Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-lfgmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-02T20:04:09.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In Defense of Proper Functions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Ruth Garrett Millikan*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Connecticut

Abstract

I defend the historical definition of “function” originally given in my Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories (1984a). The definition was not offered in the spirit of conceptual analysis but is more akin to a theoretical definition of “function”. A major theme is that nonhistorical analyses of “function” fail to deal adequately with items that are not capable of performing their functions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to John Troyer, Peter Brown, and Jonathan Bennett, and to the members of the philosophy departments at Dartmouth and at Johns Hopkins, for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this essay.

References

REFERENCES

Bennett, J. (1976), Linguistic Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bigelow, J., and Pargetter, R. (1987), “Functions”, The Journal of Philosophy 84: 181196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorse, C. (1976), “Wright on Functions”, The Philosophical Review 85: 7086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (1979), “Individualism and the Mental”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 4, pp. 73121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1975), “Functional Analysis”, Journal of Philosophy 72: 741765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, R. (1980), “Functional Analysis”, Reprinted in part in N. Block (ed.) Readings in Philosophy of Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 185190.Google Scholar
Cummins, R. (1984), Psychological Explanation. Cambridge, Mass: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1984a), Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, Mass: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1984b), “Naturalist Reflections on Knowledge”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 65: 315334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1986a), “Thoughts without Laws; Cognitive Science with Content”, Philosophical Review 95: 4780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1986b), “The Price of Correspondence Truth”, Noûs 20: 453468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (1989), “Biosemantics”, Journal of Philosophy 86 (No.6).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (forthcoming a), “Truth Rules, Hoverflies, and the Kripke-Wittengenstein Paradox”, Philosophical Review.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. (forthcoming b), “What Is Behavior?; Why Narrow Psychology/Ethology Is Impossible”.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1977), “Teleology Revisited”, The Journal of Philosophy 84: 261301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neander, K. (manuscript), “Teleology in Biology” (Wollongong University, Australia).Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1975), “The Meaning of ‘Meaning‘”, Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodfield, A. (1975), Teleology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, L. (1976), Teleological Explanation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar