Reading Brandom: On Making It Explicit

by Bernhard Weiss (Editor), Jeremy Wanderer (Editor)

Robert Brandom’s Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment is one of the most significant, talked about and daunting books published in philosophy in recent years. Featuring specially-commissioned chapters by leading international philosophers with replies by Brandom himself, Reading Brandom clarifies, critically appraises and furthers understanding of Brandom’s important book. Divided into four parts - ‘Normative Pragmatics’; ‘The Challenge of Inferentialism’; ‘Inferentialist Semantics’; and ‘Brandom’s Replies’, Reading Brandom covers the following key aspects of Brandom’s work: Essential reading for students and scholars of philosophy of language and mind, Reading Brandom is also an excellent companion volume to Reading McDowell: On Mind and World , also published by Routledge.

Paperback

First published April 1, 2010

Reviews

[Zo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very helpful for getting a grip on the problems and prospects of Brandom's theory. Most of the essays are largely compatible with Brandom's overall vision, and do a good job of clarifying the implications of his theory. Most of the essays in part 1 fall under this umbrella, with the Dennett, Lance-Kukla, and McDowell essays being particularly helpful. All of them do challenge Brandom in certain spots, but it seems like Brandom's account could be extended to meet their concerns, and in the cases where Brandom resists such an extension his objections are worthwhile. Though I will say Brandom's reply to Rodl seemed incongruous with his reply to Dennett, and made me more skeptical of the latter. Parts II and III that are more specifically about technical philosophy of language issues presented more serious objections to Brandom's whole enterprise. In this regard, the Kremer and Fodor-Lepore essays are particularly contentious, but the Macbeth/Dummett/Scharp/Hale-Wright ones are all good as well. The former two represent serious questions for Brandom, though I don't feel like I understand all of the arguments. Brandom's replies are persuasive enough that I don't feel like his account has been toppled, but more that I would need to do much more investigation of the relevant topics to know what to think (especially on the Fodor/Lepore essay). I walk away from this volume convinced that Brandom's theory is deserving of real consideration, and offers one of the best account's of logic, normativity, and meaning out there. But I am not convinced that Brandom's theory is "true" in some non-pluralist sense, and I am more concerned that Brandom is not capable of fully integrating some important questions (how does one get into the game of reasons, language-world contact, and the various more specific semantic concerns raised in Kremer+Fodor/Lepore). Still feel the desire to read more of and about Brandom, so in that sense the volume is a success.

[Daniel Martínez · Rating 3 out of 5]

En general las respuestas a Brandom muestran una incomprensión sistemática de su filosofía. Alguna hay que está más o menos bien, pero es la excepción. Brandom muestra demasiada paciencia en las respuestas de la parte final; yo no me habría dignado a responder a muchas de ellas.