Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Studies 94 (3):237-251 (1999)
|Abstract||This paper attempts to clarify and critically examine Fodor's language of thought (LOT) hypothesis, focusing on his contention that the systematicity of language use provides a solid ground for the LOT hypothesis. (edited)|
|Keywords||Composition Language Metaphysics Thought Fodor, J|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Martin Lenz (2008). Why is Thought Linguistic? Ockham's Two Conceptions of the Intellect. Vivarium 46 (3):302-317.
Christopher D. Viger (2005). Learning to Think: A Response to the Language of Thought Argument for Innateness. Mind and Language 20 (3):313-25.
Jerry A. Fodor (1975). The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press.
John-Michael M. Kuczynski (2004). Another Argument Against the Thesis That There is a Language of Thought. Communication and Cognition 37 (2):83-103.
Lawrence J. Kaye (1995). The Languages of Thought. Philosophy of Science 62 (1):92-110.
Charles E. M. Dunlop (1990). Conceptual Dependency as the Language of Thought. Synthese 82 (2):275-96.
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.
Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis (1997). Regress Arguments Against the Language of Thought. Analysis 57 (1):60-66.
Jerry A. Fodor (2001). Language, Thought and Compositionality. Mind and Language 16 (1):1-15.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #25,359 of 757,557 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,427 of 757,557 )
How can I increase my downloads?