Conceptual Atomism, Externalism, and the Gradient Applicability of Concepts

Journal of Philosophical Research 38:419-441 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The most prominent recent model of how concepts can have gradient applicability—that is, apply more fully to some items than to others—is that supplied by the prototype theory. Such a model, however, assumes concepts to be internally individuated and structured, and it might thus be challenged by both concept externalism and conceptual atomism. This paper argues that neither of these challenges presents an obstacle to viewing some concepts as having gradient application, and develops a different model of the conditions for such application. I call the notion of gradient applicability I discuss a feature-based one, and distinguish it from both the prototype theory’s typicality-based notion and a vagueness-based notion. On the model I develop, what determines whether a concept has gradient applicability is just the nature of the property it expresses, not facts about its stereotype. Focusing in particular on Fodor’s Informational Atomism, I argue on this basis that externalism is compatible with gradient applicability for all concepts, and that conceptual atomism is compatible with gradient applicability in the case of natural kind concepts, but not in the case of response-dependent concepts. This does not, however, present an obstacle to viewing some response-dependent concepts as having gradient applicability, for I also argue that in fact atomism cannot be true of response-dependent concepts.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

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

Is conceptual atomism a plausible theory of concepts?Jack M. C. Kwong - 2007 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (3):413-434.
How to acquire a concept.Eric Margolis - 1998 - Mind and Language 13 (3):347-369.
Concepts and Cognitive Science.Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis - 1999 - In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), Concepts: Core Readings. MIT Press. pp. 3-81.
Atomism, pluralism, and conceptual content.Daniel A. Weiskopf - 2009 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (1):131-163.
Concepts: Where Fodor went wrong.A. Levine & Mark H. Bickhard - 1999 - Philosophical Psychology 12 (1):5-23.
Applicability and effectiveness of legal norms.E. P. & J. J. - 1997 - Law and Philosophy 16 (2):201-219.
More me? Substance concepts and self concepts.Carol Slater - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):85-85.
Conceptual connection and the observation/ theory distinction.Louise Anthony - 1986 - In Abraham Zvie Bar-On (ed.), Grazer Philosophische Studien. Distributed in the U.S.A. By Humanities Press. pp. 135-161.
Mental representation and mental presentation.Gregory McCulloch - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
The structure of lexical concepts.Ken Daley - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 150 (3):349 - 372.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-07-22

Downloads
48 (#316,781)

6 months
5 (#544,079)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Spackman
Middlebury College

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references