Dissertation, University of St. Andrews (2012)

Authors
Andrea Onofri
Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí
Abstract
My thesis tackles two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: • What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept C₁ the same concept as a concept C₂? • What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? I will develop a pluralist and contextualist theory of concept individuation and possession: different concepts have different individuation and possession conditions, and contextual factors play a crucial role in determining what concepts we attribute to other subjects when we ascribe propositional attitudes to them. In chapters 1-3, I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I suggest contextualist theories of ascriptions can be applied to the problem of concept individuation/possession. In particular, I use contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor’s “publicity principle”, according to which concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. Publicity has important implications: in particular, it is inconsistent with existing versions of holism, on which concepts cannot be shared by ordinary thinkers. Nonetheless, in chapters 4-5 I show how holism can still play an important role in our best theory of concepts. More specifically, I argue that the tradition of appealing to modes of presentation in order to give an account of “Frege cases” is in fact committed to holism. To develop a version of holism that will give a successful account of Frege cases without violating publicity, I suggest we should adopt my pluralist-contextualist picture: on that picture, the concepts involved in a Frege case will be holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts will be more coarsely individuated and widely shared. In chapter 6, I will develop this view further by contrasting it with other pluralist theories and with rival theories of concepts, such as the localist views defended by Peacocke, Rey and Jackson.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2012, 2013
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: 69,078
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

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Perceiving Abstract Concepts.Katja Wiemer-Hastings & Arthur C. Graesser - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):635-636.
Animal Concepts.Colin Allen - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):66-66.
Concept Acquisition and Use Occurs in (Real) Context.Kenneth R. Livingston - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):77-78.
The Context of Pigeon and Human Choice.Howard Rachlin - 1993 - Behavior and Philosophy 21 (2):1 - 17.
Thick Concepts and Underdetermination.Pekka Väyrynen - 2013 - In Simon Kirchin (ed.), Thick Concepts. Oxford University Press. pp. 136-160.
The Plurality of Concepts.Daniel Aaron Weiskopf - 2009 - Synthese 169 (1):145-173.
A Theory of Concepts and Their Combinations I: The Structure of the Sets of Contexts and Properties.Diederik Aerts & Liane Gabora - 2005 - Aerts, Diederik and Gabora, Liane (2005) a Theory of Concepts and Their Combinations I.
Concepts: Stored or Created?Marco Mazzone & Elisabetta Lalumera - 2010 - Minds and Machines 20 (1):47-68.
Concepts.Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence - 2011 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Context of Work.David Kirsh - 2001 - Human-Computer Interaction 16:305-322.
Objective and Subjective 'Ought'.Ralph Wedgwood - 2016 - In Nate Charlow & Matthew Chrisman (eds.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press. pp. 143-168.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-11-08

Total views
54 ( #208,266 of 2,498,795 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #279,813 of 2,498,795 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes