The Genealogy of Content or the Future of an Illusion

Abstract

Eliminativism about intentional content argues for its conclusion from the partial correctness of all three of the theses Hutto and Satne seek to combine: neo-Cartesianism is correct to this extent: if there is intentional content it must originally be mental. Neo-Behaviorism is correct to this extent: attribution of intentional content is basically a heuristic device for predicting the behavior of higher vertebrates. Neo-Pragmatism is right to this extent: the illusion of intentionality in language is the source of the illusion of intentionality in thought. Eliminativists employ the insights of all three “neo”-theses to explain why there is no such thing and why the systematic illusion that there is intentional content runs so deep.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Though which playing field may seem in doubt since HS mix baseball metaphors with cricket jargon—“pitch” instead of “field,” “get their innings” instead of their “times at bat,” “third basers,” instead of “third basemen.” Shades of “silly mid-off.”

  2. 2.

    Which after all is just a matter of more tokens succeeding each other, this time phenomenal ones, some in a syntactic order, others not, but none having any intrinsic aboutness about them.

References

  1. Dennett, D.C. (1969). Content and Consciousness. Routledge.

  2. Dennett, D. (1991). Real patterns. Journal of Philosophy, 88, 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fodor, J. (1991). The theory of content. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Horgan, T., & Tienson, J. (2002). The intentionality of phenomenology and the phenomenology of intentionality. In D. Chalmers(ed.), Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Oxford University Press.

  7. Hutto, D., & Satne, G. (2014). The natural origins of content. Philosophia, present issue.

  8. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention, Harvard.

  9. Quine, W. V. O. (1961). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton University Press.

  11. Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge University Press.

  12. Skyrms, B. (2010). Signals, evolution, leaning and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Rosenberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosenberg, A. The Genealogy of Content or the Future of an Illusion. Philosophia 43, 537–547 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-015-9624-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intentionality
  • Teleosemantics
  • Naturalization
  • Interpretation