Recent work in the theory of conceptual engineering

Steffen Koch, G. Löhr, Mark Pinder
{"title":"Recent work in the theory of conceptual engineering","authors":"Steffen Koch, G. Löhr, Mark Pinder","doi":"10.1093/analys/anad032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A philosopher argues that state-sponsored cyberattacks against central military or civilian targets are always acts of war. What is this philosopher doing? According to conceptual analysts, the philosopher is making a claim about our concept of war. According to philosophical realists, the philosopher is making a claim about war per se. In a quickly developing literature, a third option is being explored: the philosopher is engineering the concept of war. On this view, the philosopher is making a proposal about which concept we should have – even if it deviates from the extant concept, and even if it does not capture ‘what war really is’. The activity or method of proposing such revisionary definitions, as well as the metaphilosophical reflection on it, has become known as conceptual engineering.1 Herman Cappelen’s book Fixing Language (2018) played a central role in setting the terms of current debates, bringing fundamental questions to the fore and developing strategies for tackling them. The theory of conceptual engineering he develops in that book, which he calls the Austerity Framework, has proven to be highly controversial – and, as a locus of debate, very influential. Indeed, the Austerity Framework, along with Cappelen’s discussion more generally, is the starting point for much subsequent work in the field. Cappelen’s work is the foil against which new theories have been developed and defended. Cappelen sets the scene by pointing to a range of projects, inside and outside of philosophy, that he thinks of as conceptual engineering projects. These include projects such as Haslangerian ameliorative projects (Haslanger 2012), Carnapian explication (Carnap 1950) , revisionary views about moral language (Railton 1989), inconsistency theories of truth (Scharp 2013), the astronomical redefinition of ‘planet’ (I.A.U. 2006), public controversies over, for example, the meaning of ‘marriage’ (Ludlow 2014), and so on. According to Cappelen, a theory of conceptual engineering aims (in part) to draw out what is common to such examples: what the ‘conceptual engineers’ are doing and why and how they are doing it. But a theory of conceptual engineering","PeriodicalId":82310,"journal":{"name":"Philosophic research and analysis","volume":"107 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophic research and analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anad032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

A philosopher argues that state-sponsored cyberattacks against central military or civilian targets are always acts of war. What is this philosopher doing? According to conceptual analysts, the philosopher is making a claim about our concept of war. According to philosophical realists, the philosopher is making a claim about war per se. In a quickly developing literature, a third option is being explored: the philosopher is engineering the concept of war. On this view, the philosopher is making a proposal about which concept we should have – even if it deviates from the extant concept, and even if it does not capture ‘what war really is’. The activity or method of proposing such revisionary definitions, as well as the metaphilosophical reflection on it, has become known as conceptual engineering.1 Herman Cappelen’s book Fixing Language (2018) played a central role in setting the terms of current debates, bringing fundamental questions to the fore and developing strategies for tackling them. The theory of conceptual engineering he develops in that book, which he calls the Austerity Framework, has proven to be highly controversial – and, as a locus of debate, very influential. Indeed, the Austerity Framework, along with Cappelen’s discussion more generally, is the starting point for much subsequent work in the field. Cappelen’s work is the foil against which new theories have been developed and defended. Cappelen sets the scene by pointing to a range of projects, inside and outside of philosophy, that he thinks of as conceptual engineering projects. These include projects such as Haslangerian ameliorative projects (Haslanger 2012), Carnapian explication (Carnap 1950) , revisionary views about moral language (Railton 1989), inconsistency theories of truth (Scharp 2013), the astronomical redefinition of ‘planet’ (I.A.U. 2006), public controversies over, for example, the meaning of ‘marriage’ (Ludlow 2014), and so on. According to Cappelen, a theory of conceptual engineering aims (in part) to draw out what is common to such examples: what the ‘conceptual engineers’ are doing and why and how they are doing it. But a theory of conceptual engineering
概念工程理论的最新工作
一位哲学家认为,国家支持的针对中央军事或民用目标的网络攻击始终是战争行为。这位哲学家在做什么?根据概念分析家的说法,哲学家是在对我们的战争概念提出主张。根据哲学现实主义者的观点,哲学家是在对战争本身提出主张。在一个快速发展的文献中,第三种选择正在被探索:哲学家正在设计战争的概念。根据这种观点,哲学家提出了一个关于我们应该拥有哪种概念的建议——即使它偏离了现存的概念,即使它没有捕捉到“战争到底是什么”。提出这种修正定义的活动或方法,以及对其进行的哲学反思,已被称为概念工程赫尔曼·卡佩伦(Herman Cappelen)的著作《修复语言》(Fixing Language, 2018)在为当前的辩论设定条件、将基本问题提上议程并制定解决这些问题的策略方面发挥了核心作用。他在那本书中提出的概念工程理论,他称之为“紧缩框架”(Austerity Framework),已被证明是极具争议的——而且,作为辩论的焦点,它非常有影响力。事实上,紧缩框架,以及Cappelen更广泛的讨论,是该领域后续工作的起点。卡佩伦的工作是新理论得以发展和捍卫的陪衬。Cappelen通过指出一系列他认为是概念工程项目的项目,包括哲学内部和外部的项目,来设定场景。这些项目包括Haslangerian改良项目(Haslanger 2012), Carnapian解释(Carnap 1950),关于道德语言的修正观点(Railton 1989),真理的不一致理论(Scharp 2013),“行星”的天文重新定义(I.A.U. 2006),公众争议,例如,“婚姻”的意义(Ludlow 2014)等等。根据Cappelen的说法,概念工程理论的目的是(部分地)找出这些例子的共同点:“概念工程师”在做什么,为什么以及如何做。而是一种概念工程理论
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信