Using the Ideal/Nonideal Distinction in Philosophy of Language (and Elsewhere)

Bibliographic Data

ID21293586
AuthorsJeff Engelhardt (0000-0001-7472-9468, Dickinson College), Molly Moran (0000-0003-1787-3740, Dickinson College)
Year2025
Volume103
Issue2
Pages486-508
Publication date2025-04-03
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAustralasian Journal of Philosophy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0004-8402 • E-ISSN: 1470-6828
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00048402.2024.2403762
OpenAlexW4403285446
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited27

Herman Cappelen and Josh Dever (C&D) have recently argued that the ideal/non-ideal distinction is ‘useless’ in philosophy of language. This paper responds to C&D’s argument, develops an account of the distinction, and applies it to philosophy of language. Section 1 summarizes C&D’s argument against Charles Mills’s version of the distinction. Section 2 develops an account of the distinction that’s inspired by Mills’s work but that differs from what C&D take Mills’s view to be. Section 3 shows that, pace C&D, this distinction picks out interesting subsets of work in philosophy of language. We say that ideal theories adopt models of the social world that fail to recognize systemic oppression and are therefore systematically inaccurate. Nonideal theories correct these inaccuracies

Epistemology · Ideal (ethics) · Linguistics · Metaphysics · Philosophy of language · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Philosophy · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education · Wittgensteinian philosophy and applications

Tools

Open DOI