The argument for inferentialism begins here.
(to be written)
(stray notes that will be assembled into something coherent later)
1:00 to 1:15 of Antirep 12 is helpful
consider Wittgenstein’s private language argument
17 minute lecture 1 switcheroo
Explain problematic vocabulary in terms of nonproblematic vocabulary analytic philosophy, that’s the main project philosophy is to construct punctures Functionalism to Formalism of formal logic gives 20th-century philosophy its distinctive twist on earlier themes, but this is too powerful of a language given that what we care about is structure-preserving relationships, so category theory could be the next stage of a formal language/glue to a sample so soft girl ideas.
My radical tolerance does have a hard time explaining cases of how people could be wrong, if ever. This is because calling something a thought or a thinking is placing it in the space of reasons (not giving a matter-of-fact description of it), which means that it has justification. In order to say something is a contradiction/wrong, one cannot say that the utterance was a thought. It’s possible for people, for example, to realize they have uttered things things without having truly thought them. Sometimes this happens, so it’s good to have an account for it.