The sceptical problem of Kripkenstein pertains to both the notions of content of thought and linguistic meaning in such a way that if the sceptical solution allowed us to conclude that language is essentially public, then we should also be able to conclude that thought is essentially public. But, when addressing the question of the way in which one could, under this hypothesis, reach the conclusion that thought is essentially public, there would seem to be two possible types of answers. The first one is that this follows from the fact that language is a necessary condition of thought, thus: there is no thought without language, but there can be no language without there being more than one speaker, hence there can be no thought without there being more than one thinker. The second answer (which does not exclude the first) is that we should then be able to formulate a version of the sceptical solution which applies directly to the question of knowing under which conditions one is justified in judging that someone has a certain thought, and that that thought is correct. But if an answer of this second type were possible, it would perhaps no longer be necessary to rely on the sceptical solution in order to conclude that language is public, for in all likelihood, this conclusion would follow from the fact that thought is public, together with the idea that thought is a necessary condition of language, thus: there is no language without thought, but there can be no thought without there being more than one thinker, hence there can be no language without there being more than one speaker. Hence, there seems to be at least three different ways in which one could try to reach the two desired conclusions. However, the foregoing remarks hide a few difficulties that can partly be disclosed by stating more precisely what the publicity of language and thought is supposed to consists in.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
La Publicité Et l'Interdépendance du Langage Et de la Pensée.Daniel Laurier - 2004 - Dialogue 43 (2):281-315.
Regress Arguments Against the Language of Thought.Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis - 1997 - Analysis 57 (1):60-66.
Why is Thought Linguistic? Ockham's Two Conceptions of the Intellect.Martin Lenz - 2008 - Vivarium 46 (3):302-317.
Language, Thought, and the Language of Thought (Aunty's Own Argument Revisited).Martin Davies - 1998 - In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (eds.), Language and Thought. Cambridge University Press. pp. 226.
Understanding the Language of Thought.John L. Pollock - 1990 - Philosophical Studies 58 (1-2):95-120.
Concepts, Connectionism, and the Language of Thought.Martin Davies - 1991 - In W Ramsey, Stephen P. Stich & D. Rumelhart (eds.), Philosophy and Connectionist Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 485-503.
Where the Regress Argument Still Goes Wrong: Reply to Knowles.Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis - 1999 - Analysis 59 (264):321-327.
No Conceptual Thought Without Language.Christopher Gauker - 2002 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (6):687-687.
Thought, Language, and the Argument From Explicitness.Agustín Vicente & Fernando Martínez-Manrique - 2008 - Metaphilosophy 39 (3):381–401.
Thought, Language, and Animals.Hans-Johann Glock - 2006 - In Michael Kober (ed.), Grazer Philosophische Studien. Rodopi. pp. 139-160.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads30 ( #171,902 of 2,172,871 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #324,901 of 2,172,871 )
How can I increase my downloads?