Fodor’s Very Deep Thought

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29 (4):595-618 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Pooh rubbed his nose with his paw, and said that the Heffalump might be walking along, humming a little song, and looking up at the sky, wondering if it would rain, and so he wouldn't see the Very Deep Pit until he was half-way down, when it would be too late. Jerry Fodor is loath to have content be constituted, even in part, by inferential relations. This loathing, I will argue, gets him into trouble. In his latest book, Concepts, Fodor contrasts informational atomism, his view of concepts and their content, with inferential role theory. The latter, he argues, is almost certainly false. This strikes cognitive science at its core, he adds, since the major theories of concepts currently in vogue in cognitive science are all variants on inferential role theory.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,963

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Fodor: Language, Mind and Philosophy.Mark J. Cain - 2002 - Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Problems with principle P.Hugh Clapin - 1997 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (3):261-77.
Lot 2: The Language of Thought Revisited.Jerry A. Fodor - 2008 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Jerry A. Fodor.
Why Fodor can't have it both ways.Michael Devitt - 1991 - In Barry M. Loewer (ed.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics. Cambridge: Blackwell. pp. 95--118.
Propositional attitudes and the language of thought.M. F. Egan - 1991 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21 (September):379-88.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
36 (#444,006)

6 months
2 (#1,200,611)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Martin Montminy
University of Oklahoma

References found in this work

Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.David L. Hull - 1997 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (3):435-438.
Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong.Kent Bach - 2000 - Philosophical Review 109 (4):627.

Add more references