Scotist Semiotics?

Still slowly working on a re-reading and partial translation of Olivier Boulnois’s L’Être et représentation (1999), we have already gotten a hint that Latin scholastics such as Roger Bacon and John Duns Scotus used some of the very same key terminology as the 20th-century Saussurean structuralists, but seem to have held a diametrically opposed view on the specific matter of the relation of signifier and signified. Boulnois does not explicitly mention the more recent French context. The last post was in part about what is called “signification”.

As a university student in the late 70s, I was tremendously excited to learn about French so-called “structuralism”, which seemed to support my own primitive insight that “relations are prior to things”. In this context there was a lot of talk about signifier and signified, growing out of the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure. Together with the American pragmatist Charles Pierce, Saussure is considered to have originated modern semiotics, or the study of signs. For a while, semiotics was high on my horizon.

A key point in the Saussurean tradition, which grew very big in postwar France, was that there is no direct relation of the signifier to the signified. Instead, it was said in effect that we are signifying animals who live and thrive in a sea of signifiers, and build meaning out of differentiation.

For Saussure, the signified is not the referent but the concept. What the concept really is was not discussed in detail. Saussure himself seems to have seen it as falling under what he called psychology and social psychology, which was a rather conventional view when he was writing in the early 20th century, but this plays no real role in his theory.

What is essential is the detachment of signification from reference. For Saussure, the sign is a two-leveled thing that consists of (sensible) signifier and (conceptual) signified. But in relation to its referents in the world, the sign is “arbitrary”. The sound or word “tree” has no inherent relation to a tree. I am not concerned to argue for or against Saussure here, just setting the stage.

For Roger Bacon, signs refer directly to things. For Scotus, “The sign leads immediately to the signified. Between them, we must not ask about any intermediary. It attaches only to a single signified: the present thing itself. It represents it” (p. 26, my translation throughout, emphasis in original throughout)

Here we see an explicit strong positive valuation both on presence and immediacy, and at the same time on representation. Representability will be Scotus’s minimal criterion of being. I see all three of these claims as deeply problematic, but that does not mean they can be simply and categorically rejected.

“This theory is unfolded in four theses:

“1) Every sign is a thing, and reciprocally every thing can be a sign; it is thus that the father is a sign in relation to his son. ‘The sign is said relative to a signified, as “father” relative to a “son”; and it is also necessarily the sign of something, which is its foundation.’ A sign is at the same time the manifestation of something, and refers to an other. It is necessarily a real foundation, even if it also implies a relation of signifying/signified. On the one hand, it brings an information to the sense, the sensible species (visible, audible, etc.), or to the cognitive power (the intelligible species); on the other, it produces a knowledge of something else” (ibid).

The sign thus brings a (participial or ongoing) “information” or informing form to sense or intellect.

The notion of forms being somehow transmitted, and of their being a kind of thing that can be transmitted, has an interesting ambiguity. The image of species as discrete things flying through the air seems hard to sustain. And yet, there is a sense in which form is not locked up in one thing, but can be “communicated”. And what we call the thing — not merely stuff or an object, but participial “information”, or some form as a happening — is grounded in the becoming or manifestation associated with a present participle.

This manifestation is the mark of reality, which is not just a collection of ready-made objects or truths but a process of being manifested. This goes beyond mere presence as a snapshot or image capable of being mastered, and beyond mere representation as referentially standing for something. This is the sense in which objectivity as a happening involving essentiality goes far beyond the mere being of objects mastered or possessed.

I have always thought it was a happening or unfolding (or happening-as-unfolding, as distinct from happening as a mere punctual event — procession or “emanation”) like this that the neoplatonic talk about something beyond being aimed at — not mere being-there or a necessary support for it, but a nonpunctual unfolding of unmastered essence that is precisely not to be identified with “Being”, or with the putative object of “ontology”. And on the other hand, I want to think that ordinary being is already nonpunctual or outside of itself, and thus strictly transcends both representation and event, at very the same time that it is susceptible to genuine understanding and criteria of reasonableness.

“2) Every sign supposes an inference. Here Scotus recollects the Aristotelian heritage, in line with the unification aimed at since Albert the Great. Taking the theology of sacraments as a point of departure, and trinitarian theology as an example, it is not limited to the model of the linguistic sign. The sign permits an inference, which starts from the posterior to go back to the inferior [sic]: if b, then a. A thing signifies another if its existence entails that of another, be it anterior or posterior. Indeed it becomes the element of a reasoning by inference or likelihood (enthymeme). One same theory of the sign is to provide an account of signification and of inference. It allows a unified theory of semiotics as cognitive science to be constructed. The linguistic sign is only a particular case, thought on the model of inference. It functions not as a code (according to a biunivocal correspondence), but according to relations that are more numerous and more complex” (p. 27).

Quite unexpectedly, we have here not only an emphasis on inference in the context of signification, but it is contrasted with a mechanical code or biunivocal correspondence in a way that makes it sound like what Sellars and Brandom call material inference. But for Brandom this grounds a non-representationalist account, whereas Scotus, as we will see over the course of a number of upcoming posts, is arguably the arch-representationalist of the whole Western tradition.

“3) Scotus aims to provide a general and unique theory of the sign. To be a sign, it suffices to be a thing. But what is a ‘thing’? Not always a sensible, physical, material reality: for him it suffices to have a formal being, a reality sufficiently unified and positive to be able to be opposed to the term with which it is in relation, to become the foundation of this relation. The sign is the real term of a real knowledge. Unlike a sensible thing, a sign is first of all a formal object, a possible object of knowledge. ‘This is true not only of the sensible sign, taking “sense” [in Augustine’s definition] strictly, for the corporeal sense, but again it is true for the incorporeal sense, taking sense generally, for any cognitive power.’ The senses are not only sensibility (here, in the organic sense), but knowledge in the broad sense — intellection. The sign is not always sensible; it can be immaterial, and consist in a concept or an intelligible species. Like Bacon, Duns Scotus integrates in the theory of the sign the intelligible signs that are the concepts of the soul. But he envisions also the case of the angels, who communicate and transmit species or purely intelligible representations. By a philosophical decision, Scotus generalizes the status of the sign. The subtle Doctor gives an indifferent definition that is neutral and transcends genres. He conceives a transcendental semiotic” (pp. 27-28, brackets in original).

The idea of “formal distinction” — roughly, that there can be a “real” difference in definition where there is no difference in “being”, whatever that is — seems both plausible, and by no means inherently tied to the objectionable claims that will is superior to reason.

I’m still grappling with the suggestion that a concept could be a sign. That concepts are inferences, or at least are closely associated with inferences, seems plausible enough, and certainly better than the idea that a concept is a mental image. Brandom identifies concepts with rules we adopt to govern inference. That signification is closely related to inference also makes sense. But while it makes sense that a concept would be immaterial, I find it hard to affirm that the same would be true of a sign.

“4) The sign concerns the category of relation. Bacon had already remarked that ‘the sign pertains to the category of relation’. By itself, the sign brings about the knowledge of something else. It is constituted by a relation of inference to the thing signified. Does it go the same for signification as for knowledge? For Bacon, the sign represents something to someone: it implies two relations, in the accusative and in the dative, toward the signified and toward the interpreter, and it is the second that is essential. But Aristotle himself describes knowledge as a relation, and remarks that the destruction of the thing known entails that of the corresponding knowledge. Does the sign still signify when its signified disappears? The first, traditional, position consists in dissociating the truth of enunciation from the truth of the sign, and says, like Anselm, that there is a ‘true sign’ even when it does not signify something. Quite the contrary, for Bacon the sign loses its value as a sign. ‘If we cannot conceive anything by a sign, it is void (cassum) and vain, it cannot be a true sign; but it is only a sign according to the substance of the sign, and it does not have the status of a sign: it is thus that the substance of the father remains when his son is dead, but not the relation of paternity. And whatever vocal sound, the circle of wine or an other [sign], imposed in act in relation to a thing and instituted for it, can represent it and signify it, if what it signifies does not exist in act, it is not a sign in act.’ If the thing that it represents is absent, the sign represents nothing, it is indeed not a sign. It must receive a new institution” (pp. 28-29).

This use of Latin substantia seems very far indeed from Aristotle’s ousia.

Earlier, Boulnois had contrasted the radicality of Bacon’s direct realism with traditional views. He said that Bacon’s notion of the sign — in contrast with either that of Augustine or that of Aristotle — involves only two elements, omitting the mediating role of concepts or of the soul. Here it sounds like Bacon on another level does still leave a role for an interpreter. But perhaps an implicit distinction is being made between interpretation as immanent to the level of content (which a direct realist would presumably reject), and a transcendent dimension of something like the person of an interpreter standing over and above any content, which may be related to the voluntarism we will be hearing about shortly.

“The distinction between the kinds of sign is at the center of the semiotic theory: it brings out the principal articulations, and in particular allows the relation of signs in general to linguistic signs, of semiotics to semantics, to be thought. In Scotus, the relation signifier/signified is organized along three divisions” (p. 30).

Much more than a simple division of the subject matter is going on here.

“1) The relation signifier/signified can be natural or conventional. The natural sign manifests a real relation that is found in nature, while the conventional sign translates a relation of reason, which only exists for the intellect that establishes it. This opposition recovers the division between two kinds of inferential signs. The non-linguistic natural signs imply a causality and a real relation; the instituted signs, of which linguistic signs are a part, imply an intellectual decision, and indeed a relation of reason. The conventional (ad placitum) sign has only a relation of reason with its object; it is a second intention, a simple perspective of the mind with no objective correlate. Scotus gives as an example ‘the voice and the gestures of the monks’ who have taken a vow of silence. These signs ‘could signify other things, if it pleased the institutors’, for what has been instituted at will can be revoked at will. — But the natural sign better reveals the essence of the sign: ‘The natural sign signifies more truly than the conventional sign’. In effect, the natural relation of the thing to its sign is a real relation, implying a first intention: an aspect of the thing has exercised a direct causality on what signifies it. For example, the relation of smoke to fire and that of the thing to the concept are real” (pp. 30-31).

The vocabulary of first and second intentions comes from Avicenna. Roughly, first intentions are supposed to refer directly to concrete real things and genera like “horse”, whereas second intentions refer to abstract concepts like “subject” or “genus”. For Avicenna, Scotus, and others in the scholastic tradition, second intentions generally have a second-class status and valuation in comparison to first intentions.

Whether there really are such things as natural signs is a question that will have to be considered. Of course insofar as there are natural things, or phenomena that we agree to call natural things, there “are” such natural things as smoke and fire. We can probably agree too that smoke is in some sense “caused” by fire. But that that inference from smoke to fire is truly naturally given, and not in any way due to us, is quite debatable.

Scotus’s talk about the will of the institutors of a language is also problematic. It can be fairly said that the state of a natural language at a given time is not the product of anyone’s will, individual or collective. Even more generally, real history is not based on a foundational moment. It is the cumulative compound of many accidents.

“Duns Scotus nonetheless does not relate signification to knowledge, but to will. Speech is an ordered communication, which makes manifest certain signs of a mutual will…. Language does not express a knowledge, but rather indicates a will…. What we understand, what is said, manifests what the speaker wants to say. It is inscribed in the space of reciprocity (mutuae voluntatis), and not that of monologue or meditation. Finally, it has communication in this space of interlocution as its aim. Language agrees with the human as a being who is not limited to reason, but who is given a will” (p. 31).

The invocation of mutuality and reciprocity and a “space of interlocution” here is an important surprise that makes this more interesting. This overlaps with the concerns of Hegel, Gadamer, Habermas, and Brandom.

I use the locution “I want to say that x” from time to time myself. Right now “I want to say” that while to speak of a definite will in the sense of intending this and not that is a perfectly good distinction, claims that there even is a power of pure arbitrary choice — let alone that it is superior to intellect — ought to be rejected. What the speaker according to herself wants to say is indeed a part of the story of meaning, but it is only a part.

“Signs suppose an institution on our part. They follow from a voluntary decision, and in no way from a nature of signs. The order of signs is not in the nature of things. Established, stopped, they found a status, a state, or an order among the participants in discourse. But the instituted sign can efficaciously represent an invisible reality: a will. It thus represents an intellection, but under its highest form, as will, and allows the willed effect to be produced. The sign thus instituted has a double function: it guarantees the certitude of recognition, it allows the efficacy of its operation. The model is thus that of a pact (pactio), whether it is a matter of a firm engagement (sponsio), a guarantee (fideiussio), or an oath (juramentum). The efficacy of signs comes from a pact between the liberties they represent” (pp. 31-32).

We can see that there is a high-level analogy between this notion of the “institution” of a regime of signs and the common early modern foundation myth of a social contract. Like the social contract, which is supposed to ground strong claims of political sovereignty — and unlike Hegelian mutual recognition, which is always in process and open to another chapter — the institution of signs for Scotus putatively has an “always already founded” status.

As is common in the scholastic tradition, efficacy here is also unequivocally associated with efficient causation, which is treated as the most primary kind of cause, whereas in a purely Aristotelian context efficient causes are subordinate, which implies that efficacy cannot be simply identified with efficient causality. Moreover, for Aristotle himself, something like the art of building is more truly an efficient cause than the architect or the carpenter or the hammer or the hammer’s blow.

“2) The signified can be permanent or intermittent. The sign that always has its signified is a ‘true sign’ in the sense of saint Anselm. It is also called ‘efficacious’ because it implies an efficient causality between the event and its sign. Reciprocally, for the one who depends on it, it always leads to a knowledge. It has no need of an interpreter, and always does what is expected of it: it always realizes its proper operation. The necessary sign can only appear accompanied by its signified: the eclipse is the true sign and efficacity of the interposition of the earth, since it is always the effect. This signification, which rests on a necessary inference, is necessary and always true. Thus all the natural signs are efficacious signs” (p. 32).

From an Aristotelian point of view, I have already expressed some skepticism about the claim that there are natural signs, but in the Catholic tradition it is commonly held that the sacraments, unlike linguistic signs, are efficacious in themselves, and Scotus is giving voice to this.

“But among the conventional signs, certain are efficacious (the sacraments), while others are not. The latter do not always imply their signifieds, but are sometimes true, sometimes false, that is to say neutral. This kind of sign is falsifiable, it is enunciated in variable propositions, and its signification is contingent. It is not efficacious, not having the power to realize its signified: in a proposition, it is not in the power of the speaker to make it so that the sign is accompanied by the thing it signifies. The sign is thus not true by itself, but is an exterior adequation to its signified. The ambivalence between the truth of the sign and truth of adequation mark the division between the conventional sign in general and the efficacious sign” (ibid).

The notion of efficacy here also seems be an all-or-nothing proposition — either total or inapplicable. I think there is a kind of efficacy of signs, but it is never total.

“3) Again we can distinguish signs according to their relation to a temporal signified. Some refer to the past (commemorative signs), others to the future (predictive signs: prognosticum), and others finally to the present (deictic signs: demonstrativum). For Scotus language is a commemorative sign, while the sacrament is a demonstrative sign” (pp. 32-33).

The “commemorative” status of linguistic signs is presumably supposed to be a kind of reference back to a founding event or will. Again I think of social contract theories.

Husserl also speaks of “deictic” expressions, but gives the term the nearly opposite meaning of indexical or occasional, as contrasted with ideal. Something like Husserlian deictic expressions are called “floating” signifiers in the Saussurean tradition, because they have no fixed reference.

“According to Thomas Aquinas, every sacrament has an omnitemporal signification. It is the sign of the past, of the present, and of what is to come (it recalls respectively the Passion of Christ, source of all grace, the present which is the gift of grace, and the glory to which every grace destines the human). Its signification contains an essential presence, present to all the dimensions of time. For Scotus, on the contrary, the sacrament is a demonstrative sign. Like every sign, it has an intentionality pro praesenti. It refers to the present and to it alone. It is in this sense that it is a representative sign: the representational function of the sacrament as sign implies the realization of the signified at the instant of its utterance, and indeed the temporal presence of the object represented. It has a deictic dimension that is demonstrative, in contrast to memory and the promise. Representation is first of all a form of presence.”

Aquinas and Scotus are both doing things with presence, but it seems as though presence in Scotus is contracted to a punctual status that is connected with a punctual or all-at-once view of representation. The strong association of representation with presence is also important.

“Duns Scotus cannot accept the thesis according to which the verb in present tense signifies the instant at which the utterance of every enunciation is completed, or all the conclusions that depend on it. ‘When it is uttered, the verb cosignifies time in the same way that it signifies [the signified]’: as a consequence, when it cosignifies the present, it only refers to the instant of its utterance. When no indication comes to specify a proposition, the time of the enunciated in the present is that of its enunciation. The intention of the speaker comes to coincide with the rhythm of the phrase. Expressed temporality follows lived temporality. In the same way, by the force of discourse, the demonstrative pronoun hoc [this] signifies what it shows the instant it is proffered” (pp. 32-34).

For Brandom, pronouns like “this”, far from being indissociable from immediacy, are anaphoric back-references to something said before.

“Three metaphysical principles are interlaced in the Scotist semantics: the primacy of the will for justifying the institution of signs, that of univocity for establishing their ideal state, and that of presence for explicating their temporal reference” (p. 34).

Realism, Nominalism, Modality

There is an important intersection between the 14th century debate about realism and nominalism and contemporary questions about the status of modality in logic that ought to be of interest to non-specialists. Both of these topics probably sound obscure to most people. At sound-byte level, the first is about the status of universals, and modality is something we implicitly presuppose any time we try to reach for something “more” than allegedly pure phenomena or mere appearance.

Both sides of the medieval debate often wanted to enlist the support of Aristotle, who took a remarkably even-handed approach to these questions we have yet to clarify. The debate was often invested with a great moral significance, and provoked a number of intemperate claims. But at the same time, both sides were able to use the technical vocabulary of the theory of “supposition” — along with shared familiarity with Aristotle — to discuss semantic issues of concrete meaning and word use in detail, in terms both sides could in large measure agree upon. This led to a very high quality and sophistication in many contributions to the debate on both sides.

On some slight acquaintance, many modern readers can easily sympathize with nominalist critiques of the premature and illegitimate use of universals. We may think of vulgar platonism, excessive abstraction, reification, alienation, and so on. On the other side though, there are premature and illegitimate claims that universals can be explained away entirely. But Hegel’s Frau Bauer could not even recognize her individually named cows, if there were no such thing as legitimately reusable reference, naming, and vocabulary. I think most people should be able to see that there are two sides to the coin here.

If we ask how legitimate repeatabilities in ordinary language are constituted and used, something like modality inevitably comes into play. It now occurs to me that Brandom’s emphasis on the priority of hypotheticals over alleged categoricals in real-world material inference — a point to which I am deeply sympathetic — really calls for something like the notion of modality that he develops.

All the Way Down

Once of the things I’ve most appreciated about Brandom has been his unwillingness to reduce normativity and value judgments to non-normative factors. Repeatedly in Making It Explicit, he speaks of norms “all the way down”. There is even a subheading for “all the way down” in the index entry for “norms” (p. 732). But in conjunction with this, he repeatedly suggests that the relation between pragmatics and semantics, while symmetrical in many respects, also includes an asymmetry, according to which it is more appropriate to say that normative pragmatics grounds representational semantics than vice versa. This is in distinction both to common views that privilege representation over inference and semantics over pragmatics, and to the purely symmetrical view of semantics and pragmatics that he seems to propound in Reasons for Logic, Logic for Reasons.

The symmetrical view can be seen in the favorable light of other symmetries that Hegel argues for in his campaign against “one-sidedness”. But it also implies that there is no sense in which normative pragmatics ought to be seen as coming before representational semantics.

Brandom’s 1976 dissertation, which is partly framed as the elaboration of a new form of pragmatism, makes links between the pragmatism it advocates, and a priority of pragmatics over semantics in philosophy of language. But as mentioned above, this year’s Reasons for Logic, Logic for Reasons, while applying inferentialist explanation to semantics in new ways, and while remaining as much as ever committed to an inferentialist order of explanation in general, nonetheless seems to back off from claiming any priority for pragmatics over semantics.

My worry is that this new symmetry and parity between pragmatics and semantics could end up weakening the commitment to “normativity all the way down”. The new thesis of full symmetry builds on his previous analogy between normativity and modality or subjunctive robustness, which I take to be sound. It may be that normativity all the way down does not really require the relative priority of pragmatics over semantics that Brandom claims in the dissertation and Making It Explicit, but I think more on this needs to be said.

Anaphora and Reason Relations

Applying Brandom’s 2025 concept of reason relations to his 1980 expansion of anaphora, it seems that the new reason relations codify and make explicit the same material inferences that are expressible in terms of anaphoric back-reference between sentences in a non-logical base language. Reason relations are constructed formal objects that are designed to codify an explicit formal representation of the material inferences expressed by anaphora. They provide a conservative extension and explanation of the material inferences expressible in the base language.

Implication Spaces

“Logical vocabularies make reason relations explicit in terms that appeal only to the conceptual resources supplied by the base vocabularies from which they are conservatively elaborated. They are in that sense intrinsic vocabularies for specifying reason relations. Logical vocabularies, however, are not purely metavocabularies, in the sense in which semantic and pragmatic rational vocabularies are. The sequent-calculus vocabularies in which we say how to elaborate arbitrary base vocabularies into logically extended vocabularies with the capacity to codify reason relations are genuine metavocabularies in that sense. Like semantic and pragmatic metavocabularies, they do not extend the base vocabularies for which they are metavocabularies. They are purely metalinguistic, talking about expressions in the base vocabulary, rather than using them” (Brandom in Hlobil and Brandom, Reasons for Logic, pp. 17-18, emphasis in original).

“Logical vocabulary is a hybrid or mongrel kind of metavocabulary. It plays the expressive role of explicitating reason relations: making them explicit, constructing sentences intelligible as saying that relations of implication and incompatibility hold. That is a broadly metalinguistic function. But logical vocabulary performs that explicative expressive function by using the sentences whose reason relation it articulates, rather than by talking about them (mentioning them).”

“These observations raise the question whether there is a purely intrinsic-explicative vocabulary for specifying reason relations that is a rational metavocabulary in the sense of being genuinely and wholly metalinguistic. The answer is ‘yes’…. Our candidate, informed by work due to Dan Kaplan (2022), is an implication-space metavocabulary for specifying both reason relations and the conceptual role sentences play in virtue of standing to one another in such reason relations. Very roughly, where Gentzen’s sequent-calculus metavocabulary treats implications as basic objects in a proof-theoretic formalism, Kaplan’s implication-space metavocabulary treats them as basic objects in a model-theoretic formalism. It represents the current state of the art in inferentialist semantics.”

“Inferentialists have long thought that the universe from which semantic interpretants are drawn or from which those interpretants are built — the analogue of the universe of mereologically structured worldly states out of which semantic interpretants (propositions) as pairs of sets of truth-making states and falsifying states are built — should consist of implications (including incompatibilities coded as implications) and sets of them” (p. 18, emphasis in original).

This is vital stuff. At the risk of sounding dogmatic in the Kantian sense myself, I have long thought that the world is made of implications. What this really means is that the determinacy in it is made of implications.

“Kaplan’s (2022) first conceptual innovation was the idea that thoroughgoing inferentialists ought to treat the most basic units being interpreted, no less than the semantic interpretants assigned to them, as being implications, rather than the sentences that make up their premises and conclusions. Only at a second, subsequent stage would semantic interpretation be extended from implications to the sentences they contain. He accordingly begins with a universe of candidate implications, together with a partition of that universe into a distinguished set of good implications — ones whose conclusions really follow from their premises — and the rest. This universe of candidate implications with a distinguished subset is an implication space.” (p. 19).

Note that he speaks of implications containing sentences, rather than of sentences “having” implications. This reflects the implication-first point of view: implications are “the most basic units being interpreted”.

“Any base vocabulary determines such an implication space, since the lexicon of the vocabulary suffices to define the points (candidate implications as ordered pairs of sets of sentences of the lexicon), and the reason relations of the vocabulary suffice to determine the distinguished set of good implications” (ibid).

“We are exploring the idea of understanding meaning to begin with in terms of reasons instead of understanding it in terms of truth. That is to understand meaning in terms of a dyadic relation (between sets of sentences) instead of in terms of a monadic property (of sentences). On the approach that takes truth as basic, one starts with assignments to sentences of a truth value: as true or false, correct or incorrect, good or bad (as a representation). However, although assignments of truth values are the beginning of semantic interpretation on this approach, they are not the end. To get a notion of meaning that corresponds to what one grasps (however imperfectly) when one understands a sentence, one must advance from consideration of truth values to consideration of truth conditions. (One must add to a semantic conception of Fregean Bedeutung of a sentence a semantic concept of its Fregean Sinn.)” (pp. 19-20; see also Brandom on Truth).

When we contrast appeal to reasons with direct appeals to truth, the problem with direct appeals to truth is that there is no good way to separate them from what Kant would call dogmatic assertions.

It seems to me that the truth-first approaches to meaning inevitably end up assuming particular truths. Such assumptions may be entirely innocent and tentative, or not, and there is no way to easily distinguish the innocent ones. On many traditional views, the necessity of such assumptions is simply taken for granted. Here is an alternative to all of that that respects natural language, but can also be made mathematically rigorous. I did not expect such a thing to even be possible.

I think Aristotle and Plato already took a reasons-first approach, but it was purely hermeneutic, without mathematical underpinning, in spite of Plato’s great interest in mathematics.

Ultimately I do more hermeneutics than mathematics myself, but for quite some years I was keenly interested in mathematics. In my day job, I implicitly lean on both constructive mathematics and a kind of hermeneutics on an everyday basis, in doing a kind of logically oriented engineering modeling of “real world” use cases. So whereas records in a database may be taken as expressing sentences that are supposed to be true, I do all my design in terms of the functional dependencies of one thing on another (where the value of one is a simple mathematical function, fully determined by others that can be finitely enumerated and are usually very few). These can be thought of as if-then rules that apply to all practically relevant cases, without claiming to represent universal truth. This applies a kind of lightly formalized inferentialism in the engineering world, which can also be very pragmatic and adaptable to new hypotheses. I do indeed find that these practical judgments (even well outside of the broadly ethical domain that I am mainly concerned with here) have all the characteristics that Brandom talks about. So naturally I found Brandom’s explicit inferentialism very appealing.

“At the extensional semantic ground level, one can say that a sentence is true, and in the reason-based setting one correspondingly can say at the extensional semantic ground level that an implication is good or an incompatibility holds. Given that analogy, the question becomes: what stands to implication (reason relation) values (good/not-good) as truth conditions stand to truth values?”

This is a distinction that Aristotle also makes in his own way. The more elementary stages of inquiry are concerned with a preliminary mapping out that some characterization of something in the domain is at least pragmatically true. The more advanced stages are concerned with why it is true, or what makes it true.

“The idea behind truth conditions (and Fine’s generalization to truth-makers and falsifiers) is that apart from the question of whether a truth-candidate actually is true or false, there is the question of what it would take to make it true — what things would have to be like for it to count as correct in this distinctive semantic sense. The idea behind the first stage of implication-space semantics is that apart from the question of whether a candidate implication actually is good (according to the partition of the space of candidate implications into good and bad determined by the underlying base vocabulary), there is the question of what it would take to make it good. In the special case of reason relations that already do hold, candidate implications that are good, this takes the form of asking about the circumstances under which it would remain good. That is the range of subjunctive robustness of the implication” (p. 20).

This notion of a scale of subjunctive robustness is where the hermeneutics meets the math.

“The range of subjunctive robustness of a candidate implication is its semantic counterpart in the form of its good-makers, as in Fine’s truth-based semantic setting the semantic interpretants are their truth-makers (and falsifiers).

“Grasping ranges of subjunctive robustness in this sense is an essential part of understanding reason relations in ordinary vocabularies” (pp. 20-21).

“The ranges of subjunctive robustness of candidate implications are their ‘goodness’ conditions, as truth conditions are the ‘goodness’ conditions of sentences. For an implication to be good in the reasons-first semantic setting is for its premises to provide reasons for its conclusion (or reasons against, in the case of incompatibilities), while for a sentence to be good in the truth-first semantic setting is for it to be true. The advance from a conception of semantic goodness to a conception of meaning is the advance to consideration of circumstances under which a reason relation or sentence would be good….. In the implication-space setting, the circumstances are additional premises (and, in the fully general multisuccedent case also additional conclusions) that would make or keep the reason relation good. By contrast to the truth-maker setting, in the implication-space setting, those further premises and conclusions are just more sentences of the lexicon of the base vocabulary. That is why implication-space semantics counts as intrinsic” (pp. 21-22, emphasis in original).

“In this way, a model-theoretic inferentialist semantics becomes available that is sound and complete for the aforementioned expressive logic NMMS [NonMonotonic MultiSuccedent logic]. The implication-space semantics shows how to compute the conceptual roles of arbitrary logically complex sentences from the conceptual roles of logically atomic sentences of any base vocabulary — even when the base vocabulary, and so its (conservative) logical extension, are radically substructural, including those that do not satisfy the metainferential structural closure conditions of monotonicity and transitivity. To do this, the implication-space rational metavocabulary must make explicit the conceptual roles played by sentences of all those base vocabularies, as well as their logical extensions. It is universally explicative of sentential conceptual roles. And since implication spaces can be constructed using no resources other than those supplied by the spare specifications of arbitrary, even substructural base vocabularies — just sentences and set-theoretic constructions from them representing their reason relations — the implication-space model-theoretic semantics qualifies as a universal intrinsic-explicative rational metavocabulary” (pp. 22-23, emphasis in original).

“Metainferences of various kinds can be defined precisely, systematic combinations of them recursively constructed, and the effects of those combinations computed. The result is a principled botanization of constellations of metainference that offers revealing characterizations of a number of logics that have been the subject of intense interest among logicians and philosophers of logic over the past few decades…. In treating metainferential relations among conceptual roles as objects that can be combined and manipulated, this calculus stands to conceptual roles as the sequent calculus stands to the sentences that are the relata of the implication relations it codifies as sequents. This intrinsic rational metavocabulary, built on top of the implication-space inferentialist model-theoretic semantics for conceptual roles, provides the expressive power to make explicit a hitherto unexplored level of metainferential reason relations among those roles, and thereby offers an illuminating new semantic perspective on the relations among a variety of well-studied logics.”

“The implication-space metavocabulary provides a model-theoretic semantics for the conceptual roles sentences play in virtue of standing to one another in reason relations of implication and incompatibility. It is a reason-based inferentialist semantics, rather than a truth-based representational semantics like truth-maker semantics. By contrast to the proof-theoretic treatment of reason relations by the sequent calculus, the implication-space metavocabulary assigns sets of implications as the semantic interpretants of sentences, and set-theoretic constructions out of those sets as the semantic interpretants of sentences, and then operates on and manipulates those semantic interpretants to codify reason relations and conceptual roles. In fact, it does so in a way that can be shown to be isomorphic to truth-maker model-theoretic semantics…. In both cases, the universe is taken to be structured by a commutative monoid (fusion of states and a corresponding operation combining candidate implications according to their ranges of subjunctive robustness). Nonetheless, the implication-space metavocabulary provides an intrinsic semantics, since it appeals to nothing that is not made available by the base vocabulary to which it is applied: sets of sentences and their reason relations. Implication-space semantics is something like the intrinsification of truth-maker semantics — in a way formally analogous to, but expressively more powerful than, Fine’s use of intrinsic ‘canonical models'” (pp. 23-24).

The abstract algebraic notion of a monoid is also ubiquitous in contemporary functional programming. Per Wikipedia, a monoid is a set equipped with an associative binary operation and an identity element. One easy example is the set of positive integers with addition as the associative operation and 0 as the identity element, but there are a great many others as well.

“When this structural isomorphism of implication-space and truth-maker semantics — which holds between the universes from which semantic interpretants are drawn, the interpretants themselves, and the way reason relations of consequence and incompatibility are determined for sentences in terms of their semantic interpretants — is appreciated in detail, and considered in context with the orthogonal isomorphism at the level of reason relations between the truth-maker alethic modal semantic metavocabulary and the deontic normative bilateral pragmatic metavocabulary, it becomes clear that the implication-space semantics makes explicit the abstract rational forms common to those two extrinsic-explanatory metavocabularies of meaning and use. Those rational forms are just the conceptual roles the implication-space semantics characterizes” (p. 24).

Epilogues to this series: Anaphora and Reason Relations; All the Way Down

Reason Relations

“The construction gestured at so far foreshadows an argument for understanding reason relations of consequence and incompatibility as constituting a structure common to representational meaning and to practical use, to truth-making and to justificatory practices, to the objective world talked about and to the activities of talking about it, to what is represented and to the representing of it. That these same reason relations show up from the two otherwise disparate perspectives afforded by (the right kind of) semantic and pragmatic metavocabularies offers some reason to think of those relations as central to language or discourse as such” (Brandom in Hlobil and Brandom, p. 11).

Hlobil and Brandom’s Reasons for Logic presents major new results. In the technical part, Hlobil presents not just one but two very detailed new isomorphisms that unexpectedly seem to unify previously disparate areas of research in a convincing way. I will barely skim the surface of all that is afoot here. My goal is just to work through a few more pages of the motivational part, which also briefly summarizes the whole.

This notion of reason relations is already quite fascinating.

“Such an approach is unusual, and so perhaps surprising in how it discerns rational forms amphibious between these different dimensions” (p. 12).

It is the “amphibious” or hylomorphic character of what is going on here that is so amazing. This is not just something on the horizon offered to aim at as a goal, but an actual concrete accomplishment. This could make it possible to specify in detail what the substantiality of reason will amount to in particular cases. Brandom’s work has clearly taken on a life of its own, and is now being carried forward by others in new ways.

One of the many ideas afoot here is a suggestion that relations come before “things” in the order of explanation. This has been one of my favorite themes throughout the years. It even appears that this amphibious character of reason relations could enable us to say what constitutes objectivity in particular cases, and not merely gesture at it. If so this is huge, from the point of view of perennial human deficits and conflicts. It could be as big a leap for talking animals as the introduction of Platonic dialogue. Of course, we should anticipate that people will still find things to argue about.

Earlier, it was Brandom who convinced me to take Kant and Hegel seriously, and to take analytic philosophy seriously as actual philosophy and not just a technical endeavor. This greatly elevated appraisal, especially of Kant and Hegel, naturally led me to direct attention to Kant and Hegel themselves. In this context, I almost came to think of Brandom primarily as a very innovative expositor of their work. The products of this collaboration in the Research Group on Logical Expressivism that are reported here leave no doubt that there is much more to Brandom’s work than that.

“One important criterion of adequacy for both semantic and pragmatic metavocabularies as we understand them is that they offer expressive resources sufficient to provide explanations of the reason relations of arbitrary base vocabularies. They are able to say, each in their own distinctive idiom, both what it means for some sentences to stand to others in relations of implication or incompatibility and why they do…. Our preferred version of semantics offers, in effect, truth-makers for the claims that Γ#A (Γ is incompatible with A) and Γ|~A (Γ implies A) in alethic modal terms of the impossibility of fusions of truth-making states of A, and truth-making states Γ with falsifying states of A, respectively — that is, in terms of how the sentences of Γ and A represent the world to be. Our preferred version of pragmatics specifies how one must use sentences in order thereby to count as practically taking or treating them as standing in relations of implication or incompatibility. It does that in deontic normative terms of constellations of commitments to accept and reject the claimables they express being improper, inappropriate, or ‘out of bounds’ ” (ibid, emphasis in original).

“Because both of these kinds of metavocabulary appeal to conceptual resources beyond those intrinsic to the base vocabularies of which they are the metavocabularies, and do so in service not just of characterizing the reason relations of those base vocabularies but of explaining them, the sorts of semantic and pragmatic metavocabulary we consider can be denominated ‘extrinsic-explanatory’ rational metavocabularies” (pp. 12-13).

“In addition to extrinsic-explanatory rational metavocabularies, there are also intrinsic-explicative ones. This latter kind of metavocabulary for reason relations restricts itself to the conceptual resources supplied by the base vocabularies whose reason relations it characterizes, and is used to make explicit those reason relations and the conceptual contents they articulate, rather than to explain why they are as they are, or what it is for them to be what they are. The principal phenomenon we initially seek to understand in these terms is logic. The first way logical vocabulary differs from the semantic and pragmatic metavocabularies considered so far is that it is an intrinsic, rather than an extrinsic metavocabulary for codifying reason relations. The rules by which logical vocabulary is introduced to extend any arbitrary nonlogical base vocabulary appeal to nothing more than the reason relations sentences of the base vocabulary stand in to one another” (p. 13, emphasis in original).

“Gentzen’s basic innovation was to treat reason relations, paradigmatically implications, as objects, called ‘sequents’, that can be referred to and manipulated, and their metainferential relations made explicit in a mathematical metavocabulary. The sequent-calculus metavocabulary can be thought of as applying to an arbitrary nonlogical base vocabulary…. This sequent-calculus metavocabulary allows for efficient expression of the reason relations that hold in any base vocabulary, including metainferential relations. But it is essentially just a notation, requiring no substantial additional conceptual resources beyond what is provided by the base vocabulary whose nonlogical implications and incompatibilities it specifies explicitly.”

“Perhaps surprisingly, the spare sequent-calculus notation… turns out to be sufficient to formulate rules for adding logical vocabulary to any arbitrary base vocabulary, and (most importantly), computing the reason relations of the extended vocabulary from those of the base…. The idea is first to extend the lexicon of the base vocabulary, by syntactic rules that specify that the base lexicon is included in the logically extended lexicon, and that if A and B are sentences in the extended lexicon, then so are [A implies B, A and B, and A or B]…. The complete logically extended vocabulary… can then be computed from the base vocabulary. We say that a corresponding logically extended vocabulary can be elaborated from any arbitrary base vocabulary. Implications and incompatibilities (and metainferences involving them) that hold in every logical extension of a base vocabulary, no matter what base vocabulary it is elaborated from, can then be said to hold in virtue of logic alone” (pp. 13-14).

“The sequent-calculus vocabulary is accordingly a rational metavocabulary — a vocabulary for specifying the reason relations of some other vocabulary — that has the special feature that it permits the elaboration of arbitrary base vocabularies over lexicons that extend the lexicons of the base vocabularies by adding logically complex sentences formed by combining the sentences of the base vocabulary with logical operators. Rules for those operators formulated in the sequent-calculus vocabulary conservatively extend the reason relations of the base vocabulary, in the sense that the implications and incompatibilties that hold among logically atomic sentences in the logically extended vocabulary are just those that already held among them in the base vocabulary. And the connective rules formulated in the sequent-calculus vocabulary do this while appealing to no resources outside of those provided already by the reason relations of the base vocabularies” (p. 15, emphasis added).

“”That is, sequent-calculus metavocabularies are intrinsic rational metavocabularies…. And they elaborate all the reason relations of the extended vocabulary solely from the reason relations of the base vocabulary…. When the reason relations of the logically extended vocabulary are suitably elaborated from those of a base vocabulary, it becomes possible for the first time to say explicitly, in the extended vocabulary, what implications and incompatibilities hold in that base, and also in its logical extension” (ibid, emphasis in original).

“The constellation of the sequent calculus metavocabulary and the logical vocabulary it introduces stands in an intrinsic-explicative relation to the reason relations of any base vocabulary whatsoever…. The rules of the logics we propose can be shown to be expressively complete in a strong sense…. [A]lmost all extant logics either presuppose that the base vocabularies they extend satisfy strong global structural constraints — paradigmatically the monotonicity and transitivity at the core of traditional understandings of specifically logical consequence as a kind of closure operator — or retroactively impose some such global structure, thereby failing to be conservative over some substructural base vocabularies. While we believe that specifically logical consequence does have a global closure structure (and that logical consistency is monotonic), we argue that this is not in general true of nonlogical reason relations” (p. 16, emphasis in original).

Next in this series: Implication Spaces

An Isomorphism

“The present point is that if the claim that it is possible to identify a rational structure common to what is expressed in pragmatic and semantic metavocabularies could be made out in detail, it would cast light on issues of much wider philosophical significance. For we can look at the relations between what is expressed in normative pragmatic and representational semantic metavocabularies in another way: as articulating the relations between the activities of talking and thinking, and what is being talked or thought about. This is the intentional nexus between subjects and objects, between mind and the world, knowers and the known.” (Brandom in Hlobil and Brandom, Reasons for Logic, p. 8).

Brandom uses the term intentionality in a non-psychological sense that he elsewhere attributes to Kant. We are implicitly in what I think of as Aristotelian-Hegelian territory, where a Cartesian-style division into Subject and Object is not assumed. Brandom’s low-key summary of what to me are the rather dramatic stakes in this issue focuses on the American pragmatists, whom he discussed in the recent Pragmatism and Idealism lectures.

“The American Pragmatists inherited from the German Idealists — who in turn inherited it from Romantic critics of the Enlightenment — the idea that the Cartesian tradition failed structurally, making itself a patsy for skepticism, by attempting to define subjects and objects independently of one another, and then later on facing the problem of how to bolt together things understood as having wholly disparate natures…. The better strategy, they thought, was to start with a conception of intentionality as successful cognition (and action)…. One way to work out such a strategy begins with the thought that there is a kind of structure common to what normative pragmatic metavocabularies make it possible to say about the practices of discursive subjects using declarative sentences to manifest practical attitudes and undertake commitments, on the one hand, and what representational semantic metavocabularies make it possible to say about the modal relations among matter-of-factual states of the world those sentences come to represent by being so used, on the other” (ibid).

Here he references the classic pragmatist emphasis on “successful” thought and action. But especially since he is about to explicitly invoke an Aristotelian (and Scholastic) connection on the next page, this suggests to me that even a very elementary mainstream notion of pragmatism could be recast as evincing a kind of Aristotelian teleological concern with ends and that-for-the-sake-of-which, but in language that hides this angle and is suited to survive in the climate of uncomprehending modern antipathy to Aristotle. The main difference is that Aristotle says much more clearly that the ends that matter are those that are sought for their own sake, and not as means to other ends.

I used to think that logical and linguistic pragmatics as a field of study had nothing in particular to do with pragmatism as a view of the world. Brandom’s recent writings provocatively suggest that there is indeed a connection.

The emphasis on structure is also significant. Although Brandom does not identify with it as I did especially in my youth, French so-called structuralism and poststructuralism represent another major strand of non-Cartesian, non-subject-centered thought in the 20th century. Brandom’s usage seems closer to mathematical structuralism, and perhaps to the structural functionalism of the sociologist Talcott Parsons and the cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget that attracted Jürgen Habermas, whom Brandom has called a personal hero.

“For the worldly version of the relations that articulate the structure we are calling ‘conceptual’ are relations of necessity and impossibility whose existence owes nothing to the activities of discursive practitioners. They are objective relations, specified in the alethic modal vocabulary used to state laws of nature, and more generally to specify subjunctively robust relations” (pp. 8-9).

Brandom has consistently highlighted the significance of modality and modal logic for formulating what he likes to call subjunctive robustness. Next he invokes non-Cartesian strands within analytic philosophy.

“We take the view we develop to be a way of understanding what Frege means when he says ‘A fact is a thought that is true’. It is also one way of understanding the Tractarian [early Wittgenstein] claim that the world is the totality of facts…. John McDowell (1996) explores the same sort of conceptual realist view in Mind and World under the slogan ‘The conceptual has no outer boundary’.”

While I am highly sympathetic to the non-Cartesian ambitions here, I think that facts alone are too shallow a basis to constitute a world. I am not a Wittgenstein scholar, but I think he later moved away from this attempt to ground everything on atomic facts. But what else is needed is something like the subjunctive robustness or modal aspect of things that Brandom dwells upon. This emerges naturally as we move from world-as-totality-of-fact to the idea of a world constituted from implications and distinctions (the latter being my preferred way of thinking about what Brandom calls incompatibilities).

“These are deep waters. These pronouncements by great philosophers are mentioned to indicate that the stakes are high for the enterprise of explicating any form of conceptual realism. Here is a sketch of how we go about it. One of the key arguments we appeal to in filling in this neo-Aristotelian metalinguistic bimodal conceptual realism is a technical result…. Greg Restall and David Ripley have worked out what they call a ‘bilateral’ normative pragmatic understanding of the turnstile that marks implication relations in multisuccedent sequent calculi [which looks approximately like |~ and means that if all formulae on the left (often represented as a context capital gamma Γ) are true, then at least one formula on the right is true.]…. The Restall-Ripley bilateral normative pragmatic metavocabulary turns out to be related in surprising ways to what we take to be the most sophisticated contemporary heir of Tarskian model theory and later intensional semantics in terms of possible worlds (Lewis, out of Kripke, out of Carnap), namely Kit Fine’s truth-maker semantic framework…. The representational content of declarative sentences is then understood in terms of assignments to them of sets of states as truth-makers and falsifiers. Global structural conditions on modally partitioned state spaces (for instance requiring that all the mereological parts of possible states be possible) interact with conditions on assignments of truth-makers and falsifiers (for instance forbidding the truth-makers and falsifiers of logically atomic sentences to be overlapping sets).”

Sequent calculi are proof-theoretic notations due to Gerhard Gentzen in the 1930s. They generalize Gentzen’s system of natural deduction. In sequent calculi, every line is a conditional or sequent, rather than an unconditional assertion. In effect, the primitive terms are implications. This is a formal analogue of Brandom’s idea that the common structure of the world and of thought is at root constituted out of implications (and distinctions) rather than simple facts. Hlobil and Brandom’s book shows that it is general enough to support radically nonmonotonic and nontransitive cases.

“We show below that if one defines semantic consequence in just the right way, a powerful, fruitful, and detailed isomorphism can be constructed relating truth-maker modal semantic metavocabularies and bilateral normative pragmatic vocabularies” (pp. 9-10).

Serious logicians mainly study the properties of different logical systems, or logics, and develop new ones. Alternate logics have hugely proliferated since the first half of the 20th century. He is alluding to the fact that many differently detailed notions of logical consequence have been proposed. What is the “right” one depends in part on its conditions of use.

An isomorphism is a structure-preserving mapping that works bidirectionally. The existence of an isomorphism — like the one mentioned further below between algebra and geometry, or the one Brandom is talking about immediately below, between semantics and pragmatics — is an extremely nonrandom, rare occurrence, and therefore is often taken to be deeply significant.

“Assertion and denial line up with truth and falsity, combinations of commitments (to accept and reject) in a position line up with fusion of truth-making and falsifying states, and normative out-of-boundness (preclusion of entitlement to the commitments incurred by those assertions and denials) of a compound practical position lines up with the modal impossibility of such a fusion state.”

“When Spinoza looked back on the relations between algebraic equations and geometric shapes on which Descartes modeled mind-world relations, he saw that the key feature distinguishing that new, more abstract notion of representation from earlier atomistic resemblance-based conceptions is the existence of a global isomorphism between the algebraic and geometrical vocabularies. Spinoza’s slogan for the holistic insight that animated the representational revolution was ‘The order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things’ (Spinoza, Ethics II, Prop. vii). The isomorphism between normative pragmatic and alethic representational metavocabularies turns out to make possible in our setting a precise, tractable, and productive specification of that shared rational ‘order and connection’. We think this is a good way to rationally reconstruct some central aspects of Aristotelian (and Scholastic) intelligible forms. This isomorphism is the core of our version of bimodal (deontic/alethic) metalinguistic conceptual realism” (p. 11).

Brandom has been a consistent critic of standard versions of representationalism, but he has always been careful not to reject too much. The more affirmative reference to representation and Tarskian model theory here specifically involves not just any representation but an inferentialist semantics that undoes many conventional assumptions. Apparently there is a formal result to the effect that inferentialist semantics can be expressed not only in terms derived from Gentzen’s proof theory, but also in terms of an evolved variant of Tarski’s model theory in which the things represented are implications.

Next in this series: Quick Note on Proof Theory

The Role of Reasons

In a brand-new book co-authored with logician Ulf Hlobil — Reasons for Logic, Logic for Reasons: Pragmatics, Semantics, and Conceptual Roles (2025) — Robert Brandom introduces results from the Research Group on Logical Expressivism, which is inspired by a major strand of his work. Logical expressivism is a highly innovative approach that takes the primary purpose of formal logic to be not the proving of truths, but a kind of making explicit of all kinds of real-world reasoning that are carried out in natural language.

The book introduces quite a number of big ideas — among them logical expressivism, reason relations, implication spaces, conceptual roles, and important new technical results that highlight the importance of nonmonotonic logic and substructural logic. Established Brandomian themes such as normativity and its relation to modality, inferentialism, material inference, and the close connection between semantics and pragmatics also show up here in new light. Brandom has written the more philosophical chapters, and Hlobil the more technical ones.

One interesting surprise is that Brandom explicitly calls the new approach “neo-Aristotelian”. This “neo-Aristotlian metalinguistic bimodal conceptual realism” will be “hylomorphic in a recognizably Aristotelian sense. For it identifies a kind of rational form that is understood as common to thoughts and things…. [T]he relations of consequence and incompatibility that show up in different guises in a whole constellation of intimately interrelated metavocabularies… are those that in the end underwrite practices of reasoning, by determining what is a reason for and against what” (p. 9, emphasis in original).

This is well short of the more full-blooded re-visioning of an open Aristotelianism that I have been suggesting here, but within its scope it does seem genuinely Aristotelian to me — particularly the idea that there are forms common to thought, things, language, and practices of reasoning. This is a nice vindication of the “Aristotle and Brandom” theme with which I began this blog almost six years ago.

“[T]he strategy of addressing philosophy’s perennial concern with the nature of understanding or reason in general by investigating language…. has been developed in two quite different directions…. The first, dominant, better worked out tradition focused on logic, and later, also formal semantics, as perspicuous mathematical metalanguages…. The other tradition focused rather on language as a kind of social practice” (p. 1, emphasis in original).

Brandom has always been interested in both of these. At the beginning of his career he worked on logic, but for most of his maturity he has tended to favor the pragmatic side. Here at one point he ends up suggesting that they may be equally important. The book presents new results in mathematical logic that help bridge the gap.

“Where the formalist tradition is oriented by a conception of understanding and reasons as codified in artificial logical calculi and semantic metalanguages, the pragmatist tradition looks instead directly to natural languages, thought of as social practices and forms of life. In place of the exclusively monological character of reasoning as deriving, modeled on proof, characteristic of the other tradition, understanding shows up in this tradition as a social achievement, and reasoning as essentially dialogical: a matter of discursive practices of giving and asking for reasons, defending and challenging claims that amount to taking up positions in a contestable, public, normative space” (p. 2).

“The two traditions ought by rights to be understood as focusing on different aspects of language: roughly, on the meanings of linguistic expressions, and on their use. In suitably broad senses, we might understand semantics as the study of meaning, and pragmatics as the study of use or discursive practices and abilities. So understood, semantics (even a semantics inspired by and paradigmatically applicable to logic) and pragmatics show up as complementary theoretical endeavors. The goal should be to synthesize semantic and pragmatic theories…. Perhaps the combination of those thoughts recommends rather a more balanced view that eschews claims of explanatory priority in favor of understanding each aspect as in principle intelligible only in terms of its relation to the other” (pp. 2-3, emphasis in original).

“The lesson that emerges, we will argue, is a kind of discursive or linguistic rationalism. Language becomes visible as at base the medium of reasons, and reasoning as the beating heart of language. On the side of pragmatics, the fundamental speech act is that of making claims. The basic speech act of making claims, asserting, is to be understood in terms of practices of defending and challenging those claims, by making other claims that have the practical significance of giving reasons for and against them. Understanding claiming this way provides a path to understanding the claimable contents expressed by declarative sentences in terms of the role they play in relations of being a reason for or against — what we will call ‘reason relations” (p. 3, emphasis in original).

He continues, “On the side of semantics, worldly represented states show up as what determines the reason relations of consequence and incompatibility that the sentences whose truth-makers and falsifiers they are stand in to one another: their roles in reason relations. By understanding the common topic that semantic and pragmatic metalanguages articulate aspects of, not just under the vague rubric of ‘language’, but more specifically as the implicit reason relations that distinguish discursive practices as such, we can better understand not only the relations between the meaning and the use of linguistic expressions, but also the relations between truth (the central concept of traditional semantics) and justification (the central concept of pragmatics, according to linguistic rationalism), in the form of practices of defending claims by giving reasons for them and challenging claims by giving reasons against them” (pp. 3-4, emphasis in original).

“At the core of this book, then, is the rationalist explanatory strategy of understanding the nature of language in terms of what we will call ‘reason relations’. As addressed here, that is a genus with two principal species: implication and incompatibility. They correspond to being a reason for and being a reason against” (p.4).

“A closely related term of art is ‘vocabulary’. We use it in a technical sense, to mean a lexicon or set of declarative sentences, together with an implication relation and an incompatibility relation defined on those sentences. To begin with, we can think of an implication relation as holding between a set of sentences that are its premises and a single sentence that is a conclusion that follows from, is a consequence of, or is implied by those premises. An incompatibility relation holds between a set of premises and a further sentence that those premises exclude, or rule out, or are incompatible with” (p. 5).

He continues, “By calling them (declarative) ‘sentences’ we just mean that they are what in the first instance stand to one another in reason relations of implication and incompatibility…. In virtue of standing to one another in reason relations of implication and incompatibility, what thereby count as declarative sentences express conceptual contents. Those contents can be thought of as the functional roles the sentences play in constellations of implications and incompatibilities” (ibid).

“According to this order of explanation, the key question is: what do we mean by talk of reason relations of implication and incompatibility? In virtue of what does something deserve to count as a consequence or incompatibility relation?” (ibid).

“The idea is to identify reason relations in terms of the various vocabularies that can be used to specify them. Because these are vocabularies for talking about (the reason relations of) other vocabularies, they are metavocabularies. Because it is in particular the reason relations of base vocabularies that they address, we can call them rational metavocabularies” (pp. 5-6, emphasis in original).

“Semantic metavocabularies explain reason relations of implication and incompatibility by specifying what the sentences that stand in those relations mean, in the sense of how the world must be for what they say to be true. The sentences stand to one another in relations of implication and incompatibility because the objective states of affairs that are their semantic truth conditions stand to one another in modally robust relations of necessitation and noncompossibility” (p. 6).

“Pragmatic vocabularies explain what is expressed by reason relations of base vocabularies by saying what features of the discursive practice of using those sentences it is, in virtue of which practitioners count as practically taking or treating the sentences as standing to one another in relations of implication and incompatibility. Pragmatic metavocabularies make it possible to say what it is that language users do in virtue of which they are properly to be understood as practically taking or treating some sentences as implying others in the sense of taking assertion or acceptance of the premises as providing reasons for asserting or accepting the conclusions, and practically taking or treating some sentences as incompatible with others in the sense of taking assertion or acceptance of the premises as providing reasons against asserting or accepting the conclusions. Reason relations show up from the expressive perspective provided by pragmatic metavocabularies as normative standards for assessment of the correctness of rational defenses of and challenges to claims, made by offering other claims as reasons for or reasons against those claims” (p. 6).

“As we will see later in much more detail, to do their job properly, semantic metavocabularies must use alethic modal vocabulary to make claims about what states and combinations of states of the world the base vocabulary talks about are and are not possible. To do their job properly, pragmatic metavocabularies must use deontic normative vocabulary to make claims about what acts, practical attitudes, and combinations of them are and are not appropriate, and what other acts and attitudes would and would not entitle an interlocutor to them. What can be said in alethic modal terms is substantially and importantly different from what can be said in deontic normative terms. The one concerns features of the objective world, the other features of the practice of discursive subjects. These are the two poles of the intentional nexus that links knowers and the known, minds and the world they understand and act in, representings and what is represented. We want to understand both kinds of thing, and the important relations between them” (p. 7).

“Alethic” is from the Greek aletheia, for truth. The parallelism or isomorphism between the “alethic modal” notion of measuring the subjunctive robustness of assertions, and a “deontic normative” Kantian articulation of the compelling or necessary character of ethical conclusions, which Brandom has long stressed, is very substantially elaborated in the new book.

“In the terms used above to introduce the idea of reason relations we propose to understand the alethic modal semantic metavocabulary and the deontic normative pragmatic metavocabulary as offering different (meta)conceptual perspectives on a common object: the incompatibility of what is expressed by the declarative sentence p and what is expressed by the declarative sentence q. Corresponding claims apply to reason relations of consequence or implication” (pp. 7-8, emphasis in original).

Next in this series: An Isomorphism

Aristotelian Illocution

I’ve recently been writing about the use Habermas makes of Austin’s notion of illocution and illocutionary speech acts. Illocution refers to the various kinds of purely linguistic or “performative” doing — to acts or purposes that are accomplished entirely within the use of language.

Aristotle’s famous definition of what it is to be a human, which is traditionally rendered “rational animal”, is equally well translated as “talking animal”, or animal that uses language. He calls this distinctively human activity “saying”. Saying for Aristotle is never a mere event or occurrence. It always has what contemporary philosophers would call a normative sense. In fact, what mainly counts as a saying for Aristotle is precisely what Habermas would call an illocutionary act.

Although Wittgenstein famously claimed that “meaning is use”, pragmatics or inquiry specifically into language use generally received little attention in 20th-century philosophy of language, while it made great advances in the technical study of logical syntax and representational semantics. A pragmatist minority, however, urged an alternative “pragmatics first” or “use first” approach to language. This has been taken up most prominently in recent times by Habermas and Brandom.

The current topic takes me back to the original goals of this blog. The idea was to develop in an expanding spiral, starting from personal reflections and an extremely informal exploration of how Aristotle and Brandom could be inter-articulated. I wanted to show that this could be both interesting and serious, and that it was not the quixotic task it might sound like. Nowadays the scope is broader, and I more often start by commenting on some text or other, which helps provide focus. Anyway, with the current topic, it feels like I just completed another expanding lap. This time it is an unexpected strong connection between Aristotle and Habermas.

I want to seriously suggest that Aristotelian “saying”, in what Aristotle would call its proper sense, refers to what Habermas would call an illocutionary act. Conversely, a Habermasian illocutionary act can be identified with the proper or strong sense of Aristotelian saying.

Aristotelian saying and Habermasian illocution both refer to expressions or articulations of meaning, rather than to events of producing sounds or characters.

Nothing is more fundamental than inquiry into meaning. At the same time, there is more to meaning than representational semantics. Sociality, insofar as it is achieved, is founded on shared understanding that depends on articulation in language. Aristotelian saying and Habermasian illocution name the intrinsic normative dimension of natural language use. Unlike artificial formal languages, the understanding of natural languages is inseparable from the taking of positions on questions of normative interpretation and judgment.

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).