Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-54jdg Total loading time: 0.236 Render date: 2022-08-09T05:12:58.423Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The theoretical indispensability of concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

Daniel A. Weiskopf
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302. dweiskopf@gsu.eduhttp://www2.gsu.edu/~phldaw/

Abstract

Machery denies the traditional view that concepts are constituents of thoughts, and he more provocatively argues that concepts should be eliminated from our best psychological taxonomy. I argue that the constituency view has much to recommend it (and is presupposed by much of his own theory), and that the evidence gives us grounds for pluralism, rather than eliminativism, about concepts.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fodor, J. A. (1975) The language of thought. Crowell.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (2008) LOT 2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. (2009) Doing without concepts. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiskopf, D. A. (2009a) Atomism, pluralism, and conceptual content. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79:130–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2009b) The plurality of concepts. Synthese 169(1):145–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (2010) Concepts and the modularity of thought. Dialectica 64:107–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiskopf, D. A. (forthcoming) The functional unity of special science kinds. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science .Google Scholar
5
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The theoretical indispensability of concepts
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The theoretical indispensability of concepts
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The theoretical indispensability of concepts
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *