Abstract. — Conceptual engineering is often presented as radically opposed and as superseding conceptual analysis. Prima facie, however, improving conceptual schemes in a controlled and fruitful way presupposes an understanding of the conceptual status quo. Consequently the condemnation of conceptual analysis by conceptual engineers constitutes a paradox that needs to be taken far more seriously than has been the case. One reason why the paradox has escaped notice is even more paradoxical: leading conceptual engineers like Cappelen do not believe in the existence of concepts, let alone in the possibility of changing them. By employing the tools of conceptual analysis, this article will show that this is not a tenable position. At the minimum, the projects trading under the name of conceptual engineering must aim at improving the way we categorize and reason about phenomena, rather than altering our specific beliefs and theories (as in scientific theory-formation). And this presupposes a semantic self-understanding of the kind provided by a conceptual analysis that is both connective and impure: it elucidates concepts not in isolation, but through their interconnections and their applications outside of philosophy.  My arguments for this conclusion will rely on a loosely speaking pragmatist semantics. Yet this does not constitute a petitio principii, since that semantics captures the established notions of meaning and understanding that are presupposed even in semantic revisionism.

• Zoom meeting ID: 857 3025 53 80
• Zoom password: ACEW20 (Invite link)