Why Concepts Should Not Be Pluralized or Eliminated

Polish Journal of Philosophy 8 (1):7-23 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Concept Pluralism and Concept Eliminativism are two positions recently proposed in the philosophy and the psychology of concepts. Both of these theories are motivated by the view that all current theories of concepts are empirically and methodologically inadequate and hold in common the assumption that for any category that can be represented in thought, a person can possess multiple, distinct concepts of it. In this paper, I will challenge these in light of a third theory, Conceptual Atomism, which addresses and dispels the contentious issues. In particular, I contend that Conceptual Atomism, when properly understood, is empirically adequate and can overcome difficulties that plague Pluralism and Eliminativism.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The theoretical indispensability of concepts.Daniel A. Weiskopf - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2-3):228 - 229.
Why We Should Do Without Concepts.Barbara C. Malt - 2010 - Mind and Language 25 (5):622-633.
Banishing the thought.Nina Strohminger & Bradley W. Moore - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (2-3):225-226.
Doing without concepts.Edouard Machery - 2009 - New York: Oxford University Press.
On the methodology of the race debate: Conceptual analysis and racial discourse.Joshua Glasgow - 2008 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76 (2):333–358.
Making numbers out of magnitudes.Bradley J. Morris & Amy M. Masnick - 2008 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (6):662-663.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-09-04

Downloads
950 (#59,103)

6 months
159 (#76,830)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jack M. C. Kwong
Appalachian State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong.Jerry A. Fodor - 1998 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Doing without concepts.Edouard Machery - 2009 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Categories and Concepts.Edward E. Smith & L. Douglas - 1981 - Harvard University Press.
Concepts and Cognitive Science.Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis - 1999 - In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence, Concepts: Core Readings. MIT Press. pp. 3-81.

View all 23 references / Add more references