Can animals judge?
Dialectica 64 (1):11-33 (2010)
| Abstract | This article discusses the problems which concepts pose for the attribution of thoughts to animals. It locates these problems within a range of other issues concerning animal minds ( section 1 ), and presents a 'lingualist master argument' according to which one cannot entertain a thought without possessing its constituent concepts and cannot possess concepts without possessing language ( section 2 ). The first premise is compelling if one accepts the building-block model of concepts as parts of wholes – propositions – and the idea that intentional verbs signify relations between subjects and such propositions. But I shall find fault with both ( section 3 ). This opens the way for recognizing a form of 'holodoxastic' thought-ascription which does not presuppose concept-possession on the part of the subject ( section 4 ). Section 5 defends this idea against objections. Section 6 turns to the second premise of the lingualist master argument. I press the idea of judgement into service as a label for conceptual thought that need not be linguistic and argue that the possession of concepts is an ability. Section 7 accepts that concept-possession requires the ability to classify rather than merely to discriminate, but suggests that this need not disqualify animals. In the final section I confirm this verdict by returning to the notion of judgement: classification is the deliberate and considered response to a range of options in a sorting or discrimination task. Notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, the capacity for such a response does not presuppose the linguistic ability to answer questions. Judgement is a feature of a type of problem-solving that we share with some non-linguistic creatures. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJohn Greco (2010). A Virtue Epistemology. International Philosophical Quarterly 50 (3):399-401.
John Greco (2012). A (Different) Virtue Epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (1):1-26.
Achim Stephan (1999). Are Animals Capable of Concepts? Erkenntnis 51 (1):583-596.
John Turri (2009). The Ontology of Epistemic Reasons. Noûs 43 (3):490-512.
Imogen Dickie (forthcoming). The Sortal Dependence of Demonstrative Reference. European Journal of Philosophy.
Hans-Johann Glock (2006). Thought, Language, and Animals. In Michael Kober (ed.), Deepening Our Understanding of Wittgenstein (Grazer Philosophische Studien, Volume 71, 2006). Rodopi.
Albert Newen & Andreas Bartels (2007). Animal Minds and the Possession of Concepts. Philosophical Psychology 20 (3):283 – 308.
H. J. McCloskey (1979). Moral Rights and Animals. Inquiry 22 (1-4):23 – 54.
H. J. Glock (2000). Animals, Thoughts and Concepts. Synthese 123 (1):35-104.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-04-29Total downloads94 ( #7,020 of 549,067 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,099 of 549,067 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
