In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1996)
|Abstract||Mental (or semantic) holism is the doctrine that the identity of a belief content (or the meaning of a sentence that expresses it) is determined by its place in the web of beliefs or sentences comprising a whole theory or group of theories. It can be contrasted with two other views: atomism and molecularism. Molecularism characterizes meaning and content in terms of relatively small parts of the web in a way that allows many different theories to share those parts. For example, the meaning of 'chase' might be said by a molecularist to be try to catch. Atomism characterizes meaning and content in terms of none of the web; it says that sentences and beliefs have meaning or content independently of their relations to other sentences or beliefs. One major motivation for holism has come from reflections on the natures of confirmation and learning. As Quine (1953) observed, claims about the world are confirmed not individually, but only in conjunction with theories of which they are a part. And typically, one cannot come to understand scientific claims without understanding a significant chunk of the theory of which they are a part. For example, in learning the Newtonian concepts of 'force', 'mass', kinetic energy' and 'momentum', one doesn't learn any definitions of these terms in terms that are understood beforehand, for there are no such definitions. Rather, these theoretical terms were all learned together in conjunction with procedures for solving problems. The major problem with holism is that it threatens to make generalization in psychology virtually impossible. If the content of any state depends on all others, it would be extremely unlikely that any two believers would ever share a state with the same content. Moreover, holism would appear to conflict with our ordinary conception of reasoning. What sentences one accepts influence what one infers. if i accept a sentence and then later reject it, i thereby change the inferential role of that sentence, so the meaning of what i accept wouldn't be the same as what i later reject. but then it would be difficult to understand on this view how one could rationally --or even irrationally!-- change one's mind. and agreement and translation are also problematic for much the same reason. holists have responded (1) by proposing that we should think not in terms of "same/different" meaning but in terms of a gradient of similarity of meaning, (2) by proposing "two factor" theories or (3) by simply accepting the consequence that there is no real difference between changing meanings and changing beliefs.|
|Keywords||Holism Functional Role|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
M. McDermott (2001). Quine's Holism and Functionalist Holism. Mind 110 (440):977-1025.
Thomas D. Senor (1992). Two Factor Theories, Meaning Wholism and Intentionalistic Psychology: A Reply to Fodor. Philosophical Psychology 5 (2):133-151.
Eric Lormand (1996). How to Be a Meaning Holist. Journal of Philosophy 93 (2):51-73.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (1998). Multiple Meanings and Stability of Content. Journal of Philosophy 95 (5):255-63.
Jonathan Berg (ed.) (1993). Holism: A Consumer Update. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kirk A. Ludwig (1993). Is Content Holism Incoherent? Grazer Philosophische Studien 46:173-195.
H. G. Callaway (1992). Meaning Holism and Semantic Realism (Reprinted in Callaway 2008, Meaning Without Analyticity). Dialectica 46 (1):41-59.
Ned Block (1995). Ruritania Revisited. Philosophical Issues 6:171-187.
Ned Block (1996). Holism, Mental and Semantic. In Edward Craig (ed.), [Book Chapter] (Unpublished). Routledge.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #23,896 of 551,007 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #3,687 of 551,007 )
How can I increase my downloads?