David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Language of thought theories fall primarily into two views. The first view sees the language of thought as an innate language known as mentalese, which is hypothesized to operate at a level below conscious awareness while at the same time operating at a higher level than the neural events in the brain. The second view supposes that the language of thought is not innate. Rather, the language of thought is natural language. So, as an English speaker, my language of thought would be English. My goal is to defend the second view. My methodology will see the project broken down into three major areas. First I will show that human thinking requires a language of thought, after which I will highlight some problems with assuming that this language is innate and hidden. Included in this section will be a small introduction to the compatibility problem. The compatibility problem offers some obvious difficulties for mentalese theories and these will be discussed. The next stage of the project will focus on evidence that can be put forward in support of the claim that natural language is the language of thought. Our most direct source of evidence comes from introspection, and this will play a dominant role in the discussion. The final part of the thesis will involve an examination of the principle arguments that have been put forward against the idea that natural language is the language of thought. My goal will be to show that these arguments do not entail the existence of mentalese, nor do they show that natural language is not the language of thought. I will provide answers to the arguments, and will explain the phenomena they point to in terms of natural language being the language of thought.
|Keywords||Language of Thought Mentalese|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Laurier (2004). La Publicité Et l'Interdépendance du Langage Et de la Pensée. Dialogue 43 (2):281-315.
Barbara Abbott (1995). Thinking Without English. Behavior and Philosophy 23 (2):49 - 55.
Henry Jackman (2003). Expression, Thought, and Language. Philosophia 31 (1-2):33-54.
Agustín Vicente & Fernando Martínez-Manrique (2008). Thought, Language, and the Argument From Explicitness. Metaphilosophy 39 (3):381–401.
Martin Lenz (2008). Why is Thought Linguistic? Ockham's Two Conceptions of the Intellect. Vivarium 46 (3):302-317.
Murat Aydede, The Language of Thought Hypothesis. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis (1997). Regress Arguments Against the Language of Thought. Analysis 57 (1):60-66.
Gilbert Harman (1975). Language, Thought, and Communication. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:270-298.
David J. Cole (1999). I Don't Think So: Pinker on the Mentalese Monopoly. Philosophical Psychology 12 (3):283-295.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads297 ( #2,032 of 1,699,830 )
Recent downloads (6 months)30 ( #20,497 of 1,699,830 )
How can I increase my downloads?