Analysis 59 (264):321-327 (1999)
The Language of Thought Hypothesis (LOT) is at the centre of a number of the most fundamental debates about the mind. Yet many philosophers want to reject LOT out of hand on the grounds that it is essentially a recid- ivistic doctrine, one that has long since been refuted. According to these philosophers, LOT is subject to a devastating regress argument. There are several versions of the argument, but the basic idea is as follows. (1) Natu- ral language has some important feature, X.<sup>1</sup> (2) Defenders of LOT appeal to an internal system of representation in order to explain this feature of natural language. (3) Yet the hypothesized language of thought also has X. (4) This raises the following dilemma: If we offer an analogous explanation of the language of thought
|Keywords||language of thought representational theory of mind|
|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
Intrinsic Value and the Argument From Regress.Julia Tanner - 2007 - Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 12 (2):313-322..
Explanation and the Language of Thought.David Braddon-Mitchell & J. Fitzpatrick - 1990 - Synthese 83 (1):3-29.
Thought, Language, and the Argument From Explicitness.Agustín Vicente & Fernando Martínez-Manrique - 2008 - Metaphilosophy 39 (3):381–401.
Regress Arguments Against the Language of Thought.Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis - 1997 - Analysis 57 (1):60-66.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads113 ( #42,826 of 2,158,279 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #133,489 of 2,158,279 )
How can I increase my downloads?