Conclusion
Some have argued, following Stalnaker, that a plausible functionalist account of belief requires coarse-grained propositions. I have explored a class of functionalist accounts, and my argument has been that, in this class, there is no account which meetsall of the following conditions: it is plausible, noncircular, and allows for the validity of the argument to coarse-grained propositions. In producing this argument, I believe that I have shown that it might be open to a functionalist to adopt fine-grained propositions; thus, one might be a functionalist without holding that all mathematical beliefs are about strings of symbols (and that the belief that all bachelors are unmarried men is a belief about words).
My project in this paper has been minimal in the following sense. I havenot argued thatno functionalist account of belief which meets the three conditions can be produced; rather, I have simply explored the inadequacies of certain sorts of accounts. I think that this is useful insofar as it makes clear the challenges to be met by an account of belief which can play the required role in the argument to coarse-grained propositions. It is compatible with my position that such an account is forthcoming, insofar as I have not produced a functionalist theory of belief which is clearly non-circular, plausible, and which yields fine-grained propositions. Of course, it is also compatible with my position that no plausible, non-circular functionalist account of belief of any sort can be produced. My argument has been that,if one construes such mental states as belief as functional states, no convincing argument has yet been produced that they require coarse-grained objects.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Block, Ned: 1980, ‘Introduction: What is functionalism?’, in Block, N. (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology, V. 1, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).
Boyd, Richard: 1980, ‘Materialism without reductionism: What physicalism does not entail’, in Block, N. (ed.), Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, v. 1. (Harvard, University Press, Cambridge).
Field, Hartry: 1980, ‘Mental representations’, Erkenntnis 13 (1978), reprinted in Block, N. (ed.), Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, v. 2, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).
Fodor, Jerry A.: 1973, The Language of Thought, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).
Grice, H.P.: 1975, ‘Method in philosophical psychology (From the banal to the bizarre)’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 48.
Lewis, David: 1973, Counterfactuals, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge).
Marcus, Ruth Barcan: 1983, ‘Rationality and believing the impossible’, The Journal of Philosophy 80.6.
Pears, David: 1971, ‘Ifs and cans’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1.2.
Powers, Lawrence: 1976, ‘Comments on ‘Propositions'‘, in MacKay, A.F. and Merrill, D.D. (eds.), Issues in the Philosophy of Language, (Yale University Press, New Haven).
Shoemaker, Sydney: 1981, ‘Varieties of functionalism’, Philosophical Topics, 12.1.
Stalnaker, Robert: 1968, ‘ATheory of Conditionals’, in Rescher, N. (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory (Blackwell, Oxford).
Stalnaker, Robert: 1976, ‘Propositions’, in MacKay, A.F. and Merrill D.D. (eds.), Issues in the Philosophy of Language, (Yale University Press, New Haven).
Stalnaker, Robert: 1984, Inquiry (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fischer, J.M. Functionalism and propositions. Philosophical Studies 48, 295–311 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01305392
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01305392