Philosophical Studies

, Volume 142, Issue 3, pp 427–445 | Cite as

Two-dimensionalism and the epistemology of recognition

Article

Abstract

There is reason to expect a reasonable account of a priori knowledge to be linked with an account of the nature of conceptual thought. Recent “two-dimensionalist” accounts of conceptual thought propose an extremely direct connection between the two: on such views, being in a position to know a priori a large number of non-trivial propositions is a necessary condition of concept-possession. In this paper I criticize this view, by arguing that it requires an implausibly internalist and intellectualist conception of capacities we bring to bear in applying concepts in experience. Empirical concept-application depends on the exercise of a variety of capacities, many of which can be grouped together under the general label “recognitional”. As I argue, two-dimensionalism cannot accommodate a plausible account of such capacities. This suggests that the link between a priori knowledge and the nature of conceptual thought is not as direct as twodimensionalists take it to be. I close by briefly sketching a different way to think of that link.

Keywords

Two-dimensionalism Recognition Epistemic intension A priori Externalism Internalism David Chalmers Stephen Yablo Frank Jackson 

References

  1. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chalmers, D., & Jackson, F. (2001). Conceptual analysis and reductive explanation. Philosophical Review, 110, 315–361.Google Scholar
  3. Chalmers, D. (2002a). Does conceivability entail possibility? In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 145–221). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chalmers, D. (2002b). On sense and intension. Philosophical Perspectives, 16, 2002. Retrieved May 9th 2007 from: http://consc.net/papers/intension.pdf
  5. Chalmers, D. (2002c). The components of content. Retrieved May 9th 2007 from: http://consc.net/papers/content.pdf
  6. Chalmers, D. (2006). The foundations of two-dimensional semantics. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & J. Macia (Eds.), Two-dimensional semantics: foundations and applications. Oxford University Press, 2006. Retrieved May 9th 2007 from http://consc.net/papers/foundations.html
  7. Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. In J. McDowell (Ed.), New York: Clarendon Press-Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defense of conceptual analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kripke, S. A. (1982). Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “meaning”. In K. Gudenson (Ed.), Language, mind, and knowledge (pp. 131–191). Minneapolis: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science-University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Williamson, T. (2003). Blind reasoning II: Understanding and inference. Aristotelian Society, 77(Suppl.), 249–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Williamson, T. (2006). Conceptual truth. Aristotelian Society, 80, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Yablo, S. (2002). Coulda, woulda, shoulda. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility (pp. 441–492). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PhilosophyUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations