ENOUGH WITH THE NORMS ALREADY

J. Fodor
{"title":"ENOUGH WITH THE NORMS ALREADY","authors":"J. Fodor","doi":"10.1515/9783110328851.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a robust philosophical/psychological tradition, dating at least from the associationism of the British empiricists, that seeks to provide a naturalistic and reductionistic account of the semantic/intensional properties of languages and minds. But the received view among ‘analytic’ philosophers, especially those influenced by Wittgenstein, is that this project can’t be carried out; the semantic/intentional is ‘autonomous’ with respect to naturalistic discourse. This talk will discuss three of the standard grounds for this kind of anti-reductionism. I'll argue that none of them is fully convincing; in particular, that the prospects for a causal reduction of linguistic/mental reference are distinctly better than is generally supposed.","PeriodicalId":317292,"journal":{"name":"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110328851.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

There is a robust philosophical/psychological tradition, dating at least from the associationism of the British empiricists, that seeks to provide a naturalistic and reductionistic account of the semantic/intensional properties of languages and minds. But the received view among ‘analytic’ philosophers, especially those influenced by Wittgenstein, is that this project can’t be carried out; the semantic/intentional is ‘autonomous’ with respect to naturalistic discourse. This talk will discuss three of the standard grounds for this kind of anti-reductionism. I'll argue that none of them is fully convincing; in particular, that the prospects for a causal reduction of linguistic/mental reference are distinctly better than is generally supposed.
规范已经够多了
有一个强大的哲学/心理学传统,至少可以追溯到英国经验主义者的联想主义,它试图提供语言和思想的语义/内涵属性的自然主义和还原论的解释。但是,“分析”哲学家,特别是受维特根斯坦影响的哲学家们普遍认为,这个计划是不可能实现的;语义/意向性在自然主义话语中是“自主的”。这次演讲将讨论这种反还原论的三个标准依据。我认为没有一个是完全令人信服的;特别是,语言/心理参照的因果还原的前景明显比通常假设的要好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信