Some Remarks on Jerry Fodor's Arguments for a Language of Thought


Abstract
The arguments that Fodor (1987: 150-52) gives in support of a Language of Thought are apparently straightforward. (1) Linguistic capacities are "systematic", in the sense that if one understands the words 'John loves Mary' one also understands the form of words 'Mary loves John'. In other words, sentences have a combinatorial semantics, because they have constituent structure. (2) If cognitive capacities are systematic in the same way, they must have constituent structure also. Thus there is a Language of Thought. The essential connection between language and thought that the argument requires is: Since the function of language is to express thought, to understand a sentence is to grasp the thought that its utterance standardly conveys. So from the systematicity of sentences it follows that anyone who can grasp the thought that John loves Mary can grasp the thought that Mary loves John. Thought must be as systematic as language, for the best empirical explanation of the psychological fact that one who grasps the thought that John loves Mary can grasp the thought that Mary loves John is that grasping a thought is standing in some thinking relation to a complex entity whose constituents are MARY, X LOVES Y, and JOHN and semantic relations among MARY, X LOVES Y, and JOHN. So sayeth Fodor (1987).
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 56,949
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Thought, Language, and Animals.Hans-Johann Glock - 2006 - In Michael Kober (ed.), Grazer Philosophische Studien. Rodopi. pp. 139-160.
The Language of Thought.Jerry A. Fodor - 1975 - Harvard University Press.
Problems with Principle P.Hugh Clapin - 1997 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (3):261-77.
The Languages of Thought.Lawrence J. Kaye - 1995 - Philosophy of Science 62 (1):92-110.
Is Even Thought Compositional?Lenny Clapp - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 157 (2):299-322.
Understanding the Language of Thought.John L. Pollock - 1990 - Philosophical Studies 58 (1-2):95-120.
Another Argument Against the Thesis That There is a Language of Thought.John-Michael M. Kuczynski - 2004 - Communication and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly Journal 37 (2):83-103.
Propositional Attitudes and the Language of Thought.M. F. Egan - 1991 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21 (September):379-88.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-12-22

Total views
57 ( #174,824 of 2,409,939 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #541,494 of 2,409,939 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes