Philosophy 2 Week 2 Essay Quiz

● Ackerman’s solution to the second paradox of analysis, one will recall, is the following: (3) A correct analysis is given by saying that to be a brother is to be a male sibling (7) A correct analysis is given by saying that the verbal expression ‘x is a brother’ expresses the same concept as is expressed by the conjunction of the verbal expression ‘x is a male’ when used to express the concept of being a male and ‘x is a sibling’ when used to express the concept of being a sibling (7) is partly about itself, it pairs each constituent concept in the analysans separately with the verbal expression that expresses it (7) shows the correct way in which an analysis is partly about words and partly about concepts and so reveals how one can go about resolving the second paradox of analysis Here’s another illustration: (M) A correct analysis is given by saying that to be a mic is to be a microphone (M*) A correct analysis is given by saying that the verbal expression ‘x is a mic’ expresses the same concept as is expressed by the verbal expression ‘x is a microphone’ when used to express the concept of being a microphone ● Some analyses just tell one what a certain expression that one already understands really means, or how the content of that term can be expressed by other means (that one also understands) Some analyses do a bit more, revealing a close relationship between distinct concepts (But recall: I raised some concerns about the feasibility or value of such analyses; if you already understand a concept, the analysis does not seem necessary; if you do not understand a concept, one cannot really perform the analysis) There is another kind of analysis, that Ackerman mentions in passing, but does not discuss: A reformatory analysis, where the analysans is intended to improve upon and replace the analysandum such analyses might be useful in bringing about social change, consider the concepts of human being; gender concepts like man and woman (and non-binary); race concepts, too ● But there’s a real problem for this view of conceptual analysis, arising from the claim that a correct analysis must impart linguistic information Consider: (8) A correct analysis is given by saying that to be a fortnight is to be a period of two weeks (9) Une analyse correct est donnée par dire qu’être une quinzaine c’est être une période de deux semaines

(9) is a word for word translation of (8) into French, so (8) and (9) express the same proposition if any two sentences ever do However, according to Ackerman, what (8) is expressing is: (8*) A correct analysis is given by saying that the verbal expression ‘x is a fortnight’ expresses the same concept as is expressed by the conjunction of the verbal expressions ‘x is a period [of time]’ when used to express the concept of being a period [of time] and ‘x is two weeks’ when used to express the concept of being two weeks whereas (9) is expressing: (9*) A correct analysis is given by saying that the verbal expression ‘x est une quinzaine’ expresses the same concept as is expressed by the conjunction of the verbal expressions ‘x est une période’ when used to express the concept of being a period [of time] and ‘x est deux semaines’ when used to express the concept of being two weeks (8*) and (9*) are clearly different propositions. This shows that there is something wrong with Ackerman’s proposed resolution to the second paradox it seems to show that the strategy in general is misguided: our thinking about concepts and the world does not seem to involve the language that we need to communicate those thoughts Ackerman states that this problem “is an inevitable result of the considerations already mentioned, but my account does allow for (8) and (9) to be closely related in an obvious way.” (page 542) This isn’t really an adequate response to a significant problem ● So where does this leave us? with a not very good solution to the first paradox of analysis and with a not very good solution to the second paradox of analysis Perhaps this suggests that conceptual analysis is not a fruitful way of illuminating how we are making sense of the world