Abstract
A distinction often drawn is one between conservative versus revisionary
conceptions of philosophical analysis with respect to commonsensical
beliefs and intuitions. This paper offers a comparative investigation of
two revisionary methods: Carnapian explication and ameliorative
analysis as developed by S. Haslanger. It is argued that they have a
number of common features, and in particular that they share a crucial political
dimension: they both have the potential to serve as instrument for
social reform. Indeed, they may produce improved versions of key
concepts of everyday life, for example those pertaining to social
categories such as gender and race (among others), which in turn may
lead to social change. The systematic comparison of these two frameworks
offered here, where similarities as well as differences are discussed,
is likely to provide useful guidance to practitioners of both
approaches, as it will highlight important aspects of each of them that
tend to remain implicit and under-theorized in existing applications of
these methodologies to specific questions.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1011-1034 |
Number of pages | 24 |
Journal | Synthese |
Volume | 197 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 24 Feb 2018 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Mar 2020 |
Keywords
- Revisonary analysis
- Carnap
- Explication
- Haslanger
- Ameliorative analysis
- Philosophical methods
- Race
- Gender