The Commitment to LOT
I argue that acceptance of realist intentional explanations of cognitive behaviour inescapably lead to a commitment to the language of thought (LOT) and that this is, therefore, a widely held commitment of philosophers of mind. In the course of the discussion, I offer a succinct and precise statemen...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Association 2016-06, Vol.55 (2), p.313-341 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 341 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 313 |
container_title | Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Association |
container_volume | 55 |
creator | VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M. |
description | I argue that acceptance of realist intentional explanations of cognitive behaviour inescapably lead to a commitment to the language of thought (LOT) and that this is, therefore, a widely held commitment of philosophers of mind. In the course of the discussion, I offer a succinct and precise statement of the hypothesis and analyze a representative series of examples of pro-LOT argumentation. After examining two cases of resistance to this line of reasoning, I show, by way of conclusion, that the commitment to LOT is an empirically substantial one in spite of the flexibility and incomplete character of the hypothesis. Je soutiens qu’accepter les explications réalistes intentionnelles du comportement cognitif conduit inévitablement à endosser l’hypothèse du langage de la pensée («language of thought», LOT), et que cette position théorique est, par conséquent, largement répandue chez les philosophes de l’esprit. Au cours de la discussion, je propose un exposé succinct et précis de cette hypothèse et j’analyse une série d’exemples représentatifs de l’argumentation pro-LOT. Après avoir examiné deux cas de résistance à ce type de raisonnement, je conclus en montrant que le soutien accordé à la LOT est empiriquement substantiel, en dépit de la flexibilité et du caractère incomplet de cette hypothèse. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0012217316000408 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1825910840</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0012217316000408</cupid><sourcerecordid>4204029451</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c242t-42310c1cd52025b8bbe7aef36776661dad6a61fd5db30b03b34e29ccda81f8393</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1jz1PwzAYhC0EEqEwMrBFYg68r-3YzogiKEiROhBmy1-BVKQpdjrw72nUDkiI6Ya7505HyA3CHQLK-1cApBQlQwEAHNQJyVCWVQEVr05JNtvF7J-Ti5TWAJRJpBm5bj9CXo_D0E9D2Ez5NObNqr0kZ535TOHqqAvy9vTY1s9Fs1q-1A9N4SinU8EpQ3DofEmBllZZG6QJHRNSCiHQGy-MwM6X3jKwwCzjgVbOeaOwU6xiC3J76N3G8WsX0qTX4y5u9pMaFS0rBMVhn8JDysUxpRg6vY39YOK3RtDze_3n_Z5hR8YMNvb-Pfyq_pf6AcuXWHM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1825910840</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Commitment to LOT</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M.</creator><creatorcontrib>VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M.</creatorcontrib><description>I argue that acceptance of realist intentional explanations of cognitive behaviour inescapably lead to a commitment to the language of thought (LOT) and that this is, therefore, a widely held commitment of philosophers of mind. In the course of the discussion, I offer a succinct and precise statement of the hypothesis and analyze a representative series of examples of pro-LOT argumentation. After examining two cases of resistance to this line of reasoning, I show, by way of conclusion, that the commitment to LOT is an empirically substantial one in spite of the flexibility and incomplete character of the hypothesis. Je soutiens qu’accepter les explications réalistes intentionnelles du comportement cognitif conduit inévitablement à endosser l’hypothèse du langage de la pensée («language of thought», LOT), et que cette position théorique est, par conséquent, largement répandue chez les philosophes de l’esprit. Au cours de la discussion, je propose un exposé succinct et précis de cette hypothèse et j’analyse une série d’exemples représentatifs de l’argumentation pro-LOT. Après avoir examiné deux cas de résistance à ce type de raisonnement, je conclus en montrant que le soutien accordé à la LOT est empiriquement substantiel, en dépit de la flexibilité et du caractère incomplet de cette hypothèse.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0012-2173</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1759-0949</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0012217316000408</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Cognitive psychology ; Commitments ; Philosophers ; Philosophy ; Realism</subject><ispartof>Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Association, 2016-06, Vol.55 (2), p.313-341</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2016</rights><rights>Copyright Cambridge University Press Jun 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c242t-42310c1cd52025b8bbe7aef36776661dad6a61fd5db30b03b34e29ccda81f8393</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0012217316000408/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27923,27924,55627</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M.</creatorcontrib><title>The Commitment to LOT</title><title>Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Association</title><addtitle>Dialogue</addtitle><description>I argue that acceptance of realist intentional explanations of cognitive behaviour inescapably lead to a commitment to the language of thought (LOT) and that this is, therefore, a widely held commitment of philosophers of mind. In the course of the discussion, I offer a succinct and precise statement of the hypothesis and analyze a representative series of examples of pro-LOT argumentation. After examining two cases of resistance to this line of reasoning, I show, by way of conclusion, that the commitment to LOT is an empirically substantial one in spite of the flexibility and incomplete character of the hypothesis. Je soutiens qu’accepter les explications réalistes intentionnelles du comportement cognitif conduit inévitablement à endosser l’hypothèse du langage de la pensée («language of thought», LOT), et que cette position théorique est, par conséquent, largement répandue chez les philosophes de l’esprit. Au cours de la discussion, je propose un exposé succinct et précis de cette hypothèse et j’analyse une série d’exemples représentatifs de l’argumentation pro-LOT. Après avoir examiné deux cas de résistance à ce type de raisonnement, je conclus en montrant que le soutien accordé à la LOT est empiriquement substantiel, en dépit de la flexibilité et du caractère incomplet de cette hypothèse.</description><subject>Cognitive psychology</subject><subject>Commitments</subject><subject>Philosophers</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Realism</subject><issn>0012-2173</issn><issn>1759-0949</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1jz1PwzAYhC0EEqEwMrBFYg68r-3YzogiKEiROhBmy1-BVKQpdjrw72nUDkiI6Ya7505HyA3CHQLK-1cApBQlQwEAHNQJyVCWVQEVr05JNtvF7J-Ti5TWAJRJpBm5bj9CXo_D0E9D2Ez5NObNqr0kZ535TOHqqAvy9vTY1s9Fs1q-1A9N4SinU8EpQ3DofEmBllZZG6QJHRNSCiHQGy-MwM6X3jKwwCzjgVbOeaOwU6xiC3J76N3G8WsX0qTX4y5u9pMaFS0rBMVhn8JDysUxpRg6vY39YOK3RtDze_3n_Z5hR8YMNvb-Pfyq_pf6AcuXWHM</recordid><startdate>201606</startdate><enddate>201606</enddate><creator>VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201606</creationdate><title>The Commitment to LOT</title><author>VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c242t-42310c1cd52025b8bbe7aef36776661dad6a61fd5db30b03b34e29ccda81f8393</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Cognitive psychology</topic><topic>Commitments</topic><topic>Philosophers</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Realism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Commitment to LOT</atitle><jtitle>Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Association</jtitle><addtitle>Dialogue</addtitle><date>2016-06</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>55</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>313</spage><epage>341</epage><pages>313-341</pages><issn>0012-2173</issn><eissn>1759-0949</eissn><abstract>I argue that acceptance of realist intentional explanations of cognitive behaviour inescapably lead to a commitment to the language of thought (LOT) and that this is, therefore, a widely held commitment of philosophers of mind. In the course of the discussion, I offer a succinct and precise statement of the hypothesis and analyze a representative series of examples of pro-LOT argumentation. After examining two cases of resistance to this line of reasoning, I show, by way of conclusion, that the commitment to LOT is an empirically substantial one in spite of the flexibility and incomplete character of the hypothesis. Je soutiens qu’accepter les explications réalistes intentionnelles du comportement cognitif conduit inévitablement à endosser l’hypothèse du langage de la pensée («language of thought», LOT), et que cette position théorique est, par conséquent, largement répandue chez les philosophes de l’esprit. Au cours de la discussion, je propose un exposé succinct et précis de cette hypothèse et j’analyse une série d’exemples représentatifs de l’argumentation pro-LOT. Après avoir examiné deux cas de résistance à ce type de raisonnement, je conclus en montrant que le soutien accordé à la LOT est empiriquement substantiel, en dépit de la flexibilité et du caractère incomplet de cette hypothèse.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0012217316000408</doi><tpages>29</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0012-2173 |
ispartof | Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Association, 2016-06, Vol.55 (2), p.313-341 |
issn | 0012-2173 1759-0949 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1825910840 |
source | Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Cognitive psychology Commitments Philosophers Philosophy Realism |
title | The Commitment to LOT |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T12%3A24%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Commitment%20to%20LOT&rft.jtitle=Dialogue%20-%20Canadian%20Philosophical%20Association&rft.au=VERDEJO,%20V%C3%8DCTOR%20M.&rft.date=2016-06&rft.volume=55&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=313&rft.epage=341&rft.pages=313-341&rft.issn=0012-2173&rft.eissn=1759-0949&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0012217316000408&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4204029451%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1825910840&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0012217316000408&rfr_iscdi=true |