Abstract

Recently there has been much philosophical interest in the analysis of concepts to determine whether they should be removed, revised, or replaced. Enquiry of this kind is referred to as conceptual engineering or conceptual ethics. We will call it revisionary conceptual analysis (RCA). It standardly involves describing the meaning of a concept, evaluating whether it serves its purposes, and prescribing what it should mean. However, this stands in tension with prescriptivism, a metasemantic view which holds that all meaning claims are prescriptions. If prescriptivism is correct, then one is faced with two options: either (1) give up on the possibility of RCA, or (2) come up with a version of RCA that is consistent with the idea that all meaning claims are prescriptive. In this paper we offer an argument for (2).

中文翻译：

---

修订，认可和意义分析

摘要

最近，人们对概念进行分析以决定是否应删除，修订或替换它们，这引起了很多哲学上的兴趣。这种询问称为概念工程或概念伦理学。我们将其称为修订概念分析（RCA）。它通常涉及描述概念的含义，评估其是否达到其目的以及规定其含义。但是，这与规范主义形成了张力。，一种元语义观点，认为所有意义上的主张都是处方。如果规定主义是正确的，那么一个人将面临两个选择：（1）放弃RCA的可能性，或者（2）提出一个与所有含义主张都是规定性的思想相一致的RCA版本。在本文中，我们为（2）提供了一个论点。