🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.154521.28546@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.125621.7952@news.unige.ch> swann@divsun.unige.ch 
> (SWANN Philip) writes:
> 
> >Wittgenstein's later writings demonstrate pretty convincingly that
> >the very idea of a "theory of meaning" is absurd. This doesn't stop
> >people from continuing to try to square the circle... 
> 
> Bullshit.  See Bede Rundle's _Wittgenstein and Contemporary Philosophy
> of Language_ (Blackwell, 1990) for a critical evaluation of Wittgenstein's
> later writings which shows the incoherence of his account of language.
> Rundle comes out in favour of some type of theory of meaning, although
> he rejects most of the candidates that have been offered.

Since a new evaluation of Wittgenstein appears about every three weeks,
I don't think you should place too much trust in any one of them. Stephen
Stich in "Remnants of Meaning" ended up rejecting *all* philosophical
theories of meaning in a pretty convincing fashion - and he does it from
the inside as a once true-believer. 

Perhaps you can explain why such a bizarre thing as a theory of meaning should
exist? What would it look like? What would it be used for? What would it
mean? (could it mean anything?)

Philip Swann