Philosophical Studies 94 (3):237-251 (1999)
This paper attempts to clarify and critically examine Fodor's language of thought (LOT) hypothesis, focusing on his contention that the systematicity of language use provides a solid ground for the LOT hypothesis. (edited)
|Keywords||Composition Language Metaphysics Thought Fodor, J|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
A Cognitive Analysis of the Chinese Room Argument.Norman Y. Teng - 2000 - Philosophical Psychology 13 (3):313-24.
Similar books and articles
Why is Thought Linguistic? Ockham's Two Conceptions of the Intellect.Martin Lenz - 2008 - Vivarium 46 (3):302-317.
Learning to Think: A Response to the Language of Thought Argument for Innateness.Christopher D. Viger - 2005 - Mind and Language 20 (3):313-25.
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.
Conceptual Dependency as the Language of Thought.Charles E. M. Dunlop - 1990 - Synthese 82 (2):275-96.
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.
Regress Arguments Against the Language of Thought.Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis - 1997 - Analysis 57 (1):60-66.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads72 ( #73,868 of 2,178,143 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,663 of 2,178,143 )
How can I increase my downloads?