Primitive Concepts and the Ontological Question
Abstract
Drawing upon a distinction between epistemically and metaphysically motivated notions of a concept, I consider the insurmountable problems of theories that appeal to our epistemic capacities to address the problem of the nature of concepts satisfactorily. Prominent theories of concepts hold that primitive concepts must have
internal structure if they are to account for the explanatory functions that cognitive scientists have attributed to such constructs as prototypes, exemplars, and theories. Vindicating the role of non-experimental philosophy in the critical examination of empirical theories, I argue that the explanatory effectiveness of those constructs is orthogonal to an argument concerning the structure of primitive concepts. Conceptual atomism provides an alternative approach to individuating primitive concepts the precise formulation of which has yet to be worked out. Despite its unpopularity, the atomist alternative is still in a better position to face the question of what concepts are than its competitors.
References
Aguilera, B., & Pino, B. (2019). Sobre el aporte de la filosofía a las teorías de conceptos en ciencia cognitiva. Revista de Filosofía, 76, 7-27. doi:
4067/S0718-43602019000200007
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-660. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x99002149
Bermúdez, J. L. (2005). Philosophy of Psychology. New York: Routledge.
Boyd, R. (1989). What Realism Implies and What it Does Not. Dialectica, 43(1-2), 5-29. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00928.x
Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa. In R. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays (pp. 140-185). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brigandt, I. (2003). Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminativism. Philosophy of Science 70(5), 1305-1316. doi:10.1086/377409
Bunge, M. (1998). Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, from problem to theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publisher.
Burwood, S., Lennon, K., & Gilbert, P. (2003). Philosophy of Mind. London: Routledge.
Cain, M.J. (2002). Fodor: Language, Mind, and Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Contreras, P. A. (2016). Palabra y concepto: acercamiento a un eliminativismo conceptual en ciencia cognitiva. Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, 14(29), 139-160. doi:10.18270/rcfc.v14i29.667
Dove, G. (2009). Beyond Perceptual Symbols: A Call for Representational Pluralism. Cognition 110, 412-31. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.016
Dummett, M. (1993). Seas of Language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, K. (2009). What Concepts Do. Synthese, 170(2), 289-310. doi: 10.1007/s11229-009-9584-y
Edwards, K. (2010a). Concept Referent ia l ism and the Role of Empty Concepts. Mind & Language, 25(1), 89-118. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01382.x
Edwards, K. (2010b). Unity Amidst Heterogeneity in Theories of Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 210-211. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000543
Edwards, K. (2011). Higher-level Concepts and their Heterogeneous Implementations: A Polemical Review of Edouard Machery’s Doing Without Concepts. Philosophical Psychology, 24(1), 119-133. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2010.544520
Edwards, K. (2014). Keeping (Direct) Reference in Mind. Noûs, 48(2), 342-367. doi:10.1111/nous.12009
Fodor, J. A. (1990). A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. A. (1994). Concepts: A Potboiler. Cognition 50, 95-113. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90023-X
Fodor, J. A. (1998). Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fodor, J. A. (2004). Having Concepts: a Brief Refutation of the Twentieth Century. Mind & Language 19(1), 29-47. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00245.x
Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT 2: The Language of Thought Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fodor, J., & Lepore, E. (1992). Holism: A Shopper's Guide. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The Brain’s Concepts: The Role of the Sensory-Motor System in Conceptual Knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 455-79. doi: 10.1080/02643290442000310
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. (1997). Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Schulz, L., Kushnir, T. & Danks, D. (2004) A Theory of Causal Learning in Children: Causal Maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3-32. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3
Griffiths, P. (2004). Emotions as Natural and Normative Kinds. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 901-911. doi:10.1086/425944
Hacking, I. (2007). Natural Kinds: Rosy Dawn, Scholastic Twilight. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 61, 203-239. doi:10.1017/S1358246107000203
Higginbotham, J. (1998). Conceptual Competence. Philosophical Issues, 9, 149-162. doi:10.2307/1522965
Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, Kinds, and Cognitive Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kwong, J. M. C. (2006). Why Concepts Can't be Theories. Philosophical Explorations, 9(3), 309-325. doi:10.1080/13869790600815830
Kwong, J. M. C. (2007). Is Conceptual Atomism a Plausible Theory of Concepts? The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 45(3), 413-434. doi:
1111/j.2041-6962.2007.tb00058.x
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and Cognitive Science. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core Readings (pp. 3-81). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2022). Concepts. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 ed.). Stanford University. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/concepts
Machery, E. (2009). Doing Without Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
Machery, E. (2010). Précis of Doing without Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 195-244. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09991531
Machery, E. (2015). By Default. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The Conceptual Mind (pp. 567-588). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A Critical Look at the Embodied Cognition Hypothesis and a New Proposal for Grounding Conceptual Content. Journal of Physiology, Paris, 102, 59-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.004
Margolis, E. (1998). How to Acquire a Concept. Mind & Language, 13(3), 347-369. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00081
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2011). Learning Matters: The Role of Learning in Concept Acquisition. Mind & Language 26(5), 507-539. doi:
1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01429.x
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context Theory of Classification Learning. Psychological Review, 85(3), 207-238. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.207
Millikan, R. G. (1998). A Common Structure for Concepts of Individuals, Stuffs, and Real Kinds: More Mama, More Milk, and More Mouse. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(1), 55-65. doi:10.1017/S0140525X98000405
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Murphy, G. L., & Medin, D. L. (1985). The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence. Psychological Review, 92(3), 289-316. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.92.3.289
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Exemplar-based Accounts of Relations between Classification, Recognition, and Typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(4), 700-708. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.4.700
Peacocke, C. (1992). A Study of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Piatelli-
Palmarini, M. (2018). Fodor and the Innateness of All (basic) Concepts. In R.G. de Almeyda & L.R. Gleitman (Eds.), On Concepts, Modules, and Language: Cognitive Science at Its Core (pp. 211-237). New York: Oxford University Press.
Piccinini, G., & Scott, S. (2006). Splitting concepts. Philosophy of Science, 73(4), 390-409. doi:10.1086/516806
Pino, B., & Aguilera, B. (2017), Machery’s Alternative to Concepts and the Problem of Content, Erkenntnis, 83, 671-691. doi: 10.1007/s10670-017-9908-0
Prinz, J. (2002). Furnishing the Mind: Concepts and Their Perceptual Basis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Prinz, J., & Clark, A. (2004). Putting Concepts to Work: Some Thoughts for the Twenty-first Century. Mind and Language, 19(1), 57-69. doi:
1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00247.x
Pylyshyn Z. W. (2002). Mental Imagery: In Search of a Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(2), 157-237. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x02000043
Rescorla, M. (2019). The Language of Thought Hypothesis. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.). Stanford University. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/language-thought/
Rescorla, M. (2020). The Computational Theory of Mind. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). Stanford University. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/computational-mind
Rey, G. (1983). Concepts and Stereotypes. Cognition, 15(1-3), 237-262. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90044-6
Rey, G. (1985). Concepts and Conceptions: A Reply to Smith, Medin and Rips. Cognition, 19(3), 297-303. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(85)90037-X
Rey, G. (2010). Concepts Versus Conceptions (again). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 221-222. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000440
Rodríguez, M. R. (2007). Sobre conceptos primitivos – atomismo informacional. Summa Psicológica UST, 4(1), 31-45. doi: 10.18774/448x.2007.4.94
Rohrer, T. (2007). Embodiment and Experientialism. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistic (pp. 25-47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, E. E., & Osherson, D. N. (1984). Conceptual Combination with Prototype Concepts. Cognitive science, 8(4), 337-361. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0804_2
Taylor, S. D., & Vosgerau, G. (2021). The Explanatory Role of Concepts. Erkenntnis, 86, 1045-1070. doi: 10.1007/s10670-019-00143-0
Thagard, P. (2023). Cognitive Science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 ed.). Stanford University. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/cognitive-science/
Vallejos, G. (2008). Conceptos y Ciencia Cognitiva. Santiago: Bravo y Allende Editores.
Von Eckardt, B. (1993). What is Cognitive Science? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Von Eckardt, B. (2003). The Explanatory Need for Mental Representations in Cognitive Science. Mind & Language 18(4), 427-439. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00235
Weiskopf, D. (2013). Concepts. In B. Kaldis (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences (pp. 138-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weiskopf, D. A., & Bechtel, W. (2004). Remarks on Fodor on Having Concepts. Mind & Language, 19(1), 48-56. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00246.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Eidos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons 3.0 License Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported CC BY-NC 3.0, or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
5. Authors are permitted, and Eidos promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Eidos's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Eidos.
