|Abstract||Fodor (1975) proposed that word meanings were atomic, and that meaning relations between words could be captured by inference rules, or 'meaning postulates', linking atomic concepts. In his recent work, however, Fodor has rejected meaning postulates as a way of capturing meaning relations, because he sees no principled way of distinguishing meaning postulates from empirical knowledge. In this paper, I argue that Fodor is wrong to reject meaning postulates.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
John Perry & David J. Israel (1991). Fodor and Psychological Explanation. In Barry M. Loewer & Georges Rey (eds.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics. Blackwell.
H. G. Callaway (1992). Meaning Holism and Semantic Realism (Reprinted in Callaway 2008, Meaning Without Analyticity). Dialectica 46 (1):41-59.
Christopher Gauker (1993). Holism Without Meaning: A Critical Review of Fodor and Lepore's Holism: A Shopper's Guide. Philosophical Psychology 6 (4):441-49.
Martha I. Gibson (1996). Asymmetric Dependencies, Ideal Conditions, and Meaning. Philosophical Psychology 9 (2):235-59.
Edward H. Madden & Murray J. Kiteley (1962). Postulates and Meaning. Philosophy of Science 29 (1):66-78.
Kenneth R. Livingston (1993). What Fodor Means: Some Thoughts on Reading Jerry Fodor's A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Philosophical Psychology 6 (3):289-301.
Bradley Rives (2009). The Empirical Case Against Analyticity: Two Options for Concept Pragmatists. Minds and Machines 19 (2):199-227.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #145,790 of 551,105 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,341 of 551,105 )
How can I increase my downloads?