Putnam on what isn’t in the head
- First Online:
In “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’” Putnam argues, among other things, that “‘meanings’ just ain’t in the head”. Putnam’s central arguments in favor of this conclusion are unsound. The arguments in question are the famous intra-world Twin Earth arguments, given on pages 223–227 of the article in question. Each of these arguments relies on a premise to the effect that this or that Twin Earth scenario is both logically possible and one in which certain individuals are in the same overall “psychological [state] in the narrow sense”. The problem is that none of the scenarios are as advertised; that is, none of them are logically possible situations in which the relevant individuals are in the same overall “psychological [state] in the narrow sense”.
KeywordsPutnam Twin Earth Meaning
- Burge, T. (1982). Other bodies. In A. Woodfield (Ed.), Thought and object. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
- Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind: In search of a fundamental theory. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
- Chalmers, D. (2002). The components of content (revised version). In D. Chalmers (Ed.), Philosophy of mind: Classical and contemporary readings. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
- Chalmers, D. (2004). Imagination, indexicality, and intensions (online version). http://consc.net/papers/perry.html.
- Jackson, F. (1998a). Reference and description revisited. Philosophical Perspectives, 12, 202–218.Google Scholar
- Jackson, F. (1998b). From metaphysics to ethics. A defence of conceptual analysis. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
- Putnam, H. (1975) The meaning of ‘meaning’. In Philosophical papers: Vol. 2. Mind, language and reality (pp. 215–271). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar