[quickphilosophy] Re: Fodor on Concepts IV: Circularity + Peacocke

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:14:09 -0000

--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@...> wrote:

>He's saying that having CONJ. is like having a natural kind.  The question is 
>how to make science out of it.

I don't know what you mean there.  I "have" a natural kind when, e.g., I have a 
cat or a kidney.  How is possessing a concept like those?  I'm born with the 
kidney, and I take it Fodor thinks there's some sense in which we're born with 
all these concepts, but...the baby masters seem to speak quite cryptically.  
And is forgetting what longitudinality is really akin to losing a kidney?

Also, Ron had paraphrased Fodor this way: 

"But, to be precise, Fodor argues, it's not OK for a theory about
how AND is learned to presuppose a language with the concept of conjuction 
already present. This would be a circular argument."

And, as indicated, I don't see why Fodor's LOT theory wouldn't be subject to 
that very criticism.


Other related posts: