13 on te Very tea of a j Conceptual Scheme Publid eipinalule. owe | Pose. aud lr. ban. Pril. Soe. 43 (24) | Rai pr. to | rine of my in poe ik ef onepat Prete ies ulo Tuth Feel) ‘ten Cnc ie wa frig : Capra ar gut af ecegnahnt Beco ee D. Paw vite We Pity weer eae | Suture or pristine, Thee yo Adi inane Wom on sto sate. n ice eke ee desires, hopes, and hits of knowledge that characterize one person (Oded: (darmdon lig |e ne te euntepans forte sacs To anti ne : 1 Ronit Hel ca on, wit cosas at ee enh thao wi arcane oly oe onal scene nein the ony ft em tong er mares 1 hhave ‘religion, And when someone sels out to describe “our honey tn soa ae state i Concept elativsm i heady and exotic doctrine, or would be ; A ye oal mae goad saw a The we heats oles te : | "pithy sho inprriaigty w kee e : Sakon Asay mech eh | > 2 See ennupattuaghs ound a conmptal change or potound sonny guna amie oe ‘yt, so sept tat sh soa se {tele of atoms hd ic ns Seca ar rene {tal date tome nel fae ae eae Cane ve evened in distant tne o lacs may ie . ‘extensively in ther esures fo dealing wth one oe anor Pepe184 Language and Realty oF phenomena. What comes cosy in one lnguagsmaysome ard In anoter ad ths ilference may cho spice dina lean vale utexarpes ike ses impressive asthe ocasionaly are, are not so ere but that the changes andthe coma can be explained and desrited sing the equipment of «singe language. Who, wanting to demonstrate that Hopl incorporates a metaphysics 20 slo 19 ours that Hopi and Enpsh camot, a8 he pte i, “be Carat’ ues Engh to convey the content of sale Hopt Sentences.” Kuhn illiant at saying what tng mere like Before the revolution vsing--vbatel?—owr poxt-evlutionry idiom? Quine svesus fee for te pre indiduative pus the evouton of our coneepua scheme’? whl Beeson tls us where me ca 60 to get view ofa mounais undistorted by one or another owns “The dominant metaphor concep elatvsm, thao diering points of ew. seems to belay an wndeng paradox. Dilerent ‘ois of view ake sens, buen there na eommon connate ‘sate on which plot them: yt the exten os common sath eles thclam of ramatincomparaiy, What wend sets {0 me, sme ies of the onsdeations tha et the fini to onceptul contest. There areexteme supposition tht founder on puladot or contadieton; there are mest examples we have no Hou understanding Whit determines whee me cross fom the Ineolystange or none! 1 he absurd? , We may acept the doctrine that ascites having langunge swith having a concepiva schere. The ration nse pone 1 ‘be ths: where conerpual schemes ier do langunger Dut speakers of diferent languages may share conceptual scheme rove ther is away of ansaing on language into the eter Studying the rtera of atlton fe thersfow away feewsing on ‘iter of Went fr concep seb. ence cheer Sent seit th language in his way the nig peoble eslesly doubled, fr then we woukt have to imagine the ind, ih its ordinary categories, operating with a Tanguage with tt ‘xzaning siracture. Under the orevmstances we would Gray ‘want to ask Who is to be master SE Wr -Te Pcl and Seon apc of Ve Ha HEE A ena Sv Gee Sper a Oye i | (On the Very Iden of Concepal Scheme 185 Alternatively, there i the idea that an language distorts ely, ‘which implies that only words i at al hat the mind ores ‘ops ith things s they relly are This to conse langage a8 nines (houph neces dstrtng med independent ofthe Fumas agencies that employ ita ew of lnypuaze that sutly ‘cannot be mninined. Yet the mind can grape without ‘istortion with the real, the mind itl must be who categorie land concepts. This tarts sel fain fam therein gute Aiferent parts of the philosophical lanieape, There are Tor crample, theories that make freedom const in decstons then apart from al dese, habits, and dispositions ofthe agents and theo of Knowledge that sige that the nd ean obser the toaly ofits on perceptions and ies. Tn each cs. the minds divorced trom the ais that conte an inaeapeble conetusion Som certain peso easoning Ii, bt one tht shuld says esunde ut to ret the penises. ‘We may ienify conceptual schemes wih languages, thea, of tate allowing or he posit that more thas one nase xpress the same scheme, set of inertrarlatabie languages Languages we wil nt think ofa sepenble fom sols speaking langage i not a tat man ean lone we retaining the pow ‘of thought, So tere i no chance that scone cam lake ap 8 ‘anlage point for comparing cncepusl schemes by tenpereriy shesing his own. Can we then sy that two pote have dllerent once scenes i they sak angus ht ao tear Tea? In what Glows 1 consider wo kinds of cate that might be upeted o arse: complet, and par fits of tansatii ‘There would be compete flues no signet range of sentences in one language could be ratated into the ote, tere woul be Paral fur some range could Be translated and ome rane ‘ould ot shal nee posible asymmcres) My state il be {0 argu tht we cannot make see of total are and the ‘examine more bre yeas of paral are, Fs then, he purported eats ef compete false Is empking to tkea very short ne indeed nothing maybe si, ould count ss evidence that some form of acti could not belted in ur language that was not ath ume ime evidence hat at Tora of acti was not peceh Behaviour I this were righ, we probaly ‘veh to Ho that a Form of acy tha cannot be itrprted 8186 Language and Reatey language in ou language not speech tehavout, Pating matters this nay 1 unstsetery, however. or i coz to ite more han ‘making tanta no ana onguewerieion of langage hood. AS fu, the thes aks the appt of aevadence if i truth, a6 I Hhink ii, should emerge ste conlosion of 38 argent. “The edly ofthe postion i improved by tefstion on the lose rations hetwecyfanuage and the abution of atiades Sch as tlic dpi and intention, On the oad, sen hat ‘perch requires a muttude of finely dscrninated intentions and ‘ies. A person whe asserts tha perseverance Leos honour bright ‘us for trample, represent himself as tellcving that persevere sep honour bight and he must tend fo represent himself a Sesing On the other hand it seme likely that we ean Imteibly atibte ites as complex as these oa speaker vest ‘team tnt his word ino or There can be no Sou that the ‘ation etoeen feng able to transite somcon's lnguage and brine ale to dence hatte ery los Stil unt me can {23 more about wha hi elation i the ene aguine wnitanetae Tangusses rains ober Tis scmetims thought that tanta ito @ familar language, sy Ens cannot be tentenon a angangshood on te rounds thatthe relation of wana ot trannne. The en SS that some language, say Satuain, may be treatable into English. and some further language. ke Pleonian, may be transit int Stara, wile Platoon fot analatabl ito English. Enough trnsnable diferenos may ad up to a ut teasatable one. By imagining sequence of languages, each lose nought the one before to be cepa Uasated init We cat fimsgive a language so ren Irom Engh to rust Yoally tramiation nt st Corspending oth tant langage 4d be 2 igatem of concep altoeter sen (owe ‘Thscnercee dors no thin. nrc ay new len int the incuion For we suid have i atk how we esgnaed tt whit {he Saturnian wat dong wos inning ston (oF anything ‘Ue. The Sturman speaker igh els hal that was Wate Was doin or ater we mip fora momen arse tha that eae wht hevas teling us But thon wou oar tu fo wonder whether ur irultons of Saturian were caret ‘According to Kal, veiensts operating in erent scenic (nthe Very lea of ¢ Conceptual Scheme 187 ‘rains (tin desea paradigms’) “work in dlleent word’ * Sirawson's The Boas of Sene bepins withthe remark that ie possible te iapine kins of words very dierent fom the worl as Ime know it Since there at ot one wold. thse lai re ‘metphodtal or mercy pial. The metaphor sr, however, Hol tal she sre Sawson estes us to mapine possible non act worl, molds that might he decibel, ing os reen TaMEnIE, Dy redistiucing teh wales ever sentence in varous systematic ays The clay of the eontrante Retween worden tis ost Aepends on sepposing our mheme of concept, cur drive resources, o renin acd. Kun onthe otber ad, want 10 think of iterent observers ofthe serie work who oie to wh incommensurable systems of concepts. Stawion's many imagined ‘words are seen or Rear of described from the se pont of ew Kuhns one wv i een Mom diferent pots afew. Te The second metaphor we want o work on ‘Te fet metaphor requires datintion within Inguaps of concept and content: uring axed stn of concepts (wards ith fined meanings) we describe alternative universes. Some sentence tl be roe simply boeaue ofthe consis or meanings fvoled, fers because of he way of the word. In deseiing posible Moris, we ly ith sects of the seund kind oly. “The second metaphor sents insend a desinm of quite & Arent sor, 2 diss of tol scheme (or angaage) sod Uunitrpctes conten Adherence tothe second cals. whe not Inconsseat with aderence to the Best may te encovaged by atals on theft Here shoe may work “To give up the snalyiesynbetc dstncton a8 base tothe understanding of langug sf gve up te fen tat we a clits Aisingunh betwen tery ahd language, Meaning. as we mit Tool se the word, enfant by theory, By what held to tet, Feyerabend puts this wa) sa aera rae te ae ences iene ata aise mca testo ern ies matt aes Sem SPSS ert ar Ri188 Lannoge ond Relay We may now seem to have a formule for generating disinet conceal schemes, We grt anew out of ano chee whe the ‘ener ofa language ome to accept as ues poeta age of 17 Seoencs they previously 100k to be fae (and of coun, ce ‘ers We must not desenbe thi change simply 3 matter of thet tua ew cl falehoos a tras fora hi proposition fr wha hey come to arp im accepting n nntenee a as Mok ‘he same thing that they rected who formerly they eld the Seilenee toe fane A ehunge ss come over he msaning the Sestence because i now belongs Lo 3 ok language 4 fitter ew eis ti em etm * [and beter sciences very meh he peta phiespters of eee, like Puan and Feyerabend, and sora of selene, hike Kul, ave painted for us rtd ies cmerges nthe ssn of sme ter pilesophers, hat we could improve concept fl 9 threo tune our language toa inprosed sence. Ths both Quine fd Sinan somes diferent as, eprely at that oat present ways of Wiking make a seus sciace of hehe FrpowsbleWiiganscn ar Rye aves sir things wat rerret) The cure. Quine and Smart tink to change how we talk Sat advocates and predic) he change i ode optus on the cently srnpht pth of materi: Quine more enced tostear the way fora prey extesonal langage erhape should 414 Fink our ata chee oni lange tebe understood {steno and materi) Ite mere 10 follow tt advice, ont msl think sence oF undrtanding would be advance, though posihy moras woud Bat the prewn question only whether, if such Changes mere 10 take ple, we should be ested in ealng thm aeration the ‘esc coneipalsppaanes The dliculy nso calling Urea. to appreciate Suppose that in my’ offlee of Minister of Sdewiie [Eanes f nant theme nan oslo using words hat eter, 3.10 ‘motions elngs thought nd enon, ad to alk insted of the plysologie siates apd happenings tat se assumed io he more ‘or ese ent with the ment if nd raf, How do ell whether ‘ny avis has bee heeded ie no man spk a new lange? SP reel "apron, Retin npc 12 (nthe Vary ten of Concept Scheme 189 Fora know, the shiny new phres, hough ol fom the ot Janae in which they refer to physiol siings way i hs ‘mouth ply the vole ofthe eeny old ental concepts “Th Key phvas forall know. Whats cers hal retetion of Soe oF all of the ol vocabulary i ill provide no si for dss the sew heme tobe the sae ao diferent fom, th So whit sounded a st ike a thnling dcovery—that truths relate 10 a conspal seme nots fat been shown to Be tnyhng more chan the pees a amie thatthe ath of ‘entence slate to (among oter things) he angus to whish Itong. Intend of ting im rem words, Kuh setts ‘nay ke those who ned Websters tionary, be enly ward spar ‘Gising up the aalysayethetic distinction is nat proves bp in making sese of conceptual relativism. The analyse isintion& however expand in terms of smnthing that may Serie to buts cancptust relative, namely the ed ef enprcal content The dualism of thesyathtc a the sai va Guta seins some of which are rer ile) Bosh because of wha they ‘nga and Breast of tir empire content bie ots ae (Gr false} by virtue of meaning aloe, having oem Content. ‘5 Bre up he duals, we abun the conepion of ng hat boc wth but we do nt have To shenon the eof enpreal foes: we can Hod we wan. that ff sentences have empires fonten. Empirical conten i turn expsined by reference tothe Fact, the worl experience. season, the tisty of sensory stl, or something sniflor. Megs eve say to alk about cenepoies, the organizing soci of sg, 30 on; bt ie posable as we have ace, to give up reais sad analy while Fain the ies of language s embodying a conceptual scheme Th in place ofthe duaish of the ansttieynthete we et the dualism Of concept scheme and ena content. The new ain & Me oundstin fa empires shorn of the untenble dons of he aralyiesjtheie distinction and rons shoe. that is the norkabe en that we ean amie tloste mpc! content sentence by semen "want o urge that this second duis of seme and content of ‘npiniring stem and something wating beurgnarl cant Se ‘made inteligible and defense Iti ful dogma of empresa. the third dopa. The thie, ad perhaps thet, for fe ve up isnot clear that theres anything dstnetve el teal empiricism,190 Language and Realy ‘The scheme content dsm has ben forte in many ways Here ate some example. The Brat comes fom Whort.elaberating ‘on theme of Sapir Whort sys hat langage fist of all's lsiieton and strangement of the srs ot Sool charinannttmeaneconmiec setiemicccda eater cane ete he sc agg te png (n't dope vi fet eh sri: edt only ee wet Son eps np ci ay, eat Tien eb ef ee thon nan nner ees Skotos Wa spo hp uve eect se ‘cya nrc ie tahoe ‘Sorc iru et ent lh a thre oud whee Ths oe cg eo fie ete tet ogee ieee psa fine pte hl nen Se gree SRR Sar SS ecient inom et SESE aeieariemua tas So Ramco arate ae Sipirea tea te ae pores tat Rises one trate et ‘theories are thus. we sy. incommensurable.” net ‘Tncommensurabl sof course, Ku and Feyerabend's word for ‘not iterrandaable The wut cootent waiting (0 he orgie ‘is supplied by nature TE Ee rhymin nt smn eo ets te. 38. (nthe Very Hea of « Conceptual Scheme 191 Feyerabend himself sugget tnt we my compare contrasting schemes by ‘choosing a point of view eusde the stem o the Tanguage’ He hopes we ean do ths because thee itil human ‘experience a6 an actualy existing proces” independent of all seme “The tame,o similar, thoughts ae expressed by Quine a any asses: "The (tay of or so~alled knowledge or bebe man-iade fabric which impinges on experince only along the edges. 8", tt ences ikea eli of fore whe boundary orn are enperienas'?" "As aa empiri Is. think ofthe oneal scheme of sence at tol. for peeing tare ‘experiene in the ight of past experience. And spain: Lrrrr——C— ‘ef ices ems oie a TS les ren ope an 9 San Suprise etapa oe ee croton a cag We sens pag ote ote PURSE, SSS oe sotinet coe Siar tM OE Os em i192 Langunge and Rel {organize oF whic the shee mus ft thik again we aay ‘eit 40 main ieak ethereal ihe unvera, the wort, ture, or experience (he passing how, bee lations, sensors prompting sent, the ie). We enot sacha clear meaning tothe soon of orzniing a single objet tbe woe, nature cc uns that obit is nderstoed to contin or const n other objets. Someone who sts ott {0 ‘organize a closet seranges the things ini If you at (ld ot to forgnize the shoes and shirt, but the closet tl you would be teldered. How would you organize the Pace Occan Srigten ‘out its shores. peaps, or reloet ie slancs,or destroy Hs fish 'Nnguage may conan simple predicates whose extension ae ‘matched by no ipl predicts of even by any priate al fore eter language What enabler Yo: make his point it ‘articular ass ian ontology common tthe two languages. with onepis that ndvidute the supe objets. We ean be clear aout breakdowns ia taslation when they are local enough for a ackgreund of gneraly scent traelaton pov what i needed to make the flues inteigii, But we Ware he larger ‘ime: we waned to make sens of there being a langage Con ‘ot transate at all Or. 10 pa he pit ilereny, ewer looking {or a ereron of lanagshot tat dil not depend on. oe teasltaity into a Toor iow. T sopest that the age organizing the cont of nature wil ot spy such eitron. ow about the other kind of ob, experince? Can ne ink of, 4 language orgairing 17 Mosh the same dees pear Toe notion of oreanzaton applic ony t plusliis, Bat whatever Ploaliy we take expeence to const ir-evets lke Texng a Eutton or tubing toe, having a sensation of wach or bearing sm ohoewe will have to indidutesecording to fair pit les. language that organizes rchenites must bealanguage ery Eperence (and its clase ike race iriations, sitions, and sense) also makes another and more obvios rouble Tot the organizing ies. For how could something count 83 language that oteasieed onl experience, seston usace tons oF Scse-data? Surely knives and forks, alvonds and’ mountains ‘abbages ad Kingdoms also ned oeanizing ‘hit st remark wl pe doubt subd appropri a8 response sini tht 9 coneeptal scheme i 4 way of oping. 9th nthe Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme 193 sensory experience; an agree that i 6 But what was ander Consideration was the des of organi experince, ot he Ken of apg wih (Biting or facing) experience. The reply was apropoe ofthe former, notte later, conept. So naw eee wheter ne au dl beter withthe scond on ‘Whea we tur rom talk of organization to alk of iting we tra four attention fromm the referent apparatus of language Predicates, quanters, variables. and singular termt—to whole Sentenes It ip sentnces that predict (or are wed t0 pri, fentones that cope or del With thingy, That our sensory rompuigs. tat ea be cnipared or confronted with he eines Feissenteces also that faethe tribunal of experience, thovgh of cues they mast fice top. The proposal isnot that experiences, snsela,surace ir tations, or rensory prompting, are the sole subst matter of language There st iu, Ue eo hat talk soe rick uses ‘on la See ulimatly ob construed as bing nboat sen data or perceptions. but sich reduction views eon exten. sd impinste,version ofthe general position we areconskeing. The ‘encral positon i that sewsory experience provides al he edoice forthe aesetane of enteoes Where enters may ine while tore). A sentens oF theory fs our tensor promptings cesfuly Tress the tribunal of experience, predict frre ec Devine, or copes with the pater of ut series inations Provided is bore out by the evidence. i thesommon course faa. atheory may he bore out hy he avalble evidence and yet be alse But what i ew here i not 5st setually ava evdene: iret ltality of posible sensory tsidence pas, preset, and future, We donot rec to pause Co Eutemplte wot this might men. The pote that for a theory to fir face up to the Ltaty of posible sensory evden i or that theory 10 Be ee. Ifa théery quantifier over phys objets numbers, or ses, whut it says shot thee elie ve provid the theory a8 4 whole fis the sensory eudence. One ext se oo, from this poi of views such emis might be cled posts 8 ‘essonabie focal somthing post if ean be contrasted with Something that isnot. Tlere the something that not Ser) xprionce—at east that the in, “The troubles hat the notion of iting the oti of experience, like the notion f iting thefts, oo being ue tthe aes, ads ise samgwage and Keciity nothing neil tothe simple conop of bing tus To speak of Sensory experience rather tum the iden oF ja he fee expen view about the souresornature fede, ett doce ‘ota ne en tote uverse gs hich to to coneptaa scheres, The oat of Sensory evidence ic what we wast prose ‘tial the esidence therein al he evidence hess ef nb it takes to make our sentences theres tru. Nothing hone thing. makes sentences anid thores tues wot stprkece, bel Sarfaceiitations, not the world ein make a sentence tue That ‘aperenee takes certain cours, that our skit waned ok Dunc, tht the universe sn, hese fact if we ie to al that way, make sentees and thors tre Bet this pot better without mention of facts. The sentence My skin swat live if an only iy shin is war ee there tho eles oe fasta worl. an experience, ont pa of evence ‘Our aiempt te character laneapss or concept shins in 'erms ofthe notion of iting some entity has come down, cao the simple thought that something ian acepsble eoecpal Sshome or theory iit is re: Pethaps we hte sy large ee a der to allow sharers of whem to ifr on dete ed he iiterion of a conceptual scheme siren fom Our Oe noe becomes: lrgly tue ut at transite The quttion wheaee this wel criterion sus he question how wel we understand the notion of truth as applied tO lanpwope, independent ote fovon of teamltion. The answer is nk thane da ne Undersid tndepnty at a We nvognize sttencesike"“Snow i white"is te ifand only it so is white tobe tvs re. Yet the toi of sch Engi ‘eueneesuniguly determines the extension ofthe concept af eh {or Engh. Tarh generaized ths obsvation and dc et of ‘eoves of ruth: according te Tats Conhetion Ta saisctny {ocor of ath for language L must ental forever emtence sob [La theortn ofthe form tut if and oly If whore ssplased by a Jeseption a sand by «ite Ls Engh aby ' translation of s nto English if Li not Engh ™ This ort of ‘our definvton of uth, and dest hin tat thee sale eicion or theory that apple tolanguages pnealy Novertelog, Convention Tsugess though t cannot state, aorta fates "RTE he Con Tin Fomind Lng (On ie Very lea ofa Concept Schone 195 ‘common tal the spied concept oft I suceedsin ding this by making etetial use ofthe notion of translation int language we know, Since Comention Temas ur best inition 25 to how the concept of truths used, tere doesnot tem Io be snuck hope fora et that a concep shen radalyiferc {om urs that test depeas oa the aesompion hat we adore. ‘he notion of truth foes that of translation eit a fied sock of meanings, mor 4 theoryneural ely, ‘an provid, then, ground Tor comparison of soncpal shoes would x mistake o ook further or sucha ground ify thats ‘mean something coneeied as comntion” to icommcaserle Scheie, In abandoning tis search, we abandon the ant Imake rwe ofthe metaphor of singe space within which each scheme bas positon and provi» point of oem ''tur now to the more medest approach the ea of pat ‘athe than fot failure of Uaniation, This nee te pos boilty of making changes and contrasts in conceptual snes Inti by seerence' to the common part. What we Det theory of trandation or interpretation that makes no sesamin "shout shred measings, concepts o belts ‘The interdependence of hele and meaning sping fom the Interdependence of two aspects of the interrelation of speech benvout: the atbution of belie and the iterpettion of Sentences, We remarked befow that we enn afford to stocie ‘onceptulscheres with inguges beau of thee dejchdenson ‘Now wean pt the point ina smewhat shaper way ioe ta a's mech annot be nerptted exce tyson wh Kose 2004 dal abot what be speaker belies (and it eee ‘nd that fine distinctions between etfs av impose wihock lunertood speech: ow thew arene lo ierpet spe at imei oatibute bets ad eer atitulen? Cea oe act fave a theory that smltancousy accounts for attodes ‘trp speech, and which asus peter ¥ suse foning Oui, that me ay without eclariy or nvaranted asumpiions cept certain very genera aitadee towards sentenes ws the base evidence for a theory of raat ‘eteetaton For the sake of te petent cain at at we may ‘enced onthe attitude of accepting as tue, decd to sentences at the ruil notion. (A mot fal-oded theory would look tong ‘tudes towards seatence wel, such as sing trv, wondering196 Langooge and Rely Isbeher true. intending to mae tre, and so on) Attudes are Inde invotved ere, but the fc thatthe main eae mot begged an be Sen from hiss if we merely Know that someone hols = era sentence fo be ir, we know either wat he mean by the Sentence nor what Blt fs holing tr eposent is holding {he senence tae i thus the sesor of to fret the problem of Insepretation eo absrct rom te evden a worksle theory of meaning and an acetate theory of be ‘The way this problem is solved ie best appreciated from un dramatic examples I you sa ketch salling by and your ‘ompasion say, ‘Lock a tha ham yaw, you ray be eed ‘tha problem interpretation. One natal posit is tbat your Ter has saben Ketch fra yl, and as formed feb ‘Bu it his von is good and ks he of sgh favourable its even more plauble tht be does ot we the words quite yO do, land has made no mine stall about the poeton ol the ent on the pissing yacht. We d thi soto off the eal interpretation al the tne, deciding in favour of eterpetation of word in Ode Dyeserse 3 easonable theory of bel. AS pilsophers me are Desir leant of sytematie mslapropism, and pactived tt Interpreting he reat. The proves i tht of contracting 8 wnble theory of Beet and meaning ron sentences ei tr Stch examples nips the nerrctaion of anomalous details agains 4 bckground of common beled a going method of anaton, But the princes valved rust be the sme in kt tual estes, What tere thi all we kow wha ero ‘sealer bold tr, and we cannot assume that is language oUF ‘um then we emt lake cven a ft sep toward interpretation ‘nithout owing or ansming a seat deat about the speakers Tele, Since Knoulaie of betes comes oni with the ability 0 interpret words, the ony posiiy athe starts to asume several freement om bells We get a ist approxiation to @ shed Theor by ating lo sentences of speaker conitns af tut hat cual obtain Gb our own opinion) jist when the speaker holds those senerees tue. The guing policy is to do ths a8 at as rosie suet to considerations of simpli, bunches about the ‘fers ef socal condoning, and of couse out common-sense, oF eile, bnowledgsofexpucabl err “The method isnot designed a elimunatdsarcement, or can it fis purpose to Ike meaningful disagreement possible, and this nthe Very Hea ofa Coneptaa Schome 197 ayes caily on x Foundation same foundation —in agreement “The agresment may take the form of widespread sheng of sentenes held re by speakes of the ane angiage’ or agresient inthe lege mediated by theory of trthcontved by an interpreter for speakers of another langage, ‘Sine charity is pot am option, but x conton of having a workable tery 1s meaningless 10 sopes that we igh fal to mas error by endorsing it Unt we have successes ‘tsptemate correlation of sentences bel te with sentences eld tie, there are no misakes to make- Chai freed onus: wheter. we ike ior not, it we want to understand others we must count {eight inmost matters Ie can produce theory tha renee ‘hart and the formal conditions fra theory, we lave done al st ould be done o ensue commutation. Nothing more pov, fu nothin mei ed ‘We make taximum sense of the words and though ef eters when we inept in # way thst optimizes recent (ts nladss oom, a8 we si, for eat eror, fe, derenee of opinion, Where dss his eave tease for concept relat? The set fs hin hat we mst say moc the soe thing bout ference in ‘concep scheme as We sa about iferencs intl: ws prone the lity and bt of declarations of diference, weber of scheme ‘or epinion, by enlarging the ass of shared (vanalatable ensunge ‘tof shred opiion dee, no cer ine tween he cases an be tade oat I we choose to anal some alien sneered by its speakers bya sentence fo hich near strongly mache 99 ‘community bas we may be tempted to eal ts a dileence ie ‘ehemesifwe desi o seommodate te eileen other a ‘ay be more nara o speak of w ieee of opinion uk when ‘ters think diferenty from ws mo general pial, or appeal to tvidence can force ws to doe tat the dillecnce snout bcs father anf on cons We must conde, I think, that the asm 4 give soit _mcuning to the fea of eoneeptl elven and eae othe ea (of a covertvl shen fres ober when sed on pst are ‘of translation than when based om total are. Given the unde bing methodology ofintrpretation, we could nt ben posion to wg that others ad concepts beets radcly ent from oor woud be wrong 10 summarize by saying We have shown how | |198 Lanvoge ond Relay communiction ie pase tetusen people who how diferent Schemes. away tha works without eed wht there cant be Famaly neutral ground or x common co-ordinate system. Fot We have fod no inteigie bass on which can Be sid that ches ae diferent It would te uly wrong to announce the levi ‘ews that all mankind—al Speakers of language, eet—shae omamon scheme and ontology. Far i we cannot nly that schemes ae ieent eter can we intelipsy say tat they are Ta eine up dependence om the const of am aninterpreted realy. somthing outside all wheres and ince, we do ot Felingish the notion of objective tath--uis the contrary. Given the dogma of dualism of scheme and eli, we get conceptoal relatity, and truth lative toa scheme, Without the dogma, this in of relativity goes bythe board. OF cours truth of sentences remains relative to language, but ta ae abjtve a can be I ‘Bring up the dualism of seme and word, we do not give ep the ‘word but re-estabish unedited touch with the fariar objets ‘whowe amis make out sestences and opinions ta o ae, 14 the Method of Truth in Metaphysics In sharing 2 tangoags, in whatever seme tis is seguted for ‘communication, we share a picture of the word that mt nits large features, be tv, Ht follows tal in making mans he large festures of our langage, we make manifest the are features ef rea. One way of pursing metaphysics therfore to stay the fever sucur of our ange Thien, of outset sole rs ‘ehod of metaphysis; there sno suc, Ba it sone mcd, fas been practised by pitosophesas widely separated by Gime ot doctrine a5" Plato,” Aristotle, Hume, Kents Rusel, Free, ‘Waerscn, Carp. Quine, and Stravaon. These powers have not it pes without saying, agreed on tthe age Festnes of lings are, or on how they may tt be tied and decribed "is metaphyseal eoncusons hae in consequene been vars “The tethod I wil deseibe and recomend mo news every Important featur ofthe mtd en befund none piesopher ot ‘tothe, andthe leading dea Isimpt in cho he bet workin Diilosopty of language. Waat i new the expt formation of the approse, and the argument forte pilsopbical importance. bin wit the argument; ten comes» description ofthe method finaly, some applcaions ar etch, 1 Why must our language—any lngusgeincorporate cr depend upon largely corel shared, ew af how things ate? Fits ‘onside why these who ear understand one anothers speech mint share vicw of he worl, whether or not tat view is comet. The | |