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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Dialogue - Canadian Philosophical Association 2016-06, Vol.55 (2), p.313-341
1. Verfasser: VERDEJO, VÍCTOR M.
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