Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:26:50.613Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There Progress in Philosophy? The Case for Taking History Seriously

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2018

Peter P. Slezak
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to widespread doubts among professional philosophers (Russell, Horwich, Dietrich, McGinn, Chalmers), Stoljar argues for a ‘reasonable optimism’ about progress in philosophy. He defends the large and surprising claim that ‘there is progress on all or reasonably many of the big questions’. However, Stoljar's caveats and admitted avoidance of historical evidence permits overlooking persistent controversies in philosophy of mind and cognitive science that are essentially unchanged since the 17th Century. Stoljar suggests that his claims are commonplace in philosophy departments and, indeed, the evidence I adduce constitutes an indictment of the widely shared view among professional analytic philosophers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 93 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 529 - 555
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to Daniel Stoljar and David Chalmers for very helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Thanks also to Galen Strawson for helpful remarks on the themes of this paper.

References

2 Stoljar, D., Philosophical Progress: In Defence of a Reasonable Optimism (Oxford University Press, 2017), 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Horwich, P., Wittgenstein's Metaphilosophy (Oxford University Press, 2012), 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Strawson, G., ‘Panpsychism?’ in Freeman, A. (ed.) Consciousness and its Place in Nature (Exeter: Imprint Academic Press, 2006), 184Google Scholar.

5 Rescher, N., Philosophical Progress and Other Philosophical Studies (De Gruyter, 2014)Google Scholar.

6 Chalmers, D.J., ‘Why Isn't There More Progress in Philosophy?’, Philosophy 90 (2015): 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Dietrich, E., ‘There Is No Progress in Philosophy’, Essays in Philosophy 12/2 (2011): 329–44Google Scholar. To take a significant example, there is, after all, a wide ‘collective convergence’ among philosophers on Kripke's views of naming which are ‘as close to uncontroversial as any interesting views in analytic philosophy’ according to Christopher Hughes. Michael Devitt, too, notes ‘We can probably assume that nearly all philosophers of language agree with Kripkean intuitions’ on the conception of rigid designators taken to refute the Russell-Frege descriptivist account of names. See Hughes, C., Kripke: Names, Necessity and Identity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), viiGoogle Scholar; Devitt, M., ‘Whither Experimental Semantics?’ Theoria 72 (2011): 5–36, 24Google Scholar. For a dissenting view, see Chomsky, N., ‘Language and Interpretation: Philosophical Reflections and Empirical Inquiry’ in Earman, J. (ed.) Inference, Explanation, and Other Frustrations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 99–128Google Scholar; Chomsky, N., The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Kuhn, T.S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

9 Laudan, L., Progress and its Problems (University of California Press, 1977)Google Scholar.

10 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), 14.

11 Russell, B., The Problems of Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1912/1967)Google Scholar.

12 Wittgenstein, L., Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1922), 5Google Scholar.

13 Schlick, M., ‘The Turning Point in Philosophy’ (1930), in Ayer, A.J. (ed.) Logical Positivism (The Free Press, 1959): 53–59Google Scholar.

14 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), x.

15 I neglect consideration of Stoljar's apparatus of ‘boundary problems’, ‘constitutive’ and ‘successor’ problems since we may concede Stoljar's positive arguments for progress in certain narrowly specified respects. I am concerned to reveal what has been left out of account in judging the state of the discipline.

16 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), x.

17 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), 77.

18 Chalmers op. cit. note 6 (2015), 25.

19 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), 143.

20 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), 147.

21 Gettier, E.L., ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’, Analysis 23 (1963): 121–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Nozick, R., ‘Newcomb's Problem and Two Principles of Choice’, in Rescher, N. et al. (eds) Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1969)Google Scholar.

23 Quoted in Lycan, W.G., ‘On the Gettier Problem Problem’ in Hetherington, S. (ed.) Epistemology Futures, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006), 148Google Scholar.

24 On Gettier see Kirkham, R.L., ‘Does the Gettier Problem Rest on a Mistake?’, Mind 93 (1984): 501–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zagzebski, L., ‘The Inescapability of Gettier Problems’, Philosophical Quarterly 44 (1994): 65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hetherington, S., ‘The Gettier Illusion’, Synthese 188 (2012): 217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Curley, E.M., ‘Dialogues with the Dead’, Synthese 67 (1986): 33–49, 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Quine, W.V.O., The Time of My Life (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1985), 194Google Scholar.

27 Gaukroger, S., Descartes: An Intellectual Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 8Google Scholar.

28 Pasnau, R., Theories of Cognition in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 294Google Scholar.

29 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), 125.

30 Quoted in E.M. Curley op. cit. note 24. See also Wilson, C., ‘Is the History of Philosophy Good for Philosophy?’ in Sorell, T. and Rogers, G.A.J. (eds) Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), 75Google Scholar.

31 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), 12, 58.

32 Levine, J., ‘Materialism and qualia: the explanatory gap’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64 (1983): 354–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Fodor, J.A., ‘Don't bet the chicken coop’, London Review of Books 24 (2001): 21–22Google Scholar.

34 McGinn, C., ‘Consciousness and Cosmology: Hyperdualism Ventilated’ in Davies, M. and Humphreys, G.W. (eds) Consciousness (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 157Google Scholar.

35 Strawson, G., Consciousness and its Place in Nature (Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2006), 15Google Scholar.

36 Chalmers, D., The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), xiGoogle Scholar.

37 Sorell, T., ‘On Saying No to History of Philosophy’ in Sorell, T. and Rogers, G.A.J. (eds) Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 1Google Scholar.

38 Wilson, M.D., ‘History of Philosophy in Philosophy Today; and the Case of the Sensible Qualities’ in Ideas and Mechanisms: Essays on Early Modern Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 459Google Scholar.

39 Strawson op. cit. note 35 (2006), 201.

40 Nadler, S., ‘Reid, Arnauld and the Objects of Perception’, History of Philosophy Quarterly 3 (1986): 165–173, 104Google Scholar.

41 Clarke, D.M., Descartes's Theory of Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Dennett, D.C., Consciousness Explained (London: Penguin, 1991)Google Scholar.

43 Pylyshyn, Z., Seeing and Visualizing: It's Not What You Think (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Pylyshyn, Z., ‘Return of the mental image: are there really pictures in the brain?’, Trends in Cognitive Science 7 (2003): 113–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Clarke, D. M., Descartes’ Philosophy of Science (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1982), 2Google Scholar.

45 D. M. Clarke op. cit. note 41 (2003), 258.

46 Koyré, A., ‘Introduction’, Anscombe, E. & Geach, P.T. (eds) Descartes: Philosophical Writings (Middlesex: Thomas Nelson, 1954), viiGoogle Scholar.

47 For example, recent book-length treatments include: Sarkar, H., Descartes’ Cogito (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Broughton, J., Descartes's Method of Doubt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002)Google Scholar; Baker, G. & Morris, K.J., Descartes’ Dualism (London: Routledge, 1996)Google Scholar; Rozemond, M., Descartes's Dualism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998)Google Scholar.

48 Smith, D. Woodruff, ‘The Cogito circa AD 2000’, Inquiry 36 (2000): 225–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Hintikka, J., ‘Cogito Ergo Sum: Inference or Performance?’, The Philosophical Review 71 (1962): 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Frankfurt, H., Demons, Dreamers, and Madmen: The Defense of Reason in Descartes's Meditation (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970Google Scholar; republished by Princeton University Press, 2008), 15.

51 Cottingham, J., ‘Why Should Analytic Philosophers Do History of Philosophy’ in Sorell, T. and Rogers, G.A.J. (eds) Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005), viiGoogle Scholar.

52 Chalmers op. cit. note 6 (2015).

53 Bar-Hillel, Y., ‘Indexical Expressions’, Aspects of Language (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1970), 199Google Scholar.

54 Slezak, P., ‘Descartes's Diagonal Deduction’ British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 34 (1983): 13–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slezak, P., ‘Was Descartes a Liar? Diagonal Doubt Defended’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 39 (1988): 379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slezak, P, ‘Doubts about Descartes’ Indubitability: The Cogito as Intuition & Inference’, Philosophical Forum 41 (2010): 389–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Hintikka, J., ‘René pense, donc Cartesius existe’ Cahiers de philosophy de l'université de Caen 50 (2013): 107–120Google Scholar. For acknowledgement of Hintikka's indebtedness, see Kieft, X., ‘Peter Slezak, interlocuteur anonyme de Jaakko Hintikka’, Bulletin cartésien XLIV, Archives de Philosophie 78 (2015): 157–216Google Scholar.

56 Searle, J., ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (1980): 417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See articles in Preston, J., and Bishop, M. (eds) Views Into the Chinese Room: New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002)Google Scholar.

57 Descartes, R., Optics. The Writings on Descartes, Volume 1. Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R. & Murdoch, Dugald, translators (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 166Google Scholar.

58 Quoted in Yolton, J.W., Perceptual Acquaintance from Descartes to Reid (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 28Google Scholar.

59 Tye, M., The Imagery Debate (Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

60 Rorty, R., Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 146Google Scholar.

61 Block, N., ‘Introduction: What is the issue?’ in Block, N. (ed.) Imagery. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1981), 1Google Scholar.

62 Pylyshyn op. cit. note 43 (2003).

63 Schmaltz, T.M., ‘Malebranche on Ideas and the Vision in God’ in Nadler, S. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Malebranche (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 73Google Scholar.

64 Descartes op. cit. note 57, 165.

65 Jackson, F., ‘Epiphenomenal Qualia’ Philosophical Quarterly 32 (1982): 127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in Ludlow, P., Nagasawa, U. and Stoljar, D. (eds) There's Something About Mary, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

66 Jackson, F., ‘The Knowledge Argument, Diaphanousness, Representationalism’ in Alter, T. and Walter, S. (eds) Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 54Google Scholar.

67 Schmaltz, T.M., Malebranche's Theory of the Soul: A Cartesian Interpretation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 85Google Scholar.

68 Malebranche, N., The Search After Truth (1674), translated by Lennon, T.M. and Olscamp, P.J., (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 634Google Scholar. I am grateful to Tad Schmaltz for very helpful discussion of this issue.

69 Austin, J.L., Sense and Sensibilia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 61Google Scholar.

70 Locke, J., An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) (ed.) Nidditch, P. H.. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), 424Google Scholar.

71 Rorty op. cit. note 60 (1979).

72 Pasnau, R., Theories of Cognition in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 5Google Scholar.

73 Levine op. cit. note 32 (1983).

74 Nagel, T., ‘What is it like to be a bat?’, Philosophical Review 83 (1974): 435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Searle, J., The Mystery of Consciousness (London: Granta Books, 1997), 99Google Scholar.

76 Sherrington, C., Man On His Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1942)Google Scholar.

77 Dennett, D.C., ‘Illusionism as the Obvious Default Theory of Consciousness’, Journal of Consciousness Studies 23 (2016): 65–72Google Scholar, 70.

78 Place, U.T., ‘Is Consciousness a Brain Process?’, British Journal of Psychology 47 (1956): 44–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. reprinted in Beakley, B. and Ludlow, P. (eds) The Philosophy of Mind: Classical Problems/Contemporary Issues (Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT Press, 1992), 33–39Google Scholar.

79 McGinn, C., ‘Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem?’, Mind 98 (1989): 349–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

80 Quoted in Sutton, J., Philosophy and Memory Traces: Descartes to Connectionism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 119Google Scholar.

81 Lycan, W.G., ‘Perspectival Representation and the Knowledge Argument’ in Smith, Q. and Jokic, A. (eds) Consciousness: New Philosophical Essays, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 384Google Scholar.

82 Rey, G., ‘Intentional Content and a Chomskian Linguistics’ in Barber, A. (ed.) Epistemology of Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 140Google Scholar.

83 Cummins, R., Representations, Targets and Attitudes (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996), 1Google Scholar.

84 Yolton, J.W., Perception and Reality: A History from Descartes to Kant, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996), 1Google Scholar.

85 Fodor, J.A., Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Yolton, J.W., Perceptual Acquaintance from Descartes to Reid (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 6Google Scholar.

87 Fodor op.cit. note 85 and Fodor, J.A., Hume Variations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

88 See Pasnau op cit. note 28 (1997).

89 Moreau, D., Malebranche (Paris: Vrin, 2004), 89Google Scholar.

90 Descartes, R., The Writings on Descartes, Volume II, Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R. & Murdoch, Dugald, translators (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 28Google Scholar.

91 Block, N., ‘Advertisement for a Semantics for Psychology’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986)Google Scholar. Reprinted in Stich, S. and Warfield, T.A. (eds) Mental Representation: A Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994): 81–141Google Scholar.

92 Quoted in Watson, R.A., The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1987), 93Google Scholar.

93 Fodor, J.A., ‘Presentation to the National Science Foundation Workshop on Information and Representation’ Partee, B.H., Peters, S. and Thomason, R. (eds) Report of Workshop on Information and Representation, (Washington, D.C.: NSF System Development Foundation, 1985), 106–117Google Scholar.

94 Fodor, J.A., ‘Tom Swift and his Procedural Grandmother’ in his Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1981), 207Google Scholar.

95 Searle op. cit. note 56 (1980).

96 Jackendoff, R., Languages of the Mind (Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT Press, 1992), 61Google Scholar.

97 Fodor complains against ‘internalist’ semantics in generative linguistics that it is ‘In effect, … a sort of idealism about meaning: all our ideas are about ideas’. See Fodor, J.A., ‘Semantics: an interview’, Revista Virtual de Estudios da Linguagem 5 (2007): 6.Google Scholar Elsewhere, too, Fodor remarks ‘I don't understand how a semantics can avoid lapsing into idealistic solipsism unless it recognizes some sort of symbol-world relation.’ Fodor, J.A., LOT2: The Language of Thought Revisited (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Locke, J. (1823), ‘An Examination of P. Malebranche's Opinion of Seeing All Things in God’, The Works of John Locke, A New Edition, Corrected, In Ten Volumes, Vol. IX. (London: Thomas Tegg; reprinted Amsterdam: Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1963)Google Scholar.

99 Nadler, S., Malebranche and Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)Google Scholar.

100 Danto, A.C., Connections to the World: The Basic Concepts of Philosophy (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), xiGoogle Scholar.

101 Arnauld, A., On True and False Ideas (1963), translated with Introductory Essay by Stephen Gaukroger (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990), 63Google Scholar.

102 See Tye, M., ‘The Adverbial Approach to Visual Experience’, The Philosophical Review 93 (1984): 195–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 Nadler op. cit. note 40 (1986), 166.

104 Van Cleve, J., Problems from Reid (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 67Google Scholar.

105 Stoljar op. cit. note 2 (2017), 64.

106 von Eckardt, B., What Is Cognitive Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford/MIT Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

107 von Eckardt op. cit. note 105, 145. See also Slezak, P., ‘The Tripartite Model of Representation’, Philosophical Psychology 15 (2002): 239–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Bechtel, W., ‘Representations and Cognitive Explanations: Assessing the Dynamicists’ Challenge in Cognitive Science’ Cognitive Science 22 (1998): 295–318, 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 von Eckardt op. cit. note 106, 32.

110 Pylyshyn, Z., ‘The Imagery Debate: Analog Media versus Tacit Knowledge’, Psychological Review 88 (1981): 16–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in N. Block (ed.), Imagery (Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press, 1981); Pylyshyn, Z., Seeing and Visualizing: It's Not What You Think. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 2003)Google Scholar. See also Slezak, P., ‘The Imagery Debate: Déjà vu all over again? Commentary on Zenon Pylyshyn’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (2002): 209–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Schmaltz op. cit. note 63 (2000), 73.

112 Arnauld op. cit. note 101 (1683), 77.

113 Gelder, T. van, ‘The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science’, Behavioral & Brain Sciences 21 (1998): 615–665Google ScholarPubMed; Bechtel op. cit. note 108 (1998).

114 See Clancey, W.J., ‘Situated Action’, Cognitive Science 17 (1993): 87–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greeno, J.G., ‘Situations, Mental Models and Generative Knowledge’ in Klahr, D. and Kotovsky, K. (eds) Complex Information Processing: The Impact of Herbert A. Simon (New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1989)Google Scholar.

115 Nadler, S., Arnauld and the Cartesian Philosophy of Ideas (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989), 6Google Scholar.

116 Fodor, J.A., ‘A Science of Tuesdays’ London Review of Books 22 (2000): 21–22Google Scholar.

117 De Rosa, R., Descartes and the Puzzle of Sensory Representation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Arnauld op. cit. note 101 (1683), 77. See Nadler op. cit. note 115 (1989), 97.

119 Putnam, H., ‘Sense, Nonsense, and the Senses: An Inquiry Into the Powers of the Human Mind’, The Journal of Philosophy 41 (1994): 445–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted as The Threefold Cord: Mind, Body and World, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000).

120 Fodor op. cit. note 116 (2000).

121 Copenhaver, R., ‘A Realism for Reid: Mediated But Direct’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 12 (2004): 61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 62.

122 Reid, T. (1813), Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, reproduced with Introduction by Brody, B. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969), 161Google Scholar.

123 Copenhaver op. cit. note 121 (2004), 72.

124 Fodor op. cit. note 87 (2003), 134.

125 Buckle, S., Hume's Enlightenment Tract (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 191Google Scholar.

126 T.M. Lennon, ‘Introduction to N. Malebranche The Search After Truth’, translated by T.M. Lennon and P.J. Olscamp, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), xxii.

127 Quoted in Buckle op. cit. note 124 (2001), 136.

128 See Jolley, N., The Light of the Soul: Theories of ideas in Leibniz, Malebranche, and Descartes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 201Google Scholar.

129 Fodor op. cit. note 97 (2007).

130 Fodor, J.A., ‘Review Essay: Remnants of Meaning by Stephen Schiffer’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (1989): 409–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 409.

131 Yolton op. cit. note 84 (1996), 28.

132 Fodor op. cit. note 87 (2003), 135.

133 Fodor op. cit. note 85 (1998), 10.

134 Fodor, J.A., The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and its Semantics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994), 9Google Scholar.

135 Fodor op. cit. note 87 (2003), 109.

136 Dretske, F., ‘Misrepresentation’ in Bogdan, R.J. (ed.) Belief: Form, Content and Function (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, reprinted in Stich, S. & Warfield, T. (eds) Mental Representation. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 157–173Google Scholar. Fodor, J.A., Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Fodor op. cit. note 133 (1994).

137 Fodor op. cit. note 116 (2000), 21.

138 Malebranche op. cit. note 68 (1674), 217.

139 Malebranche op. cit. note 68 (1674), 217.

140 Fodor op. cit. note 134 (1994), 83.

141 Curley op. cit. note 25 (1986), 46.

142 Fodor op. cit. note 87 (2003), 73. Schneider notes that Fodor's use of the term ‘pragmatism’ is ‘idiosyncratic’ and ‘unfortunate’ referring, not to the philosophical tradition of William James and John Dewey, but only to a theory of concept possession as a kind of ‘knowing how’ through abilities for recognition, classification and inference. See Schneider, S., The Language of Thought: A New Philosophical Direction (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2011), 160CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143 Cummins, R., The World in the Head (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 152–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 See Copenhaver op. cit. note 121 (2004), and van Cleve op. cit. note 104 (2015).

145 Wolterstorff, N., Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 1Google Scholar.

146 Lehrer, K., Thomas Reid (London: Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar; Putnam op. cit. note 119 (1994).

147 Strawson, G., ‘What's So Good About Reid?’, London Review of Books 22 (1990): 14–16Google Scholar.

148 McGinn, C., The Character of Mind: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), viiiGoogle Scholar.

149 Rorty, R., ‘Blunder around for a while’, London Review of Books 13 (1991): 3–6Google Scholar.

150 Pasnau op. cit. note 28 (1997), 294.