Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Psychology 6 (3):289-301 (1993)
|Abstract||Jerry Fodor's Asymmetric Dependency Theory (ADT) of meaning is discussed in the context of his attempt to avoid holism and the relativism it entails. Questions are raised about the implications of the theory for psychological theories of meaning, and brief suggestions are offered for how to more closely link a theory of meaning to a theory of perception|
|Keywords||Epistemology Meaning Perception Relativism Fodor, J|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
A. Levine & Mark H. Bickhard (1999). Concepts: Where Fodor Went Wrong. Philosophical Psychology 12 (1):5-23.
Martha I. Gibson (1996). Asymmetric Dependencies, Ideal Conditions, and Meaning. Philosophical Psychology 9 (2):235-59.
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.
Robert D. Rupert (2000). Dispositions Indisposed: Semantic Atomism and Fodor's Theory of Content. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81 (3):325-349.
Donna M. Summerfield & Pat A. Manfredi (1998). Indeterminacy in Recent Theories of Content. Minds and Machines 8 (2):181-202.
Ruth G. Millikan (1991). Speaking Up for Darwin. In Barry M. Loewer & Georges Rey (eds.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics. Blackwell.
Thomas D. Senor (1992). Two Factor Theories, Meaning Wholism and Intentionalistic Psychology: A Reply to Fodor. Philosophical Psychology 5 (2):133-151.
William E. Seager (1993). Fodor's Theory of Content: Problems and Objections. Phiosophy of Science 60 (2):262-77.
Kam-Yuen Cheng (2002). Narrow Content and Historical Accounts: Can Fodor Live Without Them? Journal of Philosophical Research 27:101-113.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,639 of 739,366 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,366 )
How can I increase my downloads?