Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:50:45.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Propositional Attitudes and the Language of Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Frances Egan
Frances Egan*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 08903, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the appendix to Psychosemantics, entitled ‘Why There Still has to be a Language of Thought,’ Jerry Fodor offers several arguments for the language of thought thesis. The LOT, as articulated by Fodor, is a thesis about propositional attitudes. It comprises the following two claims: (1) propositional attitudes are relations to meaning-bearing tokens — for example, to believe that P is to bear a certain relation to a token of a symbol which means that P; and (2) the representational tokens in question are quasi-linguistic — in particular, they have the constituent structure appropriate to a language.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 379 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1991

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

1 Fodor, J.A. Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Ibid., 135-6

3 Each attitude type is construed as a computational relation to a symbol token; so believing will be one computational relation, and desiring another.

4 See especially Fodor, Representations (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 1981) and ch. 1 of Psychosemantics.

5 Schiffer, Stephen ‘Truth and the Theory of Content,’ in Parrett, H. and Bouverese, J. eds., Meaning and Understanding (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1981) 205-24Google Scholar

6 Fodor, Psychosemantics, 142

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid., 166-7

9 Ibid., 143-4

10 Marr, David Vision (New York: Freeman 1982)Google Scholar

11 Ibid., 272

12 Ibid., 275

13 I would like to thank Susan Brison, Robert Matthews, and William Seager for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.