David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):290-325 (2005)
Christopher Peacocke has presented an original version of the perennial philosophical thesis that we can gain substantive metaphysical and epistemological insight from an analysis of our concepts. Peacocke's innovation is to look at how concepts are individuated by their possession conditions, which he believes can be specified in terms of conditions in which certain propositions containing those concepts are accepted. The ability to provide such insight is one of Peacocke's major arguments for his theory of concepts. I will critically examine this "fruitfulness" argument by looking at one philosophical problem Peacocke uses his theory to solve and treats in depth. Peacocke (1999, 2001) defines what he calls the "Integration Challenge." The challenge is to integrate our metaphysics with our epistemology by showing that they are mutually acceptable. Peacocke's key conclusion is that the Integration Challenge can be met for "epistemically individuated concepts." A good theory of content, he believes, will close the apparent gap between an account of truth for any given subject matter and an overall account of knowledge. I shall argue that there are no epistemically individuated concepts, and shall critically analyze Peacocke's arguments for their existence. I will suggest more generally that the possession conditions of concepts and their principles of individuation shed little light on the epistemology or metaphysics of things other than concepts. My broader goal is to shed light on what concepts are by showing that they are more fundamental than the sorts of cognitive and epistemic factors a leading theory uses to define them
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Michael A. Smith (1986). Peacocke on Red and Red. Synthese 68 (September):559-576.
L. (2003). The Non-Circularity Constraint: Peacocke Vs. Peacocke. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-2):85-93.
Alan Millar (1994). Possessing Concepts: Christopher Peacocke's a Study of Concepts. [REVIEW] Mind 103 (409):73-82.
Christopher Peacocke (2005). Rationale and Maxims in the Study of Concepts. Noûs 39 (1):167-78.
Dan López de Sa (2003). The Non-Circularity Constraint: Peacocke Vs. Peacocke. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-2):85-93.
Sonia Roca-Royes (2010). Modal Epistemology, Modal Concepts and the Integration Challenge. Dialectica 64 (3):335-361.
Neil Tennant (2008). Introduction. Philosophia Mathematica 16 (1):1-3.
Wayne A. Davis (2008). Thought Structure, Belief Content, and Possession Conditions. Acta Analytica 23 (3):207-231.
Neil Tennant (2002). The Emperor's New Concepts. Noûs 36 (16):345-377.
Wayne A. Davis (2005). Concepts and Epistemic Individuation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (2):290-325.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #86,310 of 1,696,306 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #44,731 of 1,696,306 )
How can I increase my downloads?