Graduate studies at Western
Analysis 57 (1):60-66 (1997)
|Abstract||The Language of Thought Hypothesis is often taken to have the fatal flaw that it generates an explanatory regress. The language of thought is invoked to explain certain features of natural language (e.g., that it is learned, understood, and is meaningful), but, according to the regress argument, the language of thought itself has these same features and hence no explanatory progress has been made. We argue that such arguments rely on the tacit assumption that the entire motivation for the language of thought consists in explaining the explanandum that allegedly generates the regress. But this tacit assumption is simply false. The Language of Thought Hypothesis is a cogent view and one with considerable explanatory advantages.|
|Keywords||Regress argument Language of thought Metaphysics Mind mental representation Wittgenstein Crane, T Fodor, J propositional attitude|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Martin Davies (1998). Language, Thought, and the Language of Thought (Aunty's Own Argument Revisited). In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (eds.), Language and Thought. Cambridge University Press.
Agustín Vicente & Fernando Martínez-Manrique (2008). Thought, Language, and the Argument From Explicitness. Metaphilosophy 39 (3):381–401.
Mark McCullagh (2002). Wittgenstein on Rules and Practices. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:83-100.
Hans-Johann Glock (2006). Thought, Language, and Animals. In Michael Kober (ed.), Deepening Our Understanding of Wittgenstein (Grazer Philosophische Studien, Volume 71, 2006). Rodopi.
Martin Davies (1991). Concepts, Connectionism, and the Language of Thought. In W Ramsey, Stephen P. Stich & D. Rumelhart (eds.), Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
David J. Cole (1999). I Don't Think So: Pinker on the Mentalese Monopoly. Philosophical Psychology 12 (3):283-295.
Lawrence J. Kaye (1995). The Languages of Thought. Philosophy of Science 62 (1):92-110.
Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis (1999). Where the Regress Argument Still Goes Wrong: Reply to Knowles. Analysis 59 (264):321-327.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #30,782 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,030 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?