David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Issues 9:35-41 (1998)
It's a sort of moebus strip argument. Rather than circularly assuming what it should prove, it assumes one of the things Fodor says he has disproved. It assumes that the extensions of those concepts thought by some to be recognitional are in fact controlled by stereotypes. Why do I say that? Because Fodor assumes that what makes an instance of a concept a "good instance" is that it is an average instance, that it sports the properties statistically most commonly found among instances of that concept. But that the "good instances" are always the common instances is remotely plausible only if we take concepts to be organized by stereotypes. True, a goldfish is not an average or stereotypical fish (SSis that true?) and the nursing profession is not average for a male and maleness is not average for a nurse. But there is surely is nothing borderline about the fishiness of a goldfish nor, typically, about the maleness of a male nurse or the petness of a pet fish. Notice also that good examples of some kinds of things are very hard to find, for example, good examples of the fallacy of accent, and good examples of wild children, and (nowadays) good examples of scurvy are hard to find. If good instances had to be instances that were average, including in respects having nothing to do with the point of the category being defined, and if recognitional concepts had to recognize by attending to average properties, then I suppose the recognitional ability defining the concept "sphere" would have to include the ability to tell whether a thing bounces!
|Keywords||Composition Concept Recognition Fodor, J|
|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
Paul Horwich (1998). Concept Constitution. Philosophical Issues 9:15-19.
Lauren Tillinghast (2004). Essence and Anti-Essentialism About Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (2):167-183.
Darragh Byrne (2004). The 'Compositional Rigidity' of Recognitionality. Philosophical Papers 33 (2):147-169.
Jerry A. Fodor (1998). There Are No Recognitional Concepts, Not Even RED. Philosophical Issues 9:1-14.
Richard E. Grandy (1998). Recognitional Concepts and Compositionality. Philosophical Issues 9:21-25.
Terence E. Horgan (1998). Recognitional Concepts and the Compositionality of Concept Possession. Philosophical Issues 9:27-33.
Malte Dahlgrün (2010). The Notion of a Recognitional Concept and Other Confusions. Philosophical Studies 150 (1):139 - 160.
Ruth G. Millikan (1998). A More Plausible Kind of "Recognitional Concept". Philosophical Issues 9:35-41.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (2011). Learning Matters: The Role of Learning in Concept Acquisition. Mind and Language 26 (5):507-539.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads226 ( #12,501 of 1,911,908 )
Recent downloads (6 months)40 ( #17,857 of 1,911,908 )
How can I increase my downloads?