On the very good idea of a conceptual scheme

Abstract

Hilary Putnam has the right idea of a conceptual scheme. His idea is central to his doctrine of conceptual relativity, which I defend in this paper. My defense entails an explanation of how Putnam’s idea of a conceptual scheme escapes condemnation by Donald Davidson’s arguments against the very idea of a conceptual scheme. Reading Davidson’s arguments as contravening Putnam’s agenda requires overlooking the difference between natural languages and what I call “optional languages”. If having a conceptual scheme is to be associated with having a language, I argue, it should be associated with having an optional language.