Refining Quinean Naturalism: An Alternative to Kemp's Stimulus Field Approach

Abstract

W. V. Quine suggests that meaning derives from the stimulus, the effects of the outside world on the subject's nerve endings. However, the idiosyncrasy of the stimulus poses challenges to the intersubjectivity of meaning. Gary Kemp proposes the stimulus field approach as a solution. The stimulus field approach focuses on the forces affecting the subject, rather than the effects on the subject. In this article, I critique Kemp's solution. Furthermore, I argue that the Quinean approach can be refined in a way that two agents may converge on the same meaning even without sharing the same stimuli or forces affecting them. W. V. Quine sugg & egrave;re que la signification d & eacute;coule du stimulus, c'est-& agrave;-dire des effets exerc & eacute;s par le monde ext & eacute;rieur sur les terminaisons nerveuses du sujet. Cependant, l'idiosyncrasie du stimulus soul & egrave;ve des d & eacute;fis pour l'intersubjectivit & eacute; du sens. Gary Kemp propose l'approche du champ de stimulation comme solution. Cette approche se concentre sur les forces qui influencent le sujet, plut & ocirc;t que sur les effets qu'il subit. Dans cet article, je critique la solution de Kemp. De plus, je soutiens que l'approche quin & eacute;enne peut & ecirc;tre affin & eacute;e de mani & egrave;re & agrave; permettre & agrave; deux agents de parvenir & agrave; la m & ecirc;me signification, m & ecirc;me sans partager les m & ecirc;mes stimuli ou sans & ecirc;tre influenc & eacute;s par les m & ecirc;mes forces.