Donald Davidson Analysis of the Reception of His Works among Scholars.

The modern era to which people live in today may not have philosophers as popular as they were during the time of Plato and Aristotle. The significant philosophers of the present era are nonetheless important because they continue to provide new ideas and insights regarding aspects of the philosophical realm that remains uncovered and fully resolved. One of these aspects is the philosophy of language. In this particular realm, one name significantly stands out Donald Davidson. Most of Davidsons professional life was dedicated to the study and development of concepts that are geared at explaining, among other things, language, and how language and its content can be understood not just by the speaker-receiver components of communication, but also as something that is understood and clarified in a philosophical level. Over the years, Davidson has produced many works that have earned the attention of many professionals in the field of philosophy, and vis--vis the growth of the popularity of his works is the growth of popularity of Davidson as well. Davidsons works and ideas have garnered a mix of reactions from his contemporaries and those who came after him. Despite the mix reactions, Davidsons works can be considered as something that was received by the scholars of English studies with a certain degree of respect and reverence to his ideas and concepts. Proof of this is despite whether the professionals are in full or partial agreement or in disagreement with Davidson they, nonetheless, treat Davidson and his works and ideas respectfully. They approach analysis and the formulation of argument and counter argument with academic disposition. They consider Davidsons work, all in all, as an integral part of the set of beliefs in the philosophy of language and in other aspects, as well regardless of whether or not his ideas are refuted in the future or continues to hold ground as a solid and stable theory and set of beliefs that can attempt to explain a particular phenomenon in the human faculty and way of life. This is the focus of the discussion and analysis of the paper.
Philosophy in the modern era is identified with several different characters that have pioneered philosophical endeavors in the modern times. One of these individuals is Donald Herbert Davidson. In philosophy, he (Davidson) is the central figure after W.V. Quine. Donald Davidson is a well known philosopher largely because of his contribution to the field of philosophy. Davidson, although a high profile philosopher of the modern world, actually started with humble beginnings.
Davidson, who was married thrice, the last one being Marcia Cavell who was also a philosopher, was a native of Springfield, Massachusetts, where he was born on the 16th of March 1917. Davidson was travelling a long when he was a young boy, perhaps the reason why he grew up to be an adventurous individual even when his main profession was philosophy. From the Philippines, his family relocated to Amherst and then Philadelphia followed by their stay in Staten Island, by the time Davidson was already ready for school, attending the Staten Island Academy. His next education stop will be Harvard University, where he first took English and comparative literature and later switching to philosophy. He became a writer for a drama but later returned to schooling at Harvard and teaching philosophy. Davidson also served in the US Navy.
By 1949, he already earned his PhD in philosophy. Davidson was strongly influenced by another contemporary philosopher, W. V. O. Quine. After earning his doctorate, Davidson pursued serious work in philosophy, working with Patrick Suppes. By the start of the 1960s, Davidson was already writing essays of significant value to philosophy and was appreciated by people inside this particular group of people. Davidsons growing significance and popularity in the field of philosophy earned him prestigious positions in different associations, like the American Philosophical Association where he was president of both Western and Eastern Divisions. As a teacher and professor, his tour of duty included stints in Queens College which is currently part of CUNY, prestigious schools such as Princeton and Stanford, Oxford and Harvard, as well as in Rockefeller University and in the University of Chicago. Because of his work in the field of philosophy and his contribution to this industry and field of study, Davidson was awarded the Jean Nicod Prize in 1995. Davidsons life outside philosophy included his music, particularly his penchant for, and skill in piano. He managed to integrate this passion in philosophy by becoming one of Stanford Universitys teachers in philosophy of music.
One of the areas to which Davidson has significantly contributed is language, positing a significant set of ideas involved in the understanding of language, its theories and concepts geared at explaining how and why the language functions and how it is understood. The idea and concept of action, language and the mind are interconnected according to Davidson. For Davidson, language, mind and action are inseparable . Therefore, the understanding of how the theory of language has affected other scholars during and after Davidsons time would always include the analysis and discussion as well of how Davidson and his works, collectively, was analyzed and assessed along with his works and his ideas.
Some of the important ideas that Davidson contributed focused on action and its causes (in his essay Actions, Reasons, and Causes) activity of the brain and mental functions in Mental Events, thoughts on knowledge and beliefs inside which was the popular Three Varieties of Knowledge and for language and the theories and ideas involving and affecting it, the work Truth in Meaning, wherein Davidson sought to explain through philosophical approach how people are to understand language, words and sentences as it is uttered and delivered by the speaker what factors are important in how this is understood and how the messages are formed in response to the utterance of the language and the processing of the receiver of these words and sentences based on the receivers own set of abilities that can allow the individual to correctly or incorrectly decipher and understand the message consistent with the true message and intentions of the speaker and lastly, the concept of the radical interpreter, which involves language, the formation of meaning of the language and how it is understood and interpreted.
His work in the languages feature the times he challenged the process and understanding of the Semantic theory and the process by which messages, words and sentences are understood. Davidson openly challenged previously held ideas and beliefs regarding man and language and how language functions and how man reacts to this particular characteristic and function of language. This was an idea that was found in his many different concepts involving language. His professional career was characterized by his competent analysis of philosophical ideas and the analysis and discussion of the philosophical concepts introduced by other individuals. In the case of Davidson, one of the very popular individuals he discussed in lieu of his explanation of his ideas regarding language and the theories affecting and involved in it is Tarski. In his book, he discussed what Tarski was pointing at and getting into, and led the readers into achieving the same sense of realization by explaining and discussing what Tarski was talking about.
In his written work entitled Truth and Meaning which is read and referenced by many different professionals in philosophy of language and linguists as well who are intent on either criticizing Davidson or referring to his work for authoritative support and precedence, Davidson explains the concept of meaning of the sentences and how this depends on the meanings of the words that are used to create the sentences. The understanding of this concept, according to Davidson, was part of the traditional beliefs that many philosophers of language as well as linguists have held on for so long. This was one of the important arguments wherein Davidson would establish his different criticisms of old beliefs in language, as well as the concepts he will introduce as a result of his criticism to the old concepts. Many professionals consider this particular work of Davidson as a very important one. This allowed Davidson to establish his key arguments regarding how the language and the meaning-creation process involved in the communication and reception of language can be fully integrated with one another and be fully understood with supporting philosophical theoretical framework to explain the activityphenomena in language as it is being used by the people.  Donald Davidson, in his influential paper, Truth and Meaning identifies the central task of a theory of meaning in philosophical semantics as explaining how language users can determine the meaning of an arbitrary expression.
There are many ways in which scholars could have reacted to Davidson. In the most basic form, the scholars could either agree or disagree with Davidson. However, on a more complex reaction, scholars may opt to dissect Davidsons works further, either applying it to what they themselves are positing, using it to either support or refute other existing or new ideas in the world of language and connected theories. While others may choose to analyze the possible strengths, flaws and aspects that can be improved or explored further in the works and ideas of Davidson, in particular, his ideas regarding language and the theories involved in being able to explain how people use and understand language, sentence, words and its meanings, uttered in part or in whole, analyzed based on the different spheres of meanings based on these were actually used.
Scholars reacted to Davidson and his works. The reactions are not merely a simple set of arguments that can be collectively discussed and examined. The variety and complexity of these reactions and how the reaction was manifested would be explored, analyzed and discussed in this paper in the effort to be able to understand how English and non-English scholars exactly reacted to Davidson and his works and ideas, particularly those involving the theory and understanding of the language. There are two categories wherein the reception can be categorized - the general types which include admiration and critical reception, and other forms of reception that the individual and his work will receive from professionals, scholars and the crowd or audience in general. Because of those who Davidson has managed to convince with his ideas, many philosophers now share Davidsons position. This is one proof or characteristic on how Davidson affected modern philosophy and how his ideas were received by other scholars, especially those who came after him.
The post-Davidson era featured a world wherein a collection of individuals are still trying to find how they will, would or should react to what Davidson posited particularly in his theories involving the language. In the book Literary Theory after Davidson, for example, it expresses the need to re-assess and re-evaluate how exactly the scholars are responding and reacting to what Davidson posited. The two general types are categorized as such. This is because often, the reaction of professionals with regards to other professionals works and ideas are often either one of the following either the individual will be impressed and will believe what the individual was talking about, or the individual will not believe and critically challenge, analyse and breakdown the idea to find exactly where the individual have gone wrong and if possible show it to the individual and to the audience, not only the clarify, but also to stress the idea that the one that undertook the task of correcting the other is the more superior intellectually because of what the individuals vision can see and that which was deprived from the other one whose works and ideas were critically challenged and proven flawed or wrong.
In the case of Davidson, there were those who applauded and admired his ideas, perspective, thoughts and works to the extent that his ideas were often the basis by which their ideas are hinged and established in other works, using Davidson and his ideas and input as an authoritative precedent. Similarly, there are also those who try to establish new points by using the flaws and loopholes in the concepts that Davidson authored and introduced. For example, the ideas of Hector-Neri Castaneda was analysed in contrast to what Davidson has to say. It is not actually surprising if the reception of Davidsons works is met with both criticism or cynicism and appreciation. After all, philosophers, because of the innate human nature for differences, expect that not all of the people will be in agreement over a certain idea. In the case of Davidsons ideas, it was the same thing. Some people showed appreciation and believed in what Davidson posited, while others feel otherwise, criticizing and questioning his ideas because of the belief that they knew better and Davidsons ideas are incorrect and flawed. This type of mixed reaction is indicative of the health balance needed for the constant pursuit of knowledge and truth and the refinement of available data, knowledge and information. Attack from both sides is the usual reward of philosophers who, like Dewey and Davidson, try to stop the pendulum of philosophical fashion from swinging endlessly back and forth between a rough minded reductionism and a high-minded anti-reductionism.
The admiration for Davidsons work is seen through the admiration of both his students and those who arent but are nonetheless affected and inspired by what Davidson posited, taught, introduced, explained and constructed. Because of this broad scope of Davidsons impact on other professionals and the scope of the positive reception of professionals in reaction to Davidsons works, it is considered as an irrefutable fact that Davidson was able to influence many professionals during and even after his time and era.
Davidson has influenced a wide range of other scholars working in the philosophy of language and linguistics...He has both influenced and been influenced by other scholars working on truth-conditional approach to meaning, or with a more general interest in the relationship between truth and language.
One of the common trends involved in the relationship between mentor and student is that there is a profound admiration for the work of the mentor. Even in some cases the student outshines the mentor, the student still holds the mentors work as something valuable. This is noticeable in the pattern regarding how some of Davidsons students have come to react to Davidsons works, particularly in the field of language theory, even when they themselves are, in their own right, notable professionals in the field. An excellent example of this case is how professionals like Stephen Yablo and Michael Bratman, who are professionals themselves, still yield to what Davidson has to say and uses Davidsons input to legitimize their claims as well as ideas that they present in their own books and published articles.
Stephen Yablo is one of the contemporary and modern day philosophers who, like Davidson, also tackled aspects such as mind and logic as well as metaphysics. Just like Davidson, Yablo, whose wife is also another MIT philosopher by the name of Sally Haslanger, was also dedicated in the study and analysis of language and theories that are involved in the understanding of this particular facet of the socially-shared human behavior, human faculty and human characteristic. Yablo contributes to the continued analysis, discussion and development of the theories and ideas affecting the understanding of language as it is used, utilized and developed inside the human society, and his activity is often tied with his work as one of the leading philosophers working at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
Yablo, who is considered as a student of Davidson and a follower of Davidsons ideas particularly about language and the aspects of learning and knowledge involved in this aspect, has made a contribution already in this particular field and industry. This is manifested in the short paper that Yablo wrote and was published in 1993, discussing the idea that the liar-like paradox is something that can be generated even without self-reference. This is besides the other papers that he wrote and the book that he authored which was also published and made public. Like Davidson, Yablos inclination to study language and the aspects and concepts affecting the theories and ideas about understanding language was affected by the inclination to some of the other related aspects, like the philosophy of the mind to which Yablo was also drawn in, This was the main reason why he was able to write the Mental Causation. Yablos paper that was published in 1992 which was considered as a significant modern day work that contributed significant input in the field of philosophy of mind, which was followed by his works in the recent years that were focused on another aspect - mathematical fictionalism, among other things. Davidson influenced Yablo. This was noticeable in how Yablo referred to Davidson especially in the book that he wrote, entitled Thoughts Papers on Mind, Meaning, and Modality.
Another one of Davidsons students and the follower of Davidsonian ideas particularly in the field of philosophy like moral philosophy and the philosophy of action as well, and the understanding of knowledge and intelligence is Michael Bratman. Bratman, who was born on July 25, 1945, was the one responsible for the creation of the Belief-Desire-Intention model, a concept that was a key and integral part in many modern day technologies today including artificial intelligence. Today, Bratman works at Durfee as a professor in the School of Humanities  Sciences, as well as in Stanford University working as professor of Philosophy.
Davidson influenced many scholars including Bratman. In his book Faces of Intention, it is noticeable how Bratman uses what Davidson has to say, what Davidson believes and what Davidson posited on his ideas and theories to either establish or refute the argument he is presenting. He uses Davidsons input to legitimize what he wanted to discuss, consistently stressing what Davidson sees and says, what Davidson supposes, how and why Davidson disagrees to some ideas, what Davidson argues for or against, what Davidson emphasizes and neglects and what Davidson insists and accepts.
Besides the mentor-student relationship from which admiration for the work can be the main and common form of reception for the works like the case of Davidson and his works and his students, there is also the professional-to-professional relationship. One professional acknowledges the pioneering and insightful contribution and work that an individual, either his or her contemporary or someone that precedes him or her by mentioning and quoting the individual and his works and ideas in a book or article discussing a related issue involving the industry. This case is also not surprising in the case of Davidson. Many individuals, either those that Davidson preceded or those who are considered as contemporaries of Davidson, admired Davidsons work and insight on language theory as well as on other aspects Davidson worked on.
Often, the admiration from one professional to another manifests itself in the form of consideration and inclusion in published works. Individuals who did not become direct students of Davidson but whose reception for Davidsons works and ideas are similar to admiration for his thinking and perspective often include what Davidson has to say regarding topics wherein they consider Davidson as an authority of. A review of related literature will reveal the extent of how Davidson was turned to by professionals in order for them to clearly, and with authority, establish their ideas and have the people embrace and accept the ideas they present in the book. However, in some cases, books and its content reveal how people reiterate the ideas of Davidson in their own words and through their own analysis in the hope of explaining better the concept of Davidson particularly with regards to language, as well as about other important related matters to which he was deeply involved in, academically. There are also books that feature the collection of essays. One of this kind of book that is about philosophy is the book entitled AJ Ayer Memorial Essays, inside which Davidsons Three Varieties of Knowledge can be found, again testament that professionals consider Davidson an important and significan.
Authors Ernest Lepore and Kirk Ludwig co-authored the book entitled Donald Davidson Meaning, Truth, Language, and Reality. Obviously, as the name suggests, this book was geared at discussing and analysing the works and ideas of Davidson. Besides the analysis content, there are also points in the book wherein the author mentions how individuals are agreeable to what Davidson posited, created and established. Sir Michael Dummett, another notable British philosopher, is known as someone who is strongly critical of Davidsons ideas. However, in the book, the authors presented to the readers how Dummett admitted that Davidson was right and correct in several particular aspects. Dummett, in his reply to Davidson, concedes straight off, that Davidson is quite right that sharing a language in the sense he has characterized it is neither necessary nor sufficient for communication, and he is right for the right reasons.
This relationship between Dummett and Davidson (in a professional level) will be something that many other professionals will notice and feature in other books owing to the merit of the argument happening between the two noted philosophers, like how Maria Cristina Amoretti and Nicla Vassallos book Knowledge, language, and interpretation on the philosophy of Donald Davidson presented it, with Dummett in agreement to some of Davidsons ideas while on the other hand also contradicting or challenging others. Also in the book, Ludwig and Lepore also made clarifications as well as insightful commentary to support the validity and strength of Davidsons ideas. They explained that, It is not obvious that Davidson was completely clear in his own mind about exactly how to employ a truth theory as a meaning theory. This is in response to how some of the criticisms may have focused on the misunderstood and assumed inability of Davidson to fully handle the rigors of theoretical foundation and application. On the contrary, Davidson has very clear idea regarding the issue and nature surrounding the ideas and concepts that he has created and introduced to the people.
Analysis provided by professionals in the hope of explaining further what Davidson was trying to explain was found in many different books discussing Davidson and his input on aspects including language (Rorty 166). Rorty, for example, explained to the readers what Davidson was trying to say regarding the role of the philosopher of language, the process of understanding the message of the language uttered and the radical interpreter concept and how things fit together by writing that the job of the philosopher of language is, for Davidson, finished when the latter notions are explicated by reference to the radical interpreters procedures.
Some people reacted by trying to understand Davidson better and present it to the people for better understanding. Another individual who was affected by Davidson and one who studied and analysed Davidson is John Mcdowell. McDowell is another British philosopher who is also respected for his works and contribution to the field of philosophy. McDowells works are often hinged on the ideas and beliefs of many different philosophers  classic and contemporary. One of these philosophers that have impacted the works of McDowell is Davidson. Because of this, McDowell often talks or writes about philosophical ideas including those involving language with reference to the ideas that Davidson established. His works are often essential readings so that the audience can have a better idea regarding what Davidson is trying to point out.
Among several of McDowells points regarding to and as a reaction to Davidsons ideas is found in McDowells analysis of Davidson and the analysis of the theories of language as posited by Davidson. In the book, McDowell explained that the point Davidson should be making is not that judgments of samesaying are not fundamental in constructing a theory of a language, but rather that such judgments are not grounded in some deeper level.
Davidson has been viewed by many as an expert in his particular field, largely because of the merit of the things that Davidson offered the people and the ideas and concepts that was borne out of Davidsons critical analysis of several different previous philosophical ideas that allowed him to create his own ideas. In Kennedy and Seldens book entitled The Cambridge history of literary criticism From formalism to post-structuralism, Davidsons key points and arguments were put into consideration. Davidson was placed alongside other professionals like Wittgenstein and Derrida. His arguments and ideas were considered in part as something that contrasts other ideas from other significant individuals like Berkeley and Kant.
But not everyone admired the works, ideas, perspectives and theories of Davidson, particularly about language. There are many different individuals who are able to posit particular counter arguments to the previous arguments that Davidson posited in his work. At one point, the reality of the constant presence of those who are critical of other people allow the people the chance to further investigate issues and ideas, to scrutinize them more, to be more curious and to explore many other possibilities. This leads either to clarification of previous wrong notions and the creation of new ideas and the formation of new knowledge.
In the case of Davidson, those whose reception of his works are considered critical are those who challenged Davidsons ideas and presented the possible holes and weak spots in the ideas of Davidson, allowing Davidson to strengthen and solidify his ideas and for other individuals to create something new out of what Davidson failed to think of or think about. During and after Davidson and his works rise to popularity, many different professionals surfaced and was identified as individuals who are critical with the works and ideas of Davidson, and rightfully so because they have legitimate queries and questions that they want Davidson to address, and possibly to rectify if proven valid.
One of the individuals who have been critically analysing Davidsons works and providing critical assessment, response and arguments to Davidsons ideas including language and language theories is Michael Dummett. Dummett was a highly decorated philosopher. Just like Davidson, Dummett was working on the philosophy of language, among other things, and like Davidson, he also served as professor of philosophy for many different reputable academic organizations. His significant contribution to the philosophy of language is entitled Frege Philosophy of Language which was published in 1973.
Dummett was one of those who strongly reacted regarding the ideas of Davidson, either positively or negatively. Davidson and Dummett have been have been engaged in a debate in and out of print for nearly two decades. In books as well as in journal articles, the debate raging between the two British philosophers was a strong indication of how scholars have received the ideas and concepts of Davidson. In a journal article, Gianfranco Soldatti wrote about the academic discussion and argument happening between Dummett and Davidson, with focus not on gossip style discussion and character-smearing, but on raising the finer points of the discussion happening between the two which can be an important catalyst for change or the discovery of possible roots leading to changes, especially since these two intellectuals put in the table impressive ideas regarding the philosophical aspect of language, learning and meaning.
Works like Soldattis highlight not the actual debate or argument, but the content of such battle. At worse, Davidson can be and might be proven wrong. The best thing to come out of this should this be the predicament is the realization that at least Davidson acted as trigger towards the realization of the real truth behind language, knowledge and meaning, among others. However, if he would be proven right and the arguments against him invalid, at least Davidson triggered an intellectual argument that allowed for the discovery and exploration of ideas involving learning and language. These ideas can be used by other professionals, who, in the future might be capable of making another crack at the ideas and concepts of Davidson and perhaps be successful in positing new ideas or improving the ideas that Davidson already laid out. In any case, the debates and arguments like that happening between Davidson and Dummett are health and important in the continuous process of learning and discovery.
Because of Dummetts own capabilities and abilities in the philosophy of language, he has managed to make some points to which Davidson eventually concedes and agrees upon. For example, in the debate of Davidson and Dummett in the concept of truth-concepts inside the language and the details of the semantic properties, Dummett manages to make a solid point through his argument to which Davidson concedes. Eventually there were some points in Dummetts argument that Davidson failed to answer or close out, in the process, allowing Dummett the merit of validity for his argument that was not successfully challenged. Because of the inability of Davidson to fully explain without loopholes key points to answer and refute Dummetts argument, this leaves intact Dummetts basic point if we want to know what truth is, it is not enough to know how truth-conditions of sentences of individual languages depend on the semantic properties of their constituents. Davidson later conceded this point. Despite the fact that Davidson was the creator of many concepts in the philosophy of language, it is important to point out that he was not god and that his mental faculty, intelligence and ideas also has its limitations. These ideas did not just easily come to him and he has to work hard to be able to create the ideas and concepts that made him who he is today. This does not mean the process was easy. In fact, it was tedious and difficult. Despite the difficulties, it is safe to say that Davidson was not able to create the perfect line of thought to hold all of the concepts together in his ideas about the philosophy of language and certain aspects of the language theory. Davidson makes this initial move (by starting with Truth and Meaning and elaborating his key points), but acknowledges difficulties in a truth-predicate oriented semantic program.
Besides the basic show of admiration, respect, and the critical reception towards an individual and his work, there are also other ways in which Davidson and his ideas and works regarding language theory, learning and knowledge and other things were received by professionals and scholars. There is fine line between being critical and being impressed, and many of the post Davidsonian era professionals are lodged in this position. They believe Davidson might be into something but this is not enough for them to be full admiration of the man. This also does not mean that they criticize the man and do not believe in his works. Because of this, many of these types of people with this type of reception resort to studying and analysing without bias and empirically what Davidsons works really meant, how it is significant, what aspects it can be of use and how it can be used and why, with no sole purpose of either strengthening and propagating his ideas or refuting his ideas all in all but simply finding the true merit of Davidsons works in the best way possible that they can.
As what Dasenbrock explained in the book that encapsulated perhaps the basic essence of Davidsonian analysis post Davidsons era, one of the main characteristics of the reception on Davidsons works is to find out exactly how these works, ideas and concepts fit in or still fit in, considering the possible changes that happened that could have rendered Davidsons works irrelevant already. And as professionals move forward and taking along them Davidsons ideas, those who put in published books the effort to thresh out the ideas to be able to clearly see where everything stands will discuss how Davidsons works actually contributed on a particular aspect to which it is considered as significant, like in literary theory for example, considering Davidsons involvement in language and literature.
The question the contributors have focused on here - no matter what their training or disciplinary identity - is what contribution Davidsons work can make to some of the ongoing debates in literary theory. The reason why this is a question worth asking is that there is a remarkable divergence between Davidsons place in contemporary analytic philosophy and his place in contemporary literary theory.
Ralf Stoeckers Reflecting Davidson Donald Davidson responding to an international forum of philosophers is one of the books that feature the analysis of Davidsons ideas and how philosophers respond and receive Davidsons ideas. The author provides a tool so that the audience can see how the ideas of Davidson was broken down and analysed so that the people can have a better comprehension on Davidson and his ideas. For example, his reactions and objections and the rationale why he accepts or resists options available for him during the course of his breakdown of his ideas and his works (Stoecker 269). This book is one of the books that act as testament to the significance of Davidsons works, ideas and concepts. It is significant enough that many people and many authors and publishers toil and invest in effort, money and logistics just to put together a book such as this. They know that Davidsons ideas are important and significant and many professionals want to know more about it and want to know what other people think about these ideas (of Davidson, his critics and his followers) and how everything fits inside the modern philosophy picture.
Many professionals who admired the work of Davidson often refers to the books that he has written which contains the explanation of the ideas that Davidson is talking about. These ideas and concepts made Davidson an important pillar in the philosophy of language. One of the books that has become an important reading material for any student of the philosophy of languages and the follower or critic of Davidson is Truth, Language and History, which discusses the concept of truth and how language delivers and processes the idea of truth and how truth eventually is affected by language and vice versa.
Rorty, whose books often talked about the ideas of Davidson, was considered as one of the individuals whose reception of the ideas of Davidson was a mix of agreement and disagreement. In other books analysing Rortys position in lieu of and in consideration to Davidson, it is reflected that Rorty was always inclined to stand side by side Davidson even though there are still many points that Rorty believes he and Davidson are in disagreement in, like the concept of meaning which is important and key in the understanding of the ideas in the philosophy of language. And though there is a source here of disagreement between him and Davidson, it is also clear hat they agree on a lot of assumptions despite their disagreement.
Davidson is an important figure in the philosophy of language because his ideas and concepts are key contributions that helped make the understanding of the philosophy of language as what it is today. Receptions of his works are mixed. To have a better understanding of the variety of the reactions and reception to Davidson and his work, it is important for the individual to read books written by him and written about him and his works. These books will help paint a better picture, not to mention help the individual be able to understand the ideas of Davidson when it comes to language, learning, knowledge and the meaning of what people say, which in usage is easy but in theoretical and philosophical analysis difficult and complex. To understand Davidsons work in its complexity, one needs to understand its context in recent analytic philosophy.


Post a Comment