Mind and Language 25 (1):89-118 (2010)
|Abstract||This paper defends a reference-based approach to concept individuation against the objection that such an approach is unable to make sense of concepts that fail to refer. The main line of thought pursued involves clarifying how the referentialist should construe the relationship between a concept's (referential) content and its role in mental processes. While the central goal of the paper is to defend a view aptly titled Concept Referentialism , broader morals are drawn regarding reference-based approaches in general. The paper closes by calling for a shift in the current debate between referentialists and their opponents.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
George J. Agich (1985). Roles and Responsibilities: Theoretical Issues in the Definition of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10 (2):105-126.
Hannah Ginsborg (2006). Empirical Concepts and the Content of Experience. European Journal of Philosophy 14 (3):349-372.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (2011). Learning Matters: The Role of Learning in Concept Acquisition. Mind and Language 26 (5):507-539.
Mukesh J. Patel (1994). Concept Formation: A Complex Adaptative Approach. Theoria 9 (1):89-108.
Kevan Edwards (2009). What Concepts Do. Synthese 170 (2):289 - 310.
Tom Stoneham (1999). Boghossian on Empty Natural Kind Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (1):119-22.
Ingo Brigandt (2006). A Theory of Conceptual Advance: Explaining Conceptual Change in Evolutionary, Molecular, and Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Added to index2010-01-19
Total downloads51 ( #20,496 of 549,014 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,014 )
How can I increase my downloads?