t care what the underlying terms or propositions are. It is entirely governed by the abstractly specified behavior of the formal operators, whereas material inference is entirely governed by the “content” of constituent terms or propositions.

That there would be two distinct kinds of conditionals — first-order ones that formally codify material inferences, and higher-order ones that operate on other conditionals in a purely formal way — seems consonant with other cases in which there is a qualitative difference between first-order things and second-order things, but no qualitative difference between second-order and nth-order for any finite n.

“We may view the conditionals which end up included in the consequence extensions of formally extended repertoires as partially ordering all of the sentences of the (syntactically specified) language. Since according to our introduction rule, a repertoire will contain conditionals whose antecedents and consequents are not contained in that (extended) repertoire, the ordering so induced is not limited to the sentences of the repertoire from which the ordering conditionals are drawn. Although the conditional induces an appropriately transitive and reflexive relation on the sentences of the language, the ordering will not be total (since for some p, q and R [in the domain], it may be that neither p→q nor q→p is in c(R)), and it will not be complete, in that sentences appearing only in inaccessible repertoires will have only trivial implication relations (e.g. p→p)” (ibid).

“The conditionals which do not have antecedents in c(R) are counterfactual with respect to R. These are of three kinds: i) those taken true by the theory codified in the repertoire, that is, counterfactuals in c(R), ii) those taken not to be true, i.e. conditionals not in c(R) but on which R induces non-trivial entailments, and iii) inaccessible counterfactuals, assigned no significance by the extended repertoire (e.g. ‘If the number seventeen were a dry, well-made match’, an antecedent generating counterfactuals which, with respect to a certain set of beliefs or repertoire simply makes no sense). Entailment relations between counterfactuals of the first two kinds and between each of them and base sentences will be underwritten by the induced partial ordering, all depending on the original material inferential practices involving only base sentences” (pp. 29-30).

There are many counterfactuals that we take to be true. For example, if I had left earlier, I would have arrived earlier. In fact counterfactuals are essential to any truth that has any robustness. Without counterfactuals, what Brandom is calling an idiom could apply only to some exactly specified set of facts or true statements. This would makes it very brittle and narrowly applicable. For example, any kind of causal reasoning requires counterfactuals, because causes are expected to operate under a range of circumstances, which by definition cannot all hold at the same time. Counterfactuals play an important role in Brandom’s later work.

“The repertoire which induces such a partial ordering by its conditionals will then be a distinguished subset of the sentences it orders, one which Theorem 1 assures us is deductively closed under modus ponens. Each repertoire is in short a theory or set of beliefs, embedded in a larger linguistic structure defining the implications of the sentences in that theory. Not only do different repertoires codify different theories, but they assign different significances to syntactically type-identical sentences of those theories, in that p as an element of c(R) may have one set of inferential consequences, and as an element of c(R’) have a different set of consequences. The repertoires ordered by their indigenous implication relations thus deserve to be called ‘webs of belief’ in Quine’s sense, as the smallest units of analysis within which sentences have significance. The idiom, comprising all of these repertorial structures of implicational significance and embedded belief, is not a set of meanings common and antecedent to the repertoires, but is the structure within which each such web of belief is a linguistic perspective made possible by a justificatory system of social practices” (p. 30).

Each repertoire counts as a “theory” or set of beliefs.

“The systematic variation of the significance of those sentences from one individual to another expressed in a formally expanded idiom then exactly answers to whatever communication is going on in the original set of practices. The possibility of communication consists in [a] kind of coordination of significances across repertoires codified in a formally expanded idiom” (p. 31).

The success or failure of communication depends on something like a kind of translation from your repertoire to mine.

“We have described the practical origins and effects of elements of extended repertoires which are first-order sentences of the language, in terms of attributions and undertakings of justificatory responsibility and the issuing and recognition of inferential authority. What, in these terms, should we take to be the significance of a conditional p→q? The presence of such a conditional in the formally expanded consequence extension of the repertoire exhibited by an individual should signify, first, that that individual recognizes others who are prepared to assert p as licensing the inference to q, and, second, that he recognizes the assertion of p as justifying the assertion of q” (p. 32).

“So if all those recognized by the individual exhibiting R are responsible for the conditional p→q and p [is in] c(R), then q [is in] c(R), which means that p→q plays the proper role as codifying the recognition of inferential licensing and appropriate justification of q by p” (ibid).

“Finally, we state a more general condition under which the arrow we have defined will be a practically complete expression of a justificatory system” (ibid).

Next in this series: Anaphora and Prosentences

What Meaning Is

Brandom has characterized the focus of his interests as the theory of meaning. Recent additions to his website include a fascinating 1980 typescript “Assertion and Conceptual Roles”. This early piece has a programmatic character. It goes even further than the 1976 dissertation in anticipating the leading ideas of his major works. (I will omit the also interesting mathematical-logical formalization that he experiments with here, but steers away from in Making It Explicit and A Spirit of Trust.)

While Brandom is resolutely modern in his identifications, this sort of investigation was pioneered by Aristotle. Meaning and truth are approached in terms of a kind of normative “saying” that is up to us. But the paradigmatic kind of saying is what Aristotle calls “saying something about something”, so it is not entirely up to us. Finally, the paradigmatic use of language is dialogical, imbued with a Socratic ethic of dialogue and free-spirited inquiry. And what we most fundamentally are is dialogical talking animals.

As Brandom puts it in the first sentence, “The paradigmatic linguistic activity is saying that-p, in the sense of asserting, claiming, or stating that-p for some declarative sentence p” (p. 1).

Today “declarative” is also an important if ill-defined concept in the theory of programming languages, where its use has a close relation to the logical use that is given ethical significance here. In that context, it is often glossed as focusing on the what not the how (or the end and not the means), although that is a simplification.

The deep issue underneath both these disparate cases is something like the meaning of meaning. In what follows, I think Brandom makes some real progress in clarifying what is at stake. It has both ethical and formal dimensions.

“Frege shows in the Begriffschrift that the ways in which sentences can occur as significant constituents of other sentences require us to distinguish the content of such an assertion (what is asserted) and the force of the assertion (the asserting of that content). For when a sentence appears as the antecedent of a conditional, it must have something, let us call it the ‘content’, in common with its occurrence as a free-standing assertion, or there would be no justification for detaching the consequent of the conditional when one is prepared to assert its antecedent. On the other hand, the asserting of the conditional does not include the asserting of the antecedent, since the asserter of the conditional might well take the former to be true and the latter to be false. It is a criterion of adequacy for any account of either of these features of declarative discourse that it be compatible with some correct account of the other” (ibid).

I had not realized that the Fregean distinction of Sinn (sense or force) and Bedeutung (reference) arose in this context of reference relations between parts of compound sentences. It seems likely that this point attributed to Frege was a source for Michael Dummet’s work on compound sentences in which one part refers to another, which Brandom had made significant use of a few years earlier, in the dissertation. Dummet was a leading Frege scholar.

It strikes me also that in a formal context, this inter-reference between components of compound sentences could serve as an inductively definable and thus paradox-free version of “self” reference. In a more discursive, less formal context, it recalls Kantian-Hegelian “reflection” and other interesting weakenings of strict identity like Hegel’s “speculative” identity or Ricoeur’s “narrative” identity. Instead of a formally strict and thus empty global self-reference, it is a matter of specifiable internal cross-reference.

Further below, Brandom will explicitly connect this with the theme of anaphora or internal back-reference that he later develops at length in Making It Explicit as a way in which identities are constituted out of difference. In the current text he will also relate it to the “prosentential” theory of truth. Prosentences like “that is true” are the sentential analogue of pronouns — they refer to sentences that express definite propositions in the same way that pronouns refer to nouns. Brandom is saying that concrete meaning involves both Fregean sense and Fregean reference.

“Exclusive attention to the practice of asserting precludes understanding the conceptual significance which such linguistic performances express and enable, while the complementary exclusion must cut off semantic theory from its only empirical subject matter, talking as something people do” (ibid).

Standard bottom-up compositional approaches to semantics focus exclusively on the “content”, and not on the related doing.

“[I]t might be tempting to think that such a theory offers special resources for a theory of asserting as representing, classifying, or identifying. It is important to realize that the same considerations which disclose the distinction of force and content expose such advantages as spurious” (ibid).

“There is no reason to suppose that the semantic representability of all sentences in terms of, say, set-membership statements or identity statements, reflects or is reflected in the explanatory priority of various kinds of linguistic performances” (p. 2).

“It then turns out that giving a rich enough description of the social practices involved in assertion allows us to exhibit semantic contents as complex formal features of performances and compound dispositions to perform according to those practices. In other words, I want to show that it is possible to turn exactly on its head the standard order of explanation canvassed above” (p. 3).

“To specify a social practice is to specify the response which is the constitutive recognition of the appropriateness of performances with respect to that practice…. But in the case of discursive practices, the constitutive responses will in general themselves be performances which are appropriate (in virtue of the responses the community is disposed to make to them) according to some other social practice. The appropriateness of any particular performance will then depend on the appropriateness of a whole set of other performances with similar dependences. Each social practice will definitionally depend upon a set of others” (p. 4).

This notion of practice is thus inherently normative or value-oriented. Brandom compares his holistic view of practices with Quine’s holistic view of the “web of belief”.

“Definitional chains specifying the extension of one practice in terms of its intension, and that intension in terms of another extension, and so on, may loop back on one another. We will say that any system of social practices which does so … is a holistic system…. Such a system of practices cannot be attributed to a community piecemeal, or in an hierarchic fashion, but only all at once.”

The key point about such a holistic system is that there are mutual dependencies between parts or participants.

“It follows that in systems containing essentially holistic practices, the norms of conduct which are codified in such practices are not reducible to facts about objective performances. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of any particular performance with respect to such a practice cannot ultimately be expressed in terms of communal dispositions to respond with objectively characterizable sanctions and rewards…. The norms themselves are entirely constituted by the practices of socially recognizing performances as according or not according with them” (p. 5).

“Facts about objective performances” have a monological character. In technical contexts this can be of great value. But ethical and general life contexts have an inherently dialogical or mutual character.

“A community ought to be thought of as socially synthesized by mutual recognition of its members, since a plausible sufficient condition of A‘s being a member of some community is that the other members of that community take him to be such…. This simple Hegelian model of the synthesis of social entities by mutual recognition of individuals has the advantage that it preserves the basic distinction between the individual’s contribution to his membership in a group and the contribution of the other members” (p. 6, emphasis added).

Here we have the first appearance of the great theme of mutual recognition in Brandom’s work. Brandom has dug deeply into this particular aspect of Hegel, making very substantial contributions of his own. In ethics, mutual recognition has roots in Aristotelian philia (friendship or love) and the so-called golden rule (do and do not do to others as you would have them do and not do to you). Brandom sees that Hegel treats mutual recognition not only as an ethical ideal but also as a fundamental explanatory principle.

“The crucial point is that the reflexive recognition (as social self-recognition) be an achievement requiring the symmetry of being recognized in a particular respect by those whom I recognize in that respect, and presupposing that my recognitions will be transitive…. A community is then any set P which is closed under transitive recognition…. [N]o one member is omniscient or infallible about such membership…, nor is it required that everyone recognize everyone else in the community” (p. 7).

The symmetry of recognizing and being recognized leads to the idea that authority and responsibility ought to be symmetrically balanced. This has tremendous implications.

“Asserting that-p is, among other things, to explicitly authorize certain inferences…. Saying this much does not yet say what the constitutive recognition of this authorizing consists in…. Our account of the authorizing of inferences will draw upon the second major feature of the social role of assertion” (ibid).

The idea of understanding acts of assertion principally in terms of an inferential constitution of meaning is transformative. Others have suggested or implied something like this, but Brandom expresses it with more clarity and thoroughness than anyone.

Reasoning is not a merely technical activity. The constitution of meaning has fundamental ethical significance.

“This second feature is noted by Searle when he says that an assertion (among other things) ‘counts as an undertaking to the effect that p represents an actual state of affairs’. Leaving aside the representationalist expansion of the content ascribed, we can see in the use of the term ‘undertaking’ the recognition of a dimension of responsibility in assertion, coordinate with the previously indicated dimension of authority. In asserting that-p one is committing oneself in some sense to the claim that-p. What sort of responsibility is involved? The leading idea of the present account is that it is justificatory responsibility which one undertakes by an assertion. Justification and assertion will be exhibited as essentially holistic social practices belonging to the same system of practices, internally related to one another. So the recognitive response-type which is the intension of the social practice of assertion must include recognition of the assertor as responsible for justifying his assertoric performance under suitable circumstances…. Authority in this sense consists in the social recognition of a practice as authorizing others” (pp. 9-10).

“What is essential is that the relation between the intensions and the extensions of a family of social practices underwrite a relation of what we may call (extending the usual sense) anaphoric reference between various performances. The term ‘anaphoric’ is used to indicate that this ‘referential’ relation is internal to a system of social practices, where one performance refers to another as one word refers to another in A: ‘Pynchon wrote the book’ B: ‘But has he tried to read it?’, where the pronouns anaphorically refer to the antecedent terms ‘Pynchon’ and ‘the book’. No relation between discursive and non-discursive items is supposed. A prime use of this expressive resource of anaphoric reference to typed utterings is exhibited just below, as a feature of demands for justification” (p. 12).

In Making It Explicit, Brandom uses linguistic anaphora to explain the constitution of objects as objects. Here he gives it an even broader role. Anaphora or back-referencing is the birth of substance, solidity, and modality in meaning. Again the ethical dimension comes to the fore. Assertion as lived concerns neither naked Parmenidean being nor pure objective facts.

“The key to our attempt to offer sufficient conditions for assertion by specifying a class of systems of social practices is the relation of justification which a set of assertions can have to another assertion…. Both the dimension of authority and the dimension of responsibility will be explicated in terms of the recognition of justification. Each of the different types of assertion which play a role in the systems we will examine, free-standing assertions, assertions which are the results of inferences authorized by other assertions, and assertions which are part of the justification which another asserting made its asserter responsible for, each of these types of assertion incurs a justificatory responsibility itself and authorizes further inferences. The relevant responsibility is to produce (what would be recognized as) an appropriate justification, if one is demanded…. The utterance of a conventional request for justification addressed to a foregoing assertion is to be always appropriate, and not itself in need of justification. The cognitive significance of the linguistic practices we describe stems from this universal appropriateness of demands for further justification (as Sellars takes the ‘rational’ structure of scientific practice to consist in its being a ‘self-correcting enterprise which can put any claim in jeopardy, though not all at once’…. An utterance in the conventional style of assertions (utterances which undertake justificatory responsibilities and issue inference licenses whose contents vary as the content of the assertion vary) will constitutively be recognized as possessing that authority only so long as the conditional responsibility to justify if queried has not been shirked…. No more for this distinction than elsewhere in the social practice story need we appeal to intentions or beliefs of performers” (pp. 12-13).

As I’ve mentioned a number of times, other variants of this ethics of dialogue or dialogical ethics have been developed by Plato, Gadamer, and Habermas.

“For just as inference passes the authority of assertion one way along the anaphoric chain, it also passes the justificatory responsibility incurred the other way along that chain” (p. 14).

“The extended responsibility induced by the presentation of a justification is defeasible by the performance of a counter-justification, comprising further assertions…. The categories of justificatory and counter-justificatory performances are not disjoint” (p. 17).

“Each of these conditions codifies some aspect of our ordinary practices of giving and asking for reasons” (p. 18).

“[A] set of basic and extended repertoires related by an accessibility relation will be called a conceptual idiom…. It is in terms of these still rather particularized structures that we will define assertional contents or conceptual roles” (pp. 18-19).

Next in this series: Conditionals and Conceptual Roles

Gadamer on Socratic Questioning

“Socratic conversation [has] the single goal of achieving an authentic shared process of speech…. Part of the meaning of genuine substantive explication is that it can continually justify and clarify itself…. A sophistic logos fails to meet this requirement because one did not acquire it with a view to the facts of the matter but rather with a view to its effectiveness in impressing the people around one” (Hans-Georg Gadamer, Plato’s Dialectical Ethics (German ed. 1931), p. 56).

Since Habermas cites Gadamer as an influence, Gadamer’s work may well be the primary source for Habermas’ striking remark “Reaching understanding is the inherent telos of human speech”. In any case, it provides a good explication. I find this particularly valuable, because although Habermas and Brandom neglect Plato and Aristotle, Gadamer himself treats them as not merely of antiquarian interest, but as having central contemporary relevance. (In the introduction to his Tales of the Mighty Dead (2002), Brandom too cites Gadamer’s hermeneutics as representative of one of two major ways of reading philosophical texts, neither of which he intends to follow strictly.)

“Precisely because the sophist’s logos, with its agonistic goals, does not make explicit or stick to the sense in which it is intended in each case, it falls prey itself to these ambiguities when someone else uses them against it. Socrates, on the other hand, keeps his eye on the subject matter even in these circumstances” (p. 57, emphasis added).

Real dialogue is not a social negotiation between individuals confronting one another. It holds fast to the shareable subject matter under discussion. Not our “immediate” egos but the rich and variegated terrain of open-ended meaning that we jointly inhabit is at issue here. What matters is not the competitive question of who is right, but the open-ended, shared exploration of what follows from what.

(Brandom’s first major work is called Making It Explicit. Sophistical sleight of hand — be it in politics, religion, or everyday life — depends on an opposite strategy of keeping it obscure what really or properly follows from what, in order to keep things safe for arbitrary “truths” plucked out of thin air. Although Making It Explicit does not directly address the topic of sophistry, that book of linguistic philosophy is a very substantial and original development of something like the positive side of Gadamer’s argument here, which folds in additional perspectives not addressed by Gadamer. Brandom also points out that Habermas’ work articulating what constitutes an “ideal speech situation” provides a detailed and interesting explication of Hegel’s central ethical notion of mutual recognition.)

Gadamer goes on, “Socrates’ logical traps are not meant to be the manipulations of a virtuoso technician which are simply applied where they promise success; instead, they are living forms of a process of seeking shared understanding” (p. 58). “[R]efutation in the Socratic style is positive: not a process of reducing the other person to silence so as, tacitly, to make oneself out as the knower, in contrast to him, but a process of arriving at a shared inquiry” (p. 59).

“The good, then, is knowledge’s object; that is, it is the unitary focal point to which everything must be related and in relation to which human existence in particular understands itself in a unified way. The general character of the good is that it is that for the sake of which something is, and thus, in particular, that for the sake of which man himself is. It is in the light of it that human beings understand themselves in their action” (ibid).

Here Gadamer brings out into the clear the central role of what Aristotle calls that for the sake of which — the telos or “final cause” — which extends all the way from the understanding of living beings in nature to the highest first philosophy. To ask after that for the sake of which is precisely to step back from what is immediately present. This is the beginning of wisdom.

“Just that, then, which presents itself unambiguously as good, in its immediate presentness, should and must be ‘measured’, if it is supposed to be ‘the good’, in relation to something that is not contained in its immediate attractiveness itself. So it certainly cannot be the immediate attractiveness that constitutes the goodness” (p. 61).

“Thus it is no more the case that the immediate experience of well-being is an indubitable testimonial of its goodness than that any behavior that is regarded as virtuous is so automatically, without being justified by reference to the good itself. Thus the demand for an art of measuring pleasures — which alone could justify the claim of pleasure to be the good — succeeds, despite the impossibility of such an art, in making clear what the good is sought as. Dasein understands itself in relation to what it is ‘for the sake of’, not on the basis of how it feels at any present moment but on the basis of its highest and constant potential” (pp. 61-62).

Real understanding is precisely a movement beyond what is immediate. Gadamer is still partly under the spell of Heidegger, and refers to Heideggerian Dasein, but this plays no real role in the argument. I would refer more simply to “our” understanding of ourselves.

“The methodological point of the imagined art of measurement, then, is to show that an understanding of Dasein must understand present things in terms of non-present ones and can grant them goodness only in such a relation. Thus this Socratic course of argumentation allows us to see what the good must (in any case) be sought as: namely, the central thing on the basis of which human being understands itself. So the positive point of Socratic refutation consists not only in achieving a positive perplexity but also — by the same token — in explaining what knowledge really is and what alone should be recognized as knowledge. It is only in the concept of the good that all knowledge is grounded; and it is only on the basis of the concept of the good that knowledge can be justified” (p. 63).

Again, for Dasein I would just say “ourselves”.

Here he again brings out the central role of the good in the constitution of what we call knowledge and truth. He points out that in order to make distinctions at all, we must have some preliminary idea of the good, even if we cannot articulate it.

“Insofar as the search for grounding that gives an accounting is a shared search and has the character of a testing, it operates, fundamentally, not by one person’s making an assertion and awaiting confirmation or contradiction by the other person, but by both of them testing the logos to see whether it is refutable and by both of them agreeing in regard to its eventual refutation or confirmation. All testing sets up the proposition to be tested not as something for one person to defend, as belonging to him or her, and for the other person to attack, as belonging to the other, but as something ‘in the middle’. And the understanding that emerges is not primarily an understanding resulting from agreement with others but an understanding with oneself. Only people who have reached an understanding with themselves can be in agreement with others” (p. 64).

Gadamer on Plato and Aristotle

Some of Gadamer’s most interesting work is on Plato and Aristotle. More so than many modern commentators, he sees their work as closely connected. He is especially fond of Plato. In the introduction to Gadamer’s The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy, (German ed. 1978, English tr. 1986), translator P. Christopher Smith offers useful comments.

For Gadamer, “Plato and Aristotle both belong to the unified tradition of logos philosophy. In the Phaedo Plato’s Socrates turns away from naturalistic accounts of things to the logoi, our ways of speaking; similarly, Aristotle founds his investigations on ‘pos legetai’, how something is spoken of” (Smith, p. xiv).

At least in this work, the term “logos philosophy” is not explicitly defined. But in the passage above, it clearly indicates a linguistic character. It is nice to see a recognition that Plato’s — and even more so Aristotle’s — work has a substantial linguistic dimension.

Smith recalls that the Ionian pre-Socratics had “only two kinds of explanation at their disposal — from what, and by the agency of what — [and so they] could not properly grasp the cosmos, in which things occur for the sake of (heneka) what is good” (p. xv).

The moderns on the whole don’t really do much better than the pre-Socratics at recognizing what Aristotle calls “for the sake of” and the role it plays in the constitution of things. This involves not providential intervention, or even a reified indwelling ontological principle that could simply unfold. It is also not just a fact, but something that motivates without necessitating.

In Plato, “To begin with there are the refutational, or elenchtic, dialogues, in which Socrates confronts the great sophists of his time — Protagoras, Gorgias, Callicles, Thrasymachus — and displays the emptiness of their claims to be able to teach virtue. In truth theirs is a technical mentality, and what they teach is only a techne of succeeding. The conclusion to be drawn from these dialogues — at times explicit, but more often implied negatively or indirectly — is that knowledge in virtue is somehow different from knowledge in techne. This shows up above all in the fact that virtue cannot be taught. And there is a further truth that emerges here, again largely unsaid, that the traditional ideas of arete upon which the sophists rely and which might be learned by imitating a paragon have become groundless and susceptible of sophistic dissimulation. Therefore, to withstand seduction by self-interest and by otherwise insatiable desires for sensuous gratification and power, to which sophism panders, one must now be able to give justification for what is good, that is, justification for one’s choices of what is right as opposed to what is wrong. But nobody seems to know how to do that, least of all those sophists who claim that they do” (pp. xv-xvi).

This concern with justification is something Gadamer shares with Habermas and Brandom. But Gadamer traces it all the way back to Plato, whereas Habermas and Brandom are modernists. It seems to me that Plato and Aristotle’s outrage at the Sophists has to do with the Sophists’ subversion of justification.

“The primary concern in these elenchtic dialogues, then, is a practical one, and that makes the Phaedo and the Republic, in which concern seems to shift to epistemological and ontological matters, appear to mark a definite transition in Plato’s thought. For in these next works the ‘ideas’ are introduced, and in the Republic even the ‘idea of ideas’, the idea of the good which would seem to serve as a first principle of both true knowledge and true reality. In the twentieth-century traditions of Plato interpretation — particularly the neo-Kantian, which found support for its theory of science in this ‘stage’ of Plato — would have it that the question Plato is addressing here is a new, theoretical one no longer related to the Socratic question concerning arete. But Gadamer sees a serious oversight here. A careful reading, he argues, shows that Plato is still dealing with the same issue” (p. xvi).

“Gadamer maintains … that if one asks what question is actually being addressed in the allegory of the cave, one sees that the concern is not just, or even primarily, a theoretical, scientific one, but in fact an existential-practical question of holding steadfastly to the truth in the face of tests or refutations (elenchoi) much as a soldier holds his ground in battle or a wrestler stands firm against attempts to throw him — this is the language Plato uses here. And what are these tests of mettle? The guardians will find themselves in a conflict between honest execution of the duties of their office for the public weal and the ‘pursuit of power after power’, as we in the English-speaking world might put it, using the words of Thomas Hobbes. The guardians, in other words, will be tested by the flattery of both their own desires for gratification and sophistic sycophants, flattery that might seduce them into sacrificing their integrity” (p. xvii).

“In short, it turns out that the theory of dialectic in which they are to be trained is a way of distinguishing and, above all, of distinguishing practically between right and wrong, good and bad. To do that, the guardians must know the idea of the good, for that idea is exactly what those in the cave do not know. The cave-dwellers’ technai (arts) give them the knowledge ‘how to’ do something, knowledge of the means to an end, but not knowledge of the end itself, the hou heneka, the ‘what for’…. Thus, knowledge of the good turns out to be not just a theoretical insight, not just a matter of logos (reasoning). It is a principle on ergon (deed), and makes possible constancy in the choice of the life that one leads (Aristotle: prohairesis tou biou)” (p. xviii).

The sense in which he says the guardians “must know” the idea of the good seems to me to be of necessity quite different from the way in which we may be said, e.g., to know the Pythagorean Theorem. I would rather say something like, the guardians “must have wisdom” about the good.

“And now the real meaning of the hypothesis of the eidos in the Phaedo becomes evident. As opposed to what the neo-Kantian school might have seen in it, the hypothesis of the eidos is not at all the ‘scientific’ postulation of a universal idea that is to be verified by the facts. As in the Republic, the issue in the Phaedo is how to head off whatever might mislead us, how to head off sophistic talk…. Hypothesizing the eidos thus has nothing to do with empirical verification but, instead, with making precisely these eidetic distinctions…. The paradigm for steadfastness … remains Socrates, who was not to be dissuaded from what he saw to be right, no matter what arguments concerning his own ‘advantage’ might be advanced. His arete was such that he would not even accept the escape from death offered to him by his friends” (pp.xviii-xix).

At first I was confused by the reference to verification by facts. To speak of empirical verification of an eidos would be a category mistake. But I think “the hypothesis of the eidos” refers not to any particular eidos, but to the general “hypothesis” that there are eidei.

The important point here is the Socratic “steadfastness”, where steadfastness means not being lured and fooled by the verbal tricks of the clever sophists, who aim at success and at victory in argument, rather than at truth and shared understanding. It seems very relevant today.

“[The Philebus] too begins with an ethical issue — whether the good life is one of pleasure or of intellect or of some third thing — and it also involves its interlocutors in the task of giving justification for their contentions concerning the good life, justification that will make their arguments invulnerable to the sophistic arts of confusing and confounding people with sleights of hand that interchange the one and the many” (p. xix).

“Here the techniques of Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology can be put to good use, for the task is to display the phenomenon that Plato is getting at. In the Philebus Plato speaks of the good as the structure of a ‘mixture’ someone might brew, the ‘potion’ as it were, which is our human life. The various ‘ingredients’, the kinds of pleasure and intellect, are not to be mixed indiscriminately, but well…. A ‘good’ mixture is thus one that has limits to it, and the good itself is limitedness (measuredness, or metriotes) in the midst of constantly threatening indeterminacy and limitlessness…. As measuredness, the good in the Philebus, we now see, is precisely Aristotle’s mean between the extremes” (pp. xx-xxi).

Paul Ricoeur also points out the importance of a notion of mixture in Plato. This undoes many old stereotypes about Platonism.

I am rather unclear on what Husserlian phenomenology is supposed to specifically contribute to the history of philosophy here. I imagine Husserl might question this claim himself. He wanted phenomenology to be a precise “science”, grounded in the phenomenological and eidetic reductions. Here instead we have a thoughtful examination of Plato’s metaphorical language.

“In anticipating Aristotle’s criticisms, it should be noted that, as measuredness, the good in Plato must be distinguished, or ‘separated’ intellectually, from the mixture itself. But if one abstracts from this metaphor, one finds that, as measuredness, the good is what Hegel calls ein Moment, namely, an aspect of something which does not exist separately from it. In short, it is in the thing of which it is the structure. Thus, when we say that it is choriston (separate), we are not denying that it is in the thing. We are saying only that it must be distinguished from the thing in our thinking” (p. xxi).

For Aristotle, a thing that is called “separate” is simply a thing that is conceptually distinct, whereas for Plato, separateness involves independence from matter. This means a thing that Aristotle calls “separate” may nonetheless never exist apart from the whole to which it belongs. This has been discussed in detail by Gwenaëlle Aubry.

“These striking convergences of Plato’s thought with Aristotle’s leave us puzzled about Aristotle’s critique of Plato. Why would he criticize Plato if in fact he and Plato are saying the same thing? “(ibid).

We should be careful about saying things are “the same”. I have sympathy for Leibniz’s argument that no two things are the same. Then there is the question, at what level of blurriness can we no longer distinguish two things? But again the important point is rather the relative one that it is on the whole a lot less false to say Plato and Aristotle thought the same, than it is to present them as if they were opposites, as has also been done at times.

“At the core of the argument in all three [of Aristotle’s surviving ethical works] is the contention that Plato improperly fuses the ontological and the practical in his applications of the idea of the good” (p. xxii).

“Aristotle, of course, is a consummate phenomenologist who wishes above all to avoid running distinct things together. But is it just his ‘descriptive caution’ that leads him to try to keep ontological and practical theory separate? Gadamer suggests that there is something else fundamental in Aristotle’s way of inquiring that leads him to put things as he does, namely, his orientation toward life science. Mathematically oriented thinking such as Plato’s would indeed lead to inquiry about the idea of the good as an abstract structure of good things…. But that is not the orientation of Aristotle’s questioning, which gives primacy to the concrete living thing” (p. xxiv).

“The relationship of moral theory to practice is not at all the modern relation of theory to practice in which an objective, neutral theory can be applied generally to particular problems. In distinction to producing something (techne, poiesis), doing the right thing is not simply an application of general rules” (p. xxvi).

Even Kant has qualification and subtlety in his rule-orientedness.

“In the first place, as Aristotle recognizes, we need an ‘appropriate principle’ (oikeia arche) for moral reasoning, which is not to be confused with mathematical deductive reasoning. For in moral reasoning I always find myself in a particular situation, and the task is not to subsume this particular case under a universal rule which I could know apart from the situation I am in, but to define from within my situation what the general rule is of which this situation is an instance. The particular virtues and virtue in general, as finding the ‘mean between extremes’ are not universal principles that I apply to a situation, but universalizations of what I am doing when I do what is right. Hence it should be noted carefully that, although Aristotle does indeed speak of the ‘practical syllogism’, he in fact uses this syllogistic reasoning only to exemplify the technical choice of the right means to an end” (p. xxviii).

This is an interesting hybrid view on the universality issue. It is certainly true that Aristotle does not treat ethical conclusions as a matter of deduction (instead, they are matters of interpretation).

“[Cleverness] deals with means to an end, and for just that reason, he says, it is to be distinguished from [moral reasonableness]” (ibid).

“Moral reasonableness” is how Smith translates Aristotelian ethical phronesis. This is a kind of reason, which I have called ethical reason.

“As both the Philebus and Aristotle’s ethical treatises make clear, human beings are not gods, and thus the life that is best for them has to be a life that combines theoria and praxis…. The point that both wish to make — which is the fundamental point of agreement between them concerning the good — is that, in distinction to gods, human beings are always under way toward the divine, or, as Gadamer puts it, their best life is philosophia, not sophia, that is, striving for wisdom, not wisdom itself. Human beings are finite, not absolute — never absolved from the ‘remnant of earth’ (Goethe) in them that inevitably involves them in the task of living well here in the practical world” (pp. xxviii-xix).

Finitism and infinitism are both said in many ways. The very sharp distinction being made here between humans and gods seems rather one-sided in relation to Aristotle.

Gadamer is apparently a pretty strong finitist, and strongly opposed to the infinitism he sees in Hegel. What infinity means in the more “deflationary” views of Hegel I have sympathy for is quite different from this. Meanwhile Aristotle literally says that the world is finite, but allows for an expansive notion of human being.

“Thus, in both Plato and Aristotle, the good emerges as that toward which we are striving, that for the sake of which (hou heneka), that at which we aim (to telos). But not only we. The whole universe is to be understood as striving for perfection…. [T]he universe, and not only human experience, is to be thought of in relation to the good ” (p. xix).

Gadamer on Platonic Dialogue

“But a real conversation itself already requires one to attend only to the substantive intention of what is said and not to what the speech expresses, along with that, about Dasein” (Gadamer, Plato’s Dialectical Ethics, German ed. 1931, English tr. 1991, p. 42). This is from Gadamer’s first published book, which focuses on the ethical meaning of Platonic dialogue, but also implicitly addresses the broader human condition.

He is saying that in genuine dialogue, the concern of the participants is only with what is being said about the topic under discussion; with what should be said about it; and specifically not with each other’s character, intentions, or social position.

“A dialectical contradiction is not present when one opinion opposes another…. It is not a contradiction in the dialectical sense when another person speaks against something, but only when a thing speaks against it, whether it is another person or I myself who has stated this” (p. 44).

I still don’t particularly care for the use of “contradiction” in this sort of context. But the important point — that real life is full of tensions, conflicts, and ambiguities — is entirely valid. The tensions and conflicts of main concern here are not those between people or views, but rather those that are internal to the matter under discussion.

“Plato characterizes again and again the ‘substantive’ spirit (the spirit that is concerned with the facts of the matter) of the dialogical pursuit of shared understanding…. [It] can be summed up as the exclusion of phthonos. Phthonos … means concern about being ahead of others or not being left behind by others. As such, its effect in conversation is to cause an apprehensive holding back from talk that presses forward toward discovering the true state of affairs…. This proviso prevents the talk from adapting freely to the connections in the subject matter and thus prevents, precisely, an unreserved readiness to give an account. Someone who, on the contrary, answers aneu phthonou, eumenes, alupos (without being inhibited by the pain of an aggrieved desire to be right), is prepared to give an account ‘aphthonos‘ (in a manner that is not affected by phthonos)” (ibid).

Here we are at the heart of the matter, which has to do with Plato and Aristotle’s principled opposition to the Sophists, who (for a fee) offered instruction on how to verbally impress, overwhelm, dominate, and manipulate others, while calling it “virtue”.

A major aspect of what makes any participation in dialogue serious is that it not be “inhibited by the pain of an aggrieved desire to be right”. The “aggrieved desire to be right” has no interest in truth, or in what really is right. The Sophists’ techniques of domination and manipulation on the other hand cater to that aggrieved desire.

“Speech gives itself the appearance of having knowledge to the extent that it is able, through the seduction that is inherent in it, to secure other people’s agreement or to refute them. Thus it is characteristic of the way in which this apparent claim is carried out… to cut off the possibility of a free response by the other person. Thus such pretended knowledge takes the form of something that aims either at getting someone’s agreement or at refuting them. In both forms of such speech its function is not primarily to make the facts of the matter visible in their being and to confirm this through the other person but rather to develop in speech independently of the access that it creates to the facts of the matter, the possibility precisely of excluding the other person in the function… of fellow speaker and fellow knower” (pp. 45-46).

Overwhelming ways of speaking are an aggression against the possibility of dialogue and the aim of reaching of shared understanding.

“That this claim can represent only a pretended claim to knowledge is clear from the fact that to the talker, … what he says is not really important…. What is important to the talker is only his ascendency over contradiction. The claim that his talk makes to knowledge always presents itself as already having been satisfied, and not as yet to be satisfied by coming to shared understanding” (p. 47).

“Thus the concern about the ascendency of one’s logos obstructs one’s view of the facts of the matter, which point precisely through the refutation to an explication that makes progress, by taking with it and retaining what is revealed in the pros and cons” (p. 48).

“Part of the essence of such talk, therefore, is to avoid dialogue. It tends toward making speeches, toward makrologia (speaking at length), which of course makes it difficult to go back to something that was said” (ibid).

The essence of dialogue lies in what he here calls going back to what was said. Alternating monologues do not constitute dialogue, because they don’t “go back to what was said”.

“Insofar as someone who enters into conversation with Socrates thinks he has knowledge of what he is asked about, then, he cannot refuse the demand that he answer for it. The genuineness of his claim to knowledge is put to the test by this demand for accountability” (p. 51). “[I]n Plato’s historical situation there is a reason for the fact that knowledge is no longer possible as the wise proclamation of the truth but has to prove itself in dialogical coming to an understanding — that is, in an unlimited willingness to justify and supply reasons for everything that is said” (p. 52).

What wants to be called knowledge has to prove itself in a dialogical coming to shared understanding. True dialogue requires an unlimited willingness to answer questions and give reasons.

“But in that case everyone must also be willing and able to give an accounting as to why he acts and conducts himself as he does; he must be able to say what he understands himself to be…, at least insofar as he is able, through the logos, to understand himself in terms of something — that is, in terms of something that is not present at the moment” (p. 53).

Gadamer shares this “dialogical” ethic with Habermas and Brandom, while explicitly connecting it with Plato and Aristotle, as I have been seen to do across many posts. I am happy to find support from a major philosopher for the inclusion of Plato and Aristotle in this contemporary discussion. (Habermas had significant interaction with Gadamer, and Brandom cites Gadamer in Tales of the Mighty Dead.)

“Everyone must be able to answer this question, because it asks him about himself. Every Socratic conversation leads to this sort of examination of what a person himself is…. One must be able to say why one behaves in a certain manner — that is, what the good is that one understands oneself as aiming at in one’s behavior” (p. 54, emphasis added.).

Illocution

Habermas wants to promote a notion of communicative rationality as “uncurtailed communication”, an orientation toward developing shared understanding. He even calls shared understanding the telos of human speech, in something close to an Aristotelian sense, although he generally uses “teleology” only in a negative way, as a mere utilitarian calculation of the means to realize empirical self-interest. But I find the ethical sense that he gives to communication to be very admirable.

“The positivization, legalization, and formalization of law mean that the validity of law can no longer feed off the taken-for-granted authority of moral traditions but requires an autonomous foundation, that is, a foundation that is not only relative to given ends. Moral consciousness can satisfy such a requirement only at the postconventional level. It is here that there first emerges the idea that legal norms are in principle open to criticism and in need of justification” (p. 260, emphasis in original).

He speaks here of the postconventional and posttraditional in law and ethics, as he elsewhere speaks of the postmetaphysical and the postsecular.

“These posttraditional basic concepts of law and morality are first developed and systematized in modern natural law theories. The model for justifying legal norms is an uncoerced agreement, arrived at by those affected, in the role of contractual partners who are in principle free and equal” (p. 261).

I really was not at all familiar with the early modern “natural law” tradition when I first encountered Brandom’s significant references to it. Here we reach another limitation that Habermas finds in Weber.

“Weber stresses precisely the structural properties connected with the formalism of a law that is systematized by specialists and with the positivity of norms that are enacted. He emphasizes the structural features I have elucidated as the positivity, legalism, and formality of law. But he neglects the moment of a need for rational justification; he excludes from the concept of modern law precisely the conceptions of rational justification that arose with modern theories of natural law in the seventeenth century…. It is in this way that Weber assimilates the law to an organizational means applied in a purposive-rational manner, detaches the rationalization of law from the moral-practical complex of rationality, and reduces it to a rationalization of means-ends relations” (p. 262).

This remark by Habermas seems to have large consequences. He points to an important principle of rational justification in the natural law tradition that goes beyond means-ends calculations, and criticizes Weber for deemphasizing it.

“Rational natural law, in its different versions from Hobbes and Locke through Rousseau and Kant to Hegel, … rests on a rational principle of justification and is, in terms of moral-practical rationalization, further advanced than the Protestant ethic, which is still founded on religion. Nevertheless, Weber does not hold it to be purely and simply an element of modern law. He wants to separate it carefully ‘from revealed, as well as from enacted and from traditional law’. Thus he constructs an antithesis between modern law in the strict sense, which rests only on the principle of enactment, and the not yet completely ‘formal’ law of modern natural law theories which rests upon principles of grounding (however rational). In his view, modern law is to be understood in a positivistic sense, as law that is enacted by decision and fully disconnected from rational agreement, from ideas of grounding in general, however formal they might be.” (p. 263, emphasis in original).

I did not realize that Weber had a decisionist theory of modern law. “Decisionist” views of law and politics, as Habermas points out, fundamentally appeal to authority rather than to meaning or reason. In my view, this means they ought to be shunned by anyone who cares about meaning or reasonableness.

“This argument is confusing because it combines, in an opaque manner, an immanent critique of the deficient radicalism of natural law conceptions of grounding that are not yet sufficiently formal with a transcendent critique of the need for principles of justification at all and clothes both in the guise of a criticism of the naturalistic fallacy. One might certainly raise the objection that the concept of natural rights still had strong metaphysical connotations in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. However, with the model of a contract through which all legal associates, after rationally weighing their interests, regulate their common life as free and equal partners, modern natural law theorists were the first to meet the demand for a procedural grounding of law, that is, for a justification by principles whose validity could in turn be criticized. To this extent, ‘nature’ and ‘reason’ do not stand in this context for some metaphysical contents or other; rather, they circumscribe formal conditions which an agreement must satisfy if it is to have legitimating force, that is, if it is to be rational. Weber again confuses the formal properties of a postconventional level of justification with particular substantive values (p. 264).

“[A]ssuming that legitimacy is a necessary condition for the continued existence of every type of political domination, how can a legal domination whose legality is based on a law that is viewed in purely decisionistic terms (that is, a law that devalues all grounding in principle) be legitimated at all?” (pp. 264-265, emphasis in original).

Habermas has a marvelously sharp critique of attempts to separate law and politics from requirements for rational ethical justification. He distinguishes two very different kinds of “proceduralist” views of law. One is reductively empiricist and collapses the distinction between is and ought. At best it orients toward a kind of conformity or obedience. The other aims to ground “procedure” in rational ethics, conditions of dialogue, and what Habermas calls ideal speech situations.

“Legitimation through procedure does not mean here going back to formal conditions for the moral-practical justification of legal norms; it means rather keeping to procedural prescriptions in administering, applying, and enacting law. Legitimacy rests then on ‘belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands’. It remains unclear how the belief in legality is supposed to summon up the force of legitimation if legality means only conformity with an actually existing legal order, and if this order, as arbitrarily enacted law, is not in turn open to practical-moral justification. The belief in legality can produce legitimacy only if we already presuppose the legitimacy of the legal order that lays down what is legal. There is no way out of this circle…. The transitions between ‘agreed upon’ and ‘imposed’ order are fluid” (p. 265, emphasis added).

Empirical, factual conformity to law is no guarantee of moral rightness. The Nazi regime in Germany, for example, had a factual conformity to law, thanks in part to the apologetics of Carl Schmitt. This can hardly be taken to legitimate it.

“Notwithstanding these fluid transitions, the two sources of legitimacy on which the belief in legality depends can certainly be distinguished analytically: rationally motivated agreement versus the imposition of a powerful will” (p. 266).

Here he puts it very clearly. Legal/political “impositionism” is a kind of voluntarism. Like all voluntarism, it elevates arbitrary will above reason. This effectively destroys the space in which ethical reason could flourish, by eliminating the possibility of questioning whatever is imposed.

Habermas is very clear that there is a sharp opposition between any kind of authoritative “imposition” and agreement based on reasons. I find this highly commendable. Unlike Brandom, he does not get caught up in apologizing for the elements of impositionism that can also be found in the natural law tradition.

(Brandom even takes this so far as to retrospectively claim a historically progressive role for theological voluntarism. I think Brandom is a truly great philosopher overall, but on this particular issue Habermas seems to do much better. Brandom is quite right that the natural law theorists like Pufendorf introduced new ideas of holding authority to certain standards of reasonableness. But he takes the voluntarist element in Pufendorf to be an essential ingredient, rather than an unresolved inconsistency. Indeed everyone seems to call Pufendorf a political voluntarist. But my brief examination of Pufendorf did not find him emphasizing the justification of arbitrary actions, which is the sin qua non of voluntarism. Quite the contrary, his avowed emphasis seemed to be on reasonable standards. Pufendorf wrote during the age of absolute monarchies, when any advocate of limitations on the monarch’s prerogative had to write cautiously.)

“Belief in the legality of a procedure cannot per se — that is, in virtue of positive enactment — produce legitimacy” (ibid).

Legality is a mere fact. Rightness is an ideal.

“Weber confuses an appeal to the need to justify legal domination — that is, an attempt to go back to the legitimating foundation of rational agreement — with an appeal to particular values” (p. 267).

Habermas is saying that Weber treats criteria of reasonableness in law and politics as inevitably particularist. Habermas sharply rejects this conclusion, as do I.

“Weber forcefully works out the formal properties of modern law, on the basis of which it is suited as a means of organization for subsystems of purposive-rational action. But he restricts the concept of law positivistically to such an extent that he can neglect the moral-practical aspect of rationalization (the principle of justification) and take account only of its cognitive-instrumental aspect (the principle of enactment). Weber considers the advances of modern legal development exclusively from the standpoint of formal rationality, that is, of a value-neutral, means-ends, systematic shaping of spheres of action, which is tailored to the type of strategic action. The rationalization of law is then no longer measured against the inner logic of the moral-practical sphere of value, as is that of ethics and life-conduct; it is directly connected to the progress of knowledge in the cognitive-instrumental sphere of value” (p. 268).

This is to say that despite his commendable neo-Kantian scruples regarding the importance of values, Weber aims to completely withdraw questions of value from law and politics.

“The assumption — which sprang up with legal positivism and was adopted and overextended by social-scientific functionalism — that normative validity claims could be withdrawn, without any noteworthy consequences for the stability of the legal system in the consciousness of the system’s members, is empirically untenable” (p. 269).

I quite agree with Habermas that a policy that is disconnected from all values cannot and does not govern in real life. But it matters a lot whether we criticize the empiricist freedom from values from a point of view of inquiry into reasons, or from a traditionalist point of view that takes reasons for granted, and treats the questioning of authority as improper.

“This leads to a rather ironic consequence for Weber’s diagnosis of the times. He deplores the switch from ethical to purely utilitarian action orientations…. Thus he ought to welcome movements that are directed against parallel tendencies in the law…. [But] Weber regards as detracting from the formal qualities of law not only traditionalist attempts to reideologize it but also progressive efforts to reattach it to procedural requirements for grounding” (ibid).

Apparently, Weber regards the formal positivity of law (the principle of “enactment”) as having more to do with the rationalization of modern society — which he sees in terms of technique — than any substantive inquiry into reasons. Habermas traces this to defects in the way action is understood.

“It is not my intention to pursue a critique of ideology probing the roots of this inconsistency. I am concerned with the immanent reasons for Weber’s inability to carry through his theory of rationalization as it is set up…. First, I want to unearth certain bottlenecks in the concept formation of his action theory…. Second, I would like to show that the ambiguity in the rationalization of law cannot be grasped at all within the limits of a theory of action” (p. 270).

This is extremely important. Meaning is not adequately explainable by the mental intentions of nominal subjects. Along with Habermas, Paul Ricoeur and Alain de Libera have pointed out major blockages in the 20th-century “theory of action”. Gwenaëlle Aubry has developed an Aristotelian alternative that I rather like. Brandom has developed a new normative pragmatics and a new inferentialist semantics. He sees Kant as having developed a highly original alternative notion of intentionality that is based on shareable notions of responsibility and commitment, rather than on attributions of private subjective consciousness or belief.

“Intentionalist semantics is based on the counterintuitive idea that understanding the meaning of a symbolic expression X can be traced back to understanding the intention of speaker S…. For a theory of communicative action only those analytic theories of meaning are instructive that start from the structure of linguistic expressions rather than from speakers’ intentions” (pp. 274-275).

Linguistic expressions have a degree of objectivity, substantiality, or seriousness mainly because they are shareable. About the private intentions and mental states of speakers we can only speculate in the ordinary pejorative, non-Hegelian sense. With what is said on the other hand (at the level of understandable meaning and what Habermas calls validity claims, not that of putative bare fact or event), we can go much further.

“Starting from the pragmatist theory of signs introduced by Pierce and developed by Morris, Carnap made the symbolic complex … accessible to an internal analysis from syntactic and semantic points of view. The bearers of meaning are not isolated signs but elements of a language system, that is, sentences whose form is determined by syntactic rules and whose semantic content is determined by relations to designated objects or states of affairs. With Carnap’s logical syntax and the basic assumption of referential semantics, the way was opened to a formal analysis of the representational function of language. On the other hand, Carnap considered the appellative and expressive functions of language as pragmatic aspects that should be left to empirical analysis” (p. 276).

“The theory of meaning was finally established as a formal science only with the step from reference semantics to truth semantics. The semantics founded by Frege and developed through the early Wittgenstein to Davidson and Dummet gives center stage to the relation between sentence and state of affairs, between language and the world. With this ontological turn, semantic theory disengaged itself from the view that the representational function can be clarified on the model of names that designate objects. The meaning of sentences, and the understanding of sentence meanings, cannot be separated from language’s inherent relation to the validity of statements. Speakers and hearers understand the meaning of a sentence when they know under what conditions it is true. Correspondingly, they understand the meaning of a word when they know what contribution it makes to the capacity of truth of a sentence formed with its help. Thus truth semantics developed the thesis that the meaning of a sentence is determined by its truth conditions” (pp. 276-277).

This mini-history of 20th-century philosophy of language is very close to that put forward by Brandom, who calls Habermas one of his heros. (Habermas in turn sympathetically cites Rorty.)

Habermas is enthusiastic about Austin and Searle’s work on speech acts, and points out that this belongs to the more generally neglected area of the pragmatics of language. I think this predates Brandom’s major original work on a normative pragmatics.

“The limits of this approach become visible as soon as the different modes of using sentences are brought under formal consideration…. Along the line from the later Wittgenstein through Austin to Searle, the formal semantics of sentences was extended to speech acts. It is no longer limited to the representational function of language but is open to an unbiased analysis of the multiplicity of illocutionary forces” (p. 277).

Here we touch on Habermas’s version of the critique of representationalism. In its place he suggests that we address a multiplicity of illocutionary forces (taking force in the Fregean linguistic sense, rather than the more common one). Habermas strongly ties Austin’s “illocution” — or the doing involved in speech acts — with conditions and practices for evaluation of what he calls validity claims, as distinct from claims of truth.

“The theory of speech acts marks the first step toward a formal pragmatics that extends to noncognitive modes of employment. At the same time … it remains tied to the narrow ontological presuppositions of truth-conditional semantics. The theory of meaning can attain the level of integration of the communication theory that Bühler advanced in a programmatic way only if it is able to provide a systematic grounding for the appellative and expressive functions of language (and perhaps also for the ‘poetic’ function related to the linguistic means themselves, as this was developed by Jakobson)” (ibid).

One of the areas in which Habermas has been criticized has been his avowed commitment to a form of “cognitivism”. But once again, the vocabulary is ambiguous. Cognitivism could mean anything from the view that all judgment is exclusively of a calculating sort, to the view that value judgments depend on interpretation of meaning. Habermas rejects the former, and endorses the latter. He emphasizes that there are also “noncognitive” elements in speech acts.

“For this purpose the paradigm change in philosophy of language that was introduced by J. L. Austin … must be radicalized in such a way that the break with the ‘logos characterization of language’, that is, with privileging its representational function, also has consequences for the choice of ontological presuppositions in the theory of language…. It is with this in mind that I have proposed that we do not set illocutionary force over against propositional content as an irrational force, but conceive of it as the component which specifies which validity claim a speaker is raising with his utterance, how he is raising it, and for what” (pp. 277-278).

Illocutionary force is “the component which specifies which validity claim a speaker is raising with his utterance, how he is raising it, and for what”. This seems like a nice alternative to subject-centered notions of intentionality.

“With the illocutionary force of an utterance a speaker can motivate a hearer to accept the offer contained in his speech act and thereby accede to a rationally motivated binding (or bonding, Bindung) force” (p. 278).

He criticizes the appeals that Weber and others make to consciousness, as if it were a source. We ought to look at shareable meaning instead. The only thing that makes anything binding is the so-called force of reasons.

“Weber does not rely here on a theory of meaning but on a theory of consciousness. He does not elucidate ‘meaning’ in connection with the model of speech; he does not relate it to the linguistic medium of possible understanding, but to the beliefs and intentions of an acting subject, taken to begin in isolation” (p. 279).

“Weber does not start with the social relationship. He regards as rationalizable only the means-ends relation of teleologically [sic] conceived, monological action. If one adopts this perspective, the only aspects of action open to objective appraisal are the effectiveness of a causal intervention into an existing situation and the truth of the empirical assertions that underlie the maxim or the plan of action — that is, the subjective belief about a purposive-rational organization of means” (p. 281).

Here he enumerates symptoms of what he calls a “monological” (opposite to dialogical) exclusive focus on what I would call a modern interpretation of efficient causality as a basis for explanation. He emphasizes the second-person, “I-Thou” communicative aspect of reason over the more common reduction of everything to first- and third-person (“subjective” and “objective”) points of view. He is arguing that the reason we ought to care about and cultivate has an I-Thou character, first and foremost.

“A communicatively achieved agreement has a rational basis; it cannot be imposed by either party, whether instrumentally through intervention in the situation directly or strategically through influencing the decisions of opponents. Agreement can indeed be objectively obtained by force; but what comes to pass manifestly through outside influence or the use of violence cannot count subjectively as agreement” (p. 287).

I want to cheer when I read things like this.

“If we were not in a position to refer to the model of speech, we could not even begin to analyze what it means for two subjects to come to an understanding with one another. Reaching understanding is the inherent telos of human speech…. The concepts of speech and understanding reciprocally interpret one another” (ibid, emphasis added).

I think Plato and Aristotle were very aware of this reciprocity between speech and understanding, but it got largely forgotten later on. Plato centrally stresses open dialogue and questioning as the way to truth. Aristotle develops a whole art of simultaneously addressing linguistic meaning, reality, and ultimate rightness in a balanced way that anticipates many points in Kant and Hegel.

“”[E]xamples of the use of language with an orientation to consequences seem to decrease the value of speech acts as the model for action oriented to reaching understanding.”

Here consequences are understood in a modern causal sense, and not a logical or inferential one. Consequences and truth conditions were the main concern of earlier analytic philosophy. There is an ethical view called “consequentialism” that judges deeds strictly by their outcome, and is closely related to utilitarianism.

“This will turn out not to be the case only if it can be shown that the use of language with an orientation to reaching understanding is the original mode of language use, upon which indirect understanding, giving something to understand or letting something be understood, and the instrumental use of language in general, are parasitic. In my view, Austin’s distinction between illocutions and perlocutions accomplishes just that” (p. 288, emphasis in original).

This is very important. Second-person communication is more primary than third-person representation. Habermas recalls Austin’s three-way distinction among speech acts.

“Through locutionary acts the speaker addresses states of affairs; he says something. Through illocutionary acts the speaker performs an action in saying something…. Finally, through perlocutionary acts the speaker produces an effect upon the hearer…. The self-sufficiency of the speech act is to be understood in the sense that the communicative intent of the speaker and the illocutionary aim he is pursuing follow from the manifest meaning of what is said. It is otherwise with teleological [sic] actions. We identify their meaning only in connection with the intentions their authors are pursuing and the ends they want to realize. As the meaning of what is said is constitutive for illocutionary acts, the intention of the agent is constitutive for teleological [sic] actions” (pp. 288-289).

The kind of meaning we should care most about links the “manifest” meaning of what is said with the pragmatics of justification. Representational and truth-conditional semantics are logistical tools that should be in service to a broader pragmatic inquiry. Brandom has developed an original inferential semantics, in close connection with a normative pragmatics that he considers ultimately to be more primary.

“What we mean by reaching understanding has to be clarified solely in connection with illocutionary acts” (p. 293).

This follows from his description of the three kinds of speech acts.

“I have called the type of interaction in which all participants harmonize their individual plans of action with one another and thus pursue their illocutionary aims without reservation ‘communicative action’ (p. 294, emphasis in original).

Now he says that the whole huge topic he has been addressing as distinctively communicative action revolves around illocution.

“Thus I count as communicative action those linguistically mediated interactions in which all participants pursue illocutionary aims, and only illocutionary aims” (p. 295, emphasis in original).

He glosses this in terms of the “acceptability” of speech acts.

“We understand a speech act when we know what makes it acceptable” (p. 297, emphasis in original).

“A speech act may be called ‘acceptable’ if it satisfies the conditions that are necessary in order that the hearer be allowed to take a ‘yes’ position on the claim raised by the speaker. These conditions cannot be satisfied one-sidedly, either relative to the speaker or to the hearer. They are conditions rather for the intersubjective recognition of a linguistic claim” (p. 298, emphasis in original).

“Registering a validity claim is not the expression of a contingent will; and responding affirmatively to a validity claim is not merely an empirically motivated decision…. Validity claims are internally connected with reasons and grounds” (p. 301, emphasis in original).

This is the beginning of wisdom.

“That a speaker means what he says can be made credible only in the consistency of what he does and not through providing grounds” (p. 303).

In an earlier post, we saw that Habermas carefully distinguishes between truth, validity, and sincerity.

“We have distinguished genuine imperatives, with which the speaker connects a claim to power, from speech acts with which the speaker raises a criticizable validity claim” (p. 304).

Claims of authority too are qualitatively different from claims of validity or general reasonableness. In discussions of validity, authority as such has no place. To bring claims of authority into a discussion of reasons, where claims of authority have no place, is a kind of cheating.

“We discover the incompleteness of the literal meaning of expressions only through a sort of problematizing that is not directly under our control. It emerges as a result of problems that appear objectively and have an unsettling effect on our natural worldview. The fundamental background knowledge that must tacitly supplement our knowledge of the acceptability conditions of linguistically standardized expressions if hearers are to be able to understand their literal meanings, has remarkable features: It is an implicit knowledge that cannot be represented in a finite number of propositions; it is a holistically structured knowledge, the basic elements of which intrinsically define one another; and it is a knowledge that does not stand at our disposition, inasmuch as we cannot make it conscious and place it in doubt as we please” (p. 336, emphasis in original).

Next in this series: Second-Person Thinking?

Brandom on Rorty on Justification

Brandom suggests that we direct our attention to the doings involved in our attitudes toward truth. He has been both sympathetically and critically reviewing the work of his former teacher and colleague Richard Rorty.

He says his own earlier book Making It Explicit “offers Rorty two ways in which his justification-first pragmatic approach to truth might be improved, consonant with his own pragmatist scruples. First, instead of thinking of truth Pierce-wise, in terms of consensus, we can think about it in social-perspectival terms of the pragmatics of knowledge ascriptions. The idea is to think about what practitioners are doing in taking someone to know something” (Brandom, Pragmatism and Idealism, pp. 44-45).

“To take someone to know something one must do three things. To begin with, one attributes a belief. In the normative vocabulary I have been using to codify Rorty’s views, this is attributing a distinctive kind of normative status: a discursive commitment. Next, one takes that stance or status to be justified…. What one is doing in taking that justified commitment one attributes to be, in addition, true should not be understood as attributing to it some further property (which would most naturally be understood in representationalist terms). Rather, what one must do to take it to be true is to endorse it oneself” (p. 45).

As Kant said about existence, truth is not a property of things. Rather, I would say it is a measure of the integrity of our valuations. I think truth-related statuses are inseparable from ultimately ethical processes of valuation that are involved in any discourse or dialogue with others that seriously and in good faith aims at truth.

“[P]ragmatists about truth owe an explanation of uses of ‘true’ that occur as components of more complicated assertibles. When I say ‘If what the representationalist says in the passage at the top of page 17 is true, then pragmatism is in trouble,’ I have not endorsed or agreed to the offending remark. Redundancy and disquotationalist approaches to truth-talk extend to these unasserted, embedded uses, as well as the free-standing endorsement-indicating ones. The most sophisticated and technically adequate theory of this sort, in my view, is anaphoric, prosentential accounts, according to which sentences such as ‘that is true’ inherit their content from their anaphoric antecedents” (p. 46).

Brandom recalls Rorty’s support for Brandom’s Making It Explicit. At the same time, he generously credits Rorty as his own most direct inspiration.

“Rorty enthusiastically embraced both these ways of filling in his account of how pragmatists should think about truth” (ibid).

“By focusing to begin with on justification, rather than truth, Rorty not only opens up a path from pragmatics to semantics (theorizing about use to theorizing about meaning), but also carves out a distinctively normative space within the broadly naturalistic Piercean pragmatist picture…. In this way, Rorty turns the axial Kantian distinction between normative questions… and objective factual ones… back on Kant’s most basic semantic concept: representation. He does so by combining another Kantian idea with the Hegelian understanding of normative statuses as ultimately social statuses. Rorty fully endorses and exploits Kant’s distillation of the Enlightenment lesson, that what distinguishes rational authority (normative constraint) from mere compulsion (causal constraint) is liability to criticism, in the sense of answerability to demands for reasons…. In this sense, we can only answer to each other: to those who give and demand reasons” (pp. 47-48).

“By insisting on the essentially social character of the rational, critical, and justificatory practices within which performances acquire genuine normative significance, Rorty knowingly takes a giant leap toward a Hegelian understanding of that Kantian distinction” (p. 48).

Ethics has an inherent social dimension because it is mainly about what is right in relations with others. Obedience to any authority other than good reasons — or to any authority that is taken to be unilateral — is not an ethical relation but a power relation.

“What arouses passion, I think, is the consequent rejection of the very idea of objective reality…. But it is important not to lose sight of the fact that he rejects representationalist semantic models on behalf of the ideals of reason, freedom, and democracy. For Rorty does so on behalf of a humanized, nonrepresentational conception of rationality as consisting of responsiveness to reasons providing norms governing our practice…. But when he further construes giving and asking for reasons, assessing evidence, justifications, and explanations, as all ultimately and ineluctably a matter of politics…– the gauntlet has been thrown down and the battle joined” (p. 49).

I think there is actually an Aristotelian basis for this connection of ethics with politics. Politics is ethics writ large. This latter formulation also recalls Plato’s metaphor of the soul as a city in the Republic.

“The foes of the original Enlightenment could not understand how anyone who denied the authority of God to determine right and wrong concerning actions, independently of human attitudes, could nonetheless be a good person, concerned about acting as one ought. The foes of Rorty’s projected second Enlightenment cannot understand how anyone who denies the authority of objective facts to determine right and wrong beliefs, independently of human attitudes, could nonetheless recognize a distinction between better and worse arguments: genuine reasons for and against claims” (p. 51).

Here Brandom speaks of the traditional notion of unilateral authority, not his own highly original account of the symmetrical relations between authority and responsibility or answerability, which allows us to say that all authority is constituted by participation in reciprocal ethical relations of rational answerability and responsibility to others.

“Rorty takes it that it follows from social pragmatism about norms in this sense that nothing nonhuman can exercise authority over us, that we cannot be responsible to any nonhuman authority. His reason, I think, is that discursive authority and responsibility are rational authority and responsibility — in the sense of being normative statuses that matter for practices of giving and asking for reasons. What doesn’t make a difference for those practices is semantically inert and epistemically irrelevant” (p. 54).

Again, “pragmatism” here does not refer to the coarse popular notion that implies a lack of principle, but to a philosophical view about the order of explanation that treats human practice and doing as constitutive of the representations we speak about.

“We should acknowledge the authority only of what we can critically interrogate as to its reasons. Only what can fulfill its critical rational responsibility to give reasons justifying the exercise of that authority should count as having genuine authority. He concludes that only parties to our conversations, only participants in our practices, can have normative statuses. In the end, the only authority we ought to recognize is each other: those to whom we owe reasons for our commitments and those who owe such justifying reasons to us for exercises of their authority. Rational authority involves a correlative justificatory responsibility. To attribute such normative statuses to anything that can’t talk is to fetishize…. [I]t is precisely his devotion to reason and its essential critical function in making normative statuses genuinely binding — the great Enlightenment discovery — that drives this whole line of thought. He is trying to think through rigorously what reason is and what it requires of us” (p. 55).

“At the base of this argument is a new principle, which builds on but goes beyond social pragmatism about normative statuses. Its slogan is ‘No (genuine) authority without (rational) responsibility.’ I think there is something deeply right about it” (ibid).

I too think there is something deeply right about this.

Brandom goes on to explain the genesis of objectivity from normativity,

“Once implicitly normative social practices are up and running, derivative sorts of normative statuses, parasitic on the basic ones that characterize discursive practitioners, become possible. It is true that, as social pragmatism about norms has it, it is only in virtue of playing a suitable role in social practices that anything acquires specifically normative significance…. But in the context of discursive practices that include the kinds of authority characteristic of us as a reason-giving-and-assessing participants, those interlocutors can confer other, parasitic sorts of normative significance on things that are not themselves capable of giving and asking for reasons” (pp. 57-58).

“So the three principles I have excavated as the basis of Rorty’s argument, when properly understood, leave room for the possibility that our discursive practices can confer on objective things and occurrences the normative significance of serving as standards for assessment of the correctness of what count as representings of them just in virtue of being in that sense responsible for their correctness to how it objectively is with what thereby counts as represented by them. That is conferring on representeds a distinctive kind of authority over representings….The important point remains that nonhuman beings can have only the authority we grant them…. [A]uthority must be granted to, practically taken to reside in and be exercised by, the things themselves” (p. 59-60).

With Brandom’s symmetrical view of authority, objectivity is something emergent rather than something pre-existent. Objectivity as something emergent is not affected by Rorty’s critique of assumptions about objective reality.

“Explaining how that possibility — which I have argued is left open in principle by the three principles on which Rorty’s representationalism-as-fetishism argument against the very idea of objective reality is based — can actually be realized is a tall order and a hard job” (p. 60).

In Brandom’s view, this is why we need Hegel.

“I think Hegel offers just such an account…. In my second lecture I will explain how I think Hegel’s story about the institution of normative representational relations goes. In the end, I want to claim, Rorty did not follow his line of thought all the way through to its proper conclusion because he (following Dewey) did not sufficiently appreciate the thorough-going nature of Hegel’s historicism, and the remarkable and distinctive conception of specifically recollective rationality it articulates” (pp. 60-61).

What We Saw

In passing in the last post I argued that “because I saw it” is not a reason, but a mere reiteration of an assertion. I claimed that we ought always to be able to say something more about why we believe what we do, and suggested that in the current example, this would typically take the form of more detailed claims about what we saw. (See What and Why.)

Previously, I argued against John McDowell’s claim that the space of reasons includes cases in which empirical claims may be non-inferentially justified by reference to other empirical observations. In the current analogy, what McDowell counts as justification in such cases amounts to saying “because I saw something else”. In effect, it is an appeal to another completely indeterminate “seeing”.

By contrast, when we make more detailed claims about what we saw, even though these supplementary claims are not themselves inferences, because they analyze the initial “what”, they may provide the basis for subsequent inference to the original “what”. The axis of justification shifts from other immediate observations to articulated claims about the original observation.

Because the justification now appeals to articulated content rather than to other seeings that are as completely indeterminate as the first, it can now be inferential. Such inferential justification is weaker than deductive proof; unlike a mathematical proof, for instance, it is potentially refutable. But now we have truly entered the space of rational dialogue.

In the situation of “he saw X, she saw Y“, no dialogue is possible. “He saw, she saw” is just as vacuous as “he said, she said”. In both these latter cases, one mere assertion is merely counterposed to another mere assertion, and we can say categorically that no insight could ever be gained from the exchange.

By contrast, as soon as the discussion shifts from a contest of assertions to the articulation of content, something can potentially be learned from it, whether or not we end up endorsing what is said.

An empirical observation may still provide a useful heuristic basis for belief about the world. Additional observations may add to the heuristic “weight” of that basis. But contrary to McDowell, I would not count that heuristic basis as part of the space of reasons. I call something a “reason” if and only if it provides a basis for some reasoning, which is to say some inference or inferences. To call something a non-inferential “reason” makes no sense.

And contrary to both McDowell and Brandom, I do not recognize the existence of non-inferential “knowledge” at all. Every observational report is just a claiming about appearance, and no mere claiming about appearance should count as knowledge.

What we have in the putative case of “observational knowledge” is observational belief. An observational belief may turn out to be well-founded, but any such well-foundedness depends on factors that go beyond the brute fact of the existence of observations.

We can have dialogue about claims about other claims. We cannot have true dialogue about claims about raw appearances — or indeed, properly speaking, about first-order claims at all.

This, I think, is part of the upshot of Hegel’s “logic of being”. Any first-order claim “A is B” considered in isolation fares no better than Parmenides’ saying of Being. It is logically vacuous, just because it is isolated. Isolation would mean, for instance, that we have no definition for A or B.

(The way I am using “first order” here for claims is different from the way it is used in predicate logic. In standard mathematical logic, what I am calling an “isolated first-order claim” corresponds to a proposition, rather than any construct in predicate logic. According to Frege, a proposition can only mean either “true” or “false”, so we have a similar lack of information.)

In Aristotelian terms, the claim then reduces to a mere saying, which is actually charitable, because for Aristotle, in the absence of meanings for A and B, we would have failed to express a proposition at all. Mere saying in this sense actually fails to properly say anything at all. If we don’t know what A and B are, “A is B” is the logical equivalent of arbitrary noise.

Conversely, when we do take a first-order claim as meaningful — as we indeed do all the time — we must always already have some higher-order perspective on it that makes it meaningful. All meaningful saying is saying something at a higher-order level.

Attitude

The popular adage “everyone has the right to their opinion” is a partial truth. It gestures at something like Kantian autonomy. But the other side of the coin is that Kantian autonomy does not operate in a vacuum; it is always embedded in what Wilfrid Sellars called the space of reasons, where holding a commitment is implicitly to invite questions about the reasons for it, and then about the actual validity or applicability of those reasons. As ethical beings we are responsible for our opinions.

An attitude in the ordinary unqualified sense may operate as a cause of behavior in the modern sense, but because nothing prevents such an attitude from being completely arbitrary, a mere attitude cannot serve as a justification for anything. Attitudes in this sense have a sort of vain Cartesian irrefutability, in the same way that mere appearances do. There is a level at which if you say something appears to you thus-and-such, that mere appearance is incontestable. But it is incontestable precisely because nothing follows from it.

Brandom, on the other hand, is only interested in attitudes from which something is taken to follow. When he talks about the attitude-dependence of norms, I think what he really has in mind is more specifically a dependence on what analytic philosophers call propositional attitudes. This additional specification is crucial. An endorsement of any proposition whatsoever can still qualify as a propositional attitude, but every proposition has a “place” in the space of reasons that situates it in a multi-dimensional spectrum of goodness of justification. Criteria for goodness of justification can of course be debated too, but this still means that the justification for any propositional attitude is subject to evaluation. We may judge a propositional attitude to be poorly founded and therefore wrong, but it still cannot be completely arbitrary, because its justification can be evaluated.

I don’t think the same can be said for the Enlightenment authors Brandom cites as promoting a dependence of norms on attitudes, like Pufendorf and Rousseau (see Modernity, Voluntarism; Modernity, Rouseau?). Their legal and political voluntarism explicitly purports to trump any evaluation in terms of the space of reasons. This is in spite of the fact that those authors were already departing from the most traditional notion of ethical norms as simply somehow pre-given. Precisely because I am deeply sympathetic to Brandom’s critique of the unilateral authority-obedience model, I disapprove of these authors’ appeals to sovereignty.

Brandom shares his mentor Richard Rorty’s concern for democratic values, and suggests that normativity be considered as a historical development. But in spite of his concern for “semantic descent” to relate the higher-order, overtly philosophical concepts Kant and Hegel focused on to the level of ordinary empirical concepts used in daily life, he still treats ordinary concepts in a general way. Consequently, when he thinks about ordinary concepts, he still does so in a way analogous to that of Kant and Hegel. This is not a bad thing; I think he is by far the strongest at this high level. Fortunately, the weaker remarks about concrete historical antecedents for his views are peripheral to the main development of his thought.