3 ms·
> "The question of whether a certain sentence is true, for Brandom, is inseparable from rational standards about what it is permissible or obligatory to say or
by slowmovintarget 6y ago
> "The question of whether a certain sentence is true, for Brandom, is inseparable from rational standards about what it is permissible or obligatory to say or believe."
I'm trying to unpack that statement. It seems like the article writer is claiming, in tortured fashion, that Brandom simply believes in axioms. Or am I missing the point?
I'd have to agree with the last statement. Ethical requirements for baseline beliefs do come from peer-pressure. There's a point where, if you disbelieve 2 + 2 = 4 you will be derided. What's interesting is how we extend those requirements, because that requires a delicacy we so often lack.
- jshevek 6y agoRegarding the sentence you quoted, the author is trying to summarize Brandon's views and I am not confident they are doing so in the most clear manner. I would go to source, Brandon, to really understand. That said, I believe (could be wrong) that he is just summarizing a version of deontic logic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_logic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_logic
- ukj 6y agoThere is a distinction to be drawn between expression and evaluation. If I express “2+2” it could be evaluated to 4 (in decimal); or 11 (in trinary). If two evaluators disagree on the truth-value of 2+2=11 then one possible explanation is that they disagree on the number-system in which the expression was made. That leads to the usual consensus problems in computer science: leader election etc. It can’t be solved without one side “changing its mind” - or, at least translating its expressions for the target evaluator. Consensus requires linguistic norms.