Synthese

, Volume 187, Issue 2, pp 419–440 | Cite as

Reconciling justificatory internalism and content externalism

Article
  • 190 Downloads

Abstract

At first pass, internalism about justification is the view that there is no justificatory difference without an internal difference. Externalism about mental content is the view that there are differences in mental content without an internal difference. Assuming (complete) mental contents are the primary bearers of justificatory features, the two views are in obvious tension. The goal of this paper is to determine how the tension is best resolved.

Keywords

Justification internalism Content externalism Language of thought hypothesis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Almog J. (2005) What am I? Descartes and the mind-body problem. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Almog J. (2008) Cogito? Descartes and thinking the World. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Audi R. (2001) An internalist theory of normative grounds. Philosophical Topics 29: 19–46Google Scholar
  4. Aydede, M. (2004). The language of thought hypothesis. In E. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/.
  5. Barber A. (2000) A pragmatic treatment of simple sentences. Analysis 60(4): 300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun D. (1998) Understanding belief reports. Philosophical Review 107: 555–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun D. (2000) Russellianism and psychological generalizations. Noûs 34: 203–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Braun D. (2001a) Russellianism and explanation. Philosophical Perspectives 15: 253–289Google Scholar
  9. Braun D. (2001b) Russellianism and prediction. Philosophical Studies 105: 59–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braun D. (2002) Cognitive significance, attitude ascriptions, and ways of believing. Philosophical Studies 108: 65–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braun D. (2003) Review of Scott Soames’s beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Linguistics and Philosophy 26: 365–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braun D. (2005) Empty names, fictional names, mythical names. Noûs 39: 596–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Braun D. (2006) Illogical, but rational. Noûs 40: 376–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braun D., Saul J. (2002) Simple sentences, substitutions, and mistaken evaluations. Philosophical Studies 111: 1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Braun D., Sider T. (2006) Kripke’s revenge. Philosophical Studies 128(3): 669–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burge T. (1979) Individualism and the mental. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 73–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Camp E. (2007) Thinking with maps. Philosophical Perspectives 21(1): 145–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Camp, E. (2009). A language of Baboon thought?. In R. Lurz, Philosophy of animal minds (pp. 108–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Caplan B. (2007) Millian descriptivism. Philosophical Studies 133(2): 181–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark A., Chalmers D. (1998) The extended mind. Analysis 58(1): 10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen S. (1984) Justification and truth. Philosophical Studies 46: 279–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Conee E. (2007) Externally enhanced internalism. In: Goldberg S. (Ed.) Internalism and externalism in semantics and epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 51–67Google Scholar
  23. Conee E., Feldman R. (1985) Evidentialism. Philosophical Studies 48: 15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2001). Internalism defended. In H. Kornblith (Ed.), Epistemology: Internalism and externalism (pp. 231–260). Oxford: Blackwell. (Reprinted in Conee, E., & Feldman, R. (2004). Evidentialism: Essays in epistemology (pp. 53–82). Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  25. Conee E., Feldman R. (2004) Evidentialism: Essays in epistemology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Crawford S. (2004) A solution for Russellians to a puzzle about belief. Analysis 64(2): 223–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feldman R. (1995) In defense of closure. The Philosophical Quarterly 45(181): 487–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feldman R. (2003) Epistemology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  29. Feldman, R. ms. What Is the Internalism/Externalism Debate About?”Google Scholar
  30. Fine K. (2007) Semantic relationism. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fodor J., Pylyshyn Z. (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. In: Pinker S., Mehler J. (eds) Connections and symbols. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Hawthorne J. (2004) Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Hawthorne, J. (2005). The case for closure. In E. Sosa & M. Steup, Contemporary debates in epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Jeshion R. (2000) Ways of taking a meter. Philosophical Studies 99(3): 279–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeshion R. (2001) Donnellan on Neptune. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 111–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kripke S. (1979) A puzzle about belief. In: Margalit A. (Ed.) Meaning and use. D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  37. Perry J. (1979) The problem of the essential indexical. Nous 13: 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Priest G. (1987) Contradiction. Martinus Nijhoff, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Putnam H. (1973) Meaning and reference. Journal of Philosophy 70: 699–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quine W. V. O. (1966) The ways of paradox. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryckman T. (1986) Belief, linguistic behavior, and propositional content. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47(2): 277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salmon N. (1986) Frege’s puzzle. MIT Press/Branford BooksGoogle Scholar
  43. Salmon N. (1989) Illogical belief. Philosophical Perspectives 3: 243–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salmon, N. (1990). A millian heir rejects the wages of sinn. In C. Anthony Anderson & J. Owens, Propositional attitudes: The role of content in logic, language, and mind (pp 215–247). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  45. Salmon N. (1995) Being of two minds: Belief with doubt. Noûs 29(1): 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schiffer S. (2003) The things we mean. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Soames S. (1987) Direct reference, propositional attitudes, and semantic content. Philosophical Topics 15: 47–87Google Scholar
  48. Soames S. (2002) Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  49. Soames S. (2006a) Précis of beyond rigidity. Philosophical Studies 128(3): 645–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Soames S. (2006b) Reply to Linsky, Braun, Sider, and Richard. Philosophical Studies 128(3): 711–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thau M. (2002) Consciousness and cognition. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Tillman C. (2005) A millian propositional guise for one puzzling english gal. Analysis 65(3): 251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Williamson T. (2007) On being justified in one’s head. In: Timmons M., Greco J., Mele A. (eds) Rationality and the good: Critical essays on the ethics and epistemology of Robert Audi. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 106–122Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ManitobaWinnipegCanada

Personalised recommendations