Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||I argue that contemporary philosophy of language in the analytic tradition rests on two fundamentally wrong assumptions: empiricism and externalism. After I show why these two assumptions are incorrect, I turn my attention to biological rationalism. Biological rationalism—a research program inspired by the work of Noam Chomsky—is committed to nativism and internalism. I believe biological rationalism provides the best framework to achieve a genuine understanding of language. I try to show this by considering the biological rationalist answers to major problems in philosophy of language|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
William S. Robinson (1991). Rationalism, Expertise, and the Dreyfuses' Critique of AI Research. Southern Journal of Philosophy 29 (2):271-90.
Robert Wachbroit (1994). Normality as a Biological Concept. Philosophy of Science 61 (4):579-591.
Ruth G. Millikan (2005). Language: A Biological Model. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Marc Ereshefsky (2010). What's Wrong with the New Biological Essentialism. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):674-685.
Mark van Roojen (2010). Moral Rationalism and Rational Amoralism. Ethics 120 (3):495–525.
Alan Nelson (ed.) (2005). A Companion to Rationalism. Blackwell Pub..
Stephen P. Stich (1979). Between Chomskian Rationalism and Popperian Empiricism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30 (December):329-47.
Adolph Portmann (1990). On the Uniqueness of Biological Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (5):457-472.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #155,025 of 740,603 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,957 of 740,603 )
How can I increase my downloads?