What are your thoughts on the externalism of Putnam and Kripke, i.e. that meanings aren't just defined by use, but that they are also determined by objects themselves? It feels like that puts a crimp in meaning = co-occurance, but maybe not?
Or put another way a set (or sets) of concrete examples grounds every abstract idea (including words as abstract objects). And it's turtles all the way down (or up depending).
Comments
What are your thoughts on the externalism of Putnam and Kripke, i.e. that meanings aren't just defined by use, but that they are also determined by objects themselves? It feels like that puts a crimp in meaning = co-occurance, but maybe not?
I agree.
Or put another way a set (or sets) of concrete examples grounds every abstract idea (including words as abstract objects). And it's turtles all the way down (or up depending).