Acta Analytica 21 (40):41-73 (2006)
|Abstract||The acquisition of concepts has proven especially difficult for philosophers and psychologists to explain. In this paper, I examine Jerry Fodor’s most recent attempt to explain the acquisition of concepts relative to experiences of their referents. In reevaluating his earlier position, Fodor attempts to co-opt informational semantics into an account of concept acquisition that avoids the radical nativism of his earlier views. I argue that Fodor’s attempts ultimately fail to be persuasive. He must either accept his earlier nativism or adopt a rational causal model of concept acquisition. His animus towards the latter dictates, in my view, a return to the nativism with which he began.|
|Keywords||Acquisition Concept Metaphysics Nativism Representation Fodor, Jerry A|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Nicholas Shea (2011). Acquiring a New Concept is Not Explicable-by-Content. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (3):148-149.
Steven Gross (2001). Review of What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 110 (1):91-94.
Dunja Jutronic (2001). Is There a Third Way of Concept Acquisition? Acta Analytica 16 (26):97-108.
Matthew Rellihan (2005). Epistemic Boundedness and the Universality of Thought. Philosophical Studies 125 (2):219-250.
Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis (2003). Radical Concept Nativism. Cognition 86:25-55.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (2011). Learning Matters: The Role of Learning in Concept Acquisition. Mind and Language 26 (5):507-539.
Lawrence J. Kaye (1993). Are Most of Our Concepts Innate? Synthese 2 (2):187-217.
Fiona Cowie (1998). Mad Dog Nativism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (2):227-252.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #39,385 of 549,628 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,628 )
How can I increase my downloads?