Revisiting Brandom’s Incompatibility Semantics

Abstract

We critically analyse Robert Brandom’s incompatibility semantics for classical S5, developed in the context of analytic pragmatism. Among other problems, we point out that Brandom’s claim that incompatibility semantics, although holistic and non-compositional, is nevertheless recursively projectible, rests on an assumption that is at odds with intended applications. We also explore an alternative approach that aims at a formal model of Brandom’s concept of a ‘game of giving and asking for reasons’ (GOGAR).