Bibliographic record
Abstract
DonaldDavidson's approach to meaning can be understood as a synthesis of the divergent positions of Grice and Derrida.I argue, following Davidson, that intentions should be afforded a central role in determining meanings, but that this centrality does not mean that intentions absolutely fix the meaning of a language act.Davidson borrows heavily from Grice, who, I contend, is committed to some version of logoi or self-interpreting units of meaning unmediated by a system of signifiers.Derrida, taking the contrasting view, argues against any notion of logoi.Derrida argues further that truth, as philosophers have typically thought of it, depends on the existence of self-interpreting signs.Derrida' s rejection of logocentrism seems to entail a rejection of truth as traditionally conceived by philosophers.Davidson, on the other hand, makes truth central in his account of meaning by providing an account of truth that does not depend on the existence of logoi.My central claim is that Davidson, although relying on a Gricean view of speaker intentions and affording truth a central role, does not violate any of Derrida's primary theses about truth and the nature ofmeaning. Indications, Expressions, and Wanting-to-SayDerrida argues that intentions cannot be foundational on Husserl' s own account.Derrida contends that Husserl's attempt to marginalize a system of signifiers in order to gain access to arealm of pure meanings is untenable.What Derrida's arguments show is that there cannot be arealm of speaker intentions that are separable from language or language-like structures.Language and intentions are necessarily connected for Derrida.Derrida begins his criticism of Husserl with a discussion of the latter's distinetion between indication and expression.Indications are signs that point or signify,
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".