Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 75 (1):29-53 (1994)
In this essay I defend meaning holism against certain criticisms that Jerry Fodor has presented against it. In "Psychosemantics" he argued that meaning holism is incompatible with the development of scientific psychology given the ways in which scientific psychology adverts to intentional content. In his recent book "Holism" (co-authored with Ernest Lepore) he indicates that he still upholds this argument. I argue that Fodor's argument fails, and argue in favor of the compatibility of meaning holism with scientific psychology. I also argue positively in favor of meaning holism, arguing in part that, contrary to Fodor's claims, psychofunctionalism provides a strong basis for defending meaning holism. As part of this argument, I contend, contrary to Fodor, that narrow content, as derived from psychofunctionalism, should be construed as semantic
|Keywords||Content Epistemology Holism Intentionality Semantics Fodor, J|
|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
Two Factor Theories, Meaning Wholism and Intentionalistic Psychology: A Reply to Fodor.Thomas D. Senor - 1992 - Philosophical Psychology 5 (2):133-151.
In Defense of Conceptual Holism: Reply to Fodor and Lepore.Andrew Pessin - 1995 - Journal of Philosophical Research 20:269-280.
Holism Without Meaning: A Critical Review of Fodor and Lepore's Holism: A Shopper's Guide.Christopher Gauker - 1993 - Philosophical Psychology 6 (4):441-49.
Meaning Holism and Semantic Realism (Reprinted in Callaway 2008, Meaning Without Analyticity).H. G. Callaway - 1992 - Dialectica 46 (1):41-59.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #413,516 of 2,127,010 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #391,733 of 2,127,010 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.