Relationism and the Problem of Publicity

Relationism and the Problem of Publicity

According to a recently developed family of relational views, whether two concepts C1 and C2 are the same is a matter of an external relation in which their tokens stand. In this paper, we highlight the chief contributions of Relationism in the elucidation of concept sameness, present a set of argum...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pacific philosophical quarterly 2022-09, Vol.103 (3), p.645-669
Hauptverfasser: Valente, Matheus, Verdejo, Víctor M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Conceptual analysis
Ideology
Publicity
Sociocultural factors
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 669
container_issue 3
container_start_page 645
container_title Pacific philosophical quarterly
container_volume 103
creator Valente, Matheus
Verdejo, Víctor M.
description According to a recently developed family of relational views, whether two concepts C1 and C2 are the same is a matter of an external relation in which their tokens stand. In this paper, we highlight the chief contributions of Relationism in the elucidation of concept sameness, present a set of arguments to the effect that relational accounts of concept sameness fail to accommodate a substantive notion of concept publicity, and offer a diagnosis of this result. We conclude that the strengths of non‐relational approaches will also need to be considered in order to fully capture what it means for a concept to be public.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/papq.12396
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2710012308</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2710012308</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2966-9be542684c220be347e685b465800c1306a9e0f7ba64ac10aa2679f4411ff31f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMFKxDAQhoMoWFcvPkHBiwhdZ5I0bY7L4qqwYBU9h7Qm2KXddJMW6dvbtZ6dy3_5Zv7hI-QaYYnT3He6OyyRMilOSIRc5Akg8lMSAc1kAlkK5-QihB0AMiowIrdvptF97fZ1aGO9_4z7LxMX3pWNaWNn42Iom7qq-_GSnFndBHP1lwvysXl4Xz8l25fH5_Vqm1RUCpHI0qScipxXlEJpGM-MyNOSizQHqJCB0NKAzUotuK4QtKYik5ZzRGsZWrYgN_PdzrvDYEKvdm7w-6lS0QynvymDfKLuZqryLgRvrOp83Wo_KgR1NKGOJtSviQnGGf6uGzP-Q6piVbzOOz89V14h</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2710012308</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Relationism and the Problem of Publicity</title><source>Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Valente, Matheus ; Verdejo, Víctor M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Valente, Matheus ; Verdejo, Víctor M.</creatorcontrib><description>According to a recently developed family of relational views, whether two concepts C1 and C2 are the same is a matter of an external relation in which their tokens stand. In this paper, we highlight the chief contributions of Relationism in the elucidation of concept sameness, present a set of arguments to the effect that relational accounts of concept sameness fail to accommodate a substantive notion of concept publicity, and offer a diagnosis of this result. We conclude that the strengths of non‐relational approaches will also need to be considered in order to fully capture what it means for a concept to be public.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0279-0750</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-0114</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/papq.12396</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Conceptual analysis ; Ideology ; Publicity ; Sociocultural factors</subject><ispartof>Pacific philosophical quarterly, 2022-09, Vol.103 (3), p.645-669</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly published by University of Southern California and John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2021. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2966-9be542684c220be347e685b465800c1306a9e0f7ba64ac10aa2679f4411ff31f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fpapq.12396$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fpapq.12396$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Valente, Matheus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verdejo, Víctor M.</creatorcontrib><title>Relationism and the Problem of Publicity</title><title>Pacific philosophical quarterly</title><description>According to a recently developed family of relational views, whether two concepts C1 and C2 are the same is a matter of an external relation in which their tokens stand. In this paper, we highlight the chief contributions of Relationism in the elucidation of concept sameness, present a set of arguments to the effect that relational accounts of concept sameness fail to accommodate a substantive notion of concept publicity, and offer a diagnosis of this result. We conclude that the strengths of non‐relational approaches will also need to be considered in order to fully capture what it means for a concept to be public.</description><subject>Conceptual analysis</subject><subject>Ideology</subject><subject>Publicity</subject><subject>Sociocultural factors</subject><issn>0279-0750</issn><issn>1468-0114</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMFKxDAQhoMoWFcvPkHBiwhdZ5I0bY7L4qqwYBU9h7Qm2KXddJMW6dvbtZ6dy3_5Zv7hI-QaYYnT3He6OyyRMilOSIRc5Akg8lMSAc1kAlkK5-QihB0AMiowIrdvptF97fZ1aGO9_4z7LxMX3pWNaWNn42Iom7qq-_GSnFndBHP1lwvysXl4Xz8l25fH5_Vqm1RUCpHI0qScipxXlEJpGM-MyNOSizQHqJCB0NKAzUotuK4QtKYik5ZzRGsZWrYgN_PdzrvDYEKvdm7w-6lS0QynvymDfKLuZqryLgRvrOp83Wo_KgR1NKGOJtSviQnGGf6uGzP-Q6piVbzOOz89V14h</recordid><startdate>202209</startdate><enddate>202209</enddate><creator>Valente, Matheus</creator><creator>Verdejo, Víctor M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202209</creationdate><title>Relationism and the Problem of Publicity</title><author>Valente, Matheus ; Verdejo, Víctor M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2966-9be542684c220be347e685b465800c1306a9e0f7ba64ac10aa2679f4411ff31f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Conceptual analysis</topic><topic>Ideology</topic><topic>Publicity</topic><topic>Sociocultural factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Valente, Matheus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verdejo, Víctor M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library website</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Pacific philosophical quarterly</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Valente, Matheus</au><au>Verdejo, Víctor M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Relationism and the Problem of Publicity</atitle><jtitle>Pacific philosophical quarterly</jtitle><date>2022-09</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>103</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>645</spage><epage>669</epage><pages>645-669</pages><issn>0279-0750</issn><eissn>1468-0114</eissn><abstract>According to a recently developed family of relational views, whether two concepts C1 and C2 are the same is a matter of an external relation in which their tokens stand. In this paper, we highlight the chief contributions of Relationism in the elucidation of concept sameness, present a set of arguments to the effect that relational accounts of concept sameness fail to accommodate a substantive notion of concept publicity, and offer a diagnosis of this result. We conclude that the strengths of non‐relational approaches will also need to be considered in order to fully capture what it means for a concept to be public.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/papq.12396</doi><tpages>25</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0279-0750
ispartof Pacific philosophical quarterly, 2022-09, Vol.103 (3), p.645-669
issn 0279-0750
1468-0114
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2710012308
source Wiley Online Library
subjects Conceptual analysis
Ideology
Publicity
Sociocultural factors
title Relationism and the Problem of Publicity
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T07%3A59%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Relationism%20and%20the%20Problem%20of%20Publicity&rft.jtitle=Pacific%20philosophical%20quarterly&rft.au=Valente,%20Matheus&rft.date=2022-09&rft.volume=103&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=645&rft.epage=669&rft.pages=645-669&rft.issn=0279-0750&rft.eissn=1468-0114&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/papq.12396&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2710012308%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2710012308&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true