Philosophy of Language & Philosophy of mind
Instructions (read carefully!):
You must answer a total of FOUR questions. Exactly ONE question must be chosen from Section A: Philosophy of Language, and exactly THREE questions must be chosen from Section B: Philosophy of Mind. If your answers make references to the literature, you need to add a bibliography (a list of cited works). You can use a combined bibliography for all four answers. The bibliography does not enter into the word count.
Section A: Philosophy of Language
Write ONE essay of 300-500 words in response to a prompt in this section. 1. What is the difference between direct reference theory and descriptivism about names? Give an argument for one of the two views. 2. How would Russell analyse “The author of Begriffsschrift was German”? On Russell’s account, who or what is the referent of “the author of Begriffsschrift”? Why does Russell hold this view?
Section B: Philosophy of Mind
Write THREE essays of 300-500 words in response to prompts in this section. 1. What is David Lewis’s theory of language use? Present Chomsky’s criticism. 2. What is the Poverty of the Stimulus Argument? How does Cowie’s curry example challenge the Poverty of the Stimulus Argument? Is it a convincing challenge? 3. Explain the Multiple Realizability Objection to Type-Identity Theory. Then explain Functionalism and how it accommodates multiple realizability.
4. Explain Searle’s Chinese Room Challenge to Strong AI. How might an advocate of Strong AI respond? Is the response convincing? Why or why not? 5. Explain Nagel’s argument for the claim that there cannot be a science of consciousness. Does this argument demonstrate that Physicalism is false? Why or why not?
Philosophy of Language & Philosophy of Mind
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code and Name
Instructors Name
Date
Philosophy of Language & Philosophy of Mind
Section A
Question 1
The direct reference theory argues that an expression’s meaning points depend on what it talks about in the real world. Therefore, if a person wishes to understand the meaning of a particular expression, they have to consider what the expression was referring to. The theory of direct reference is related to denotation and connotation (Rehman, 2017). The connotation is the relationship that exists between a name and other attributes. One word might have more than singular meanings. Therefore, the object being referred to is what determines the meaning of that word. An example is the case of the word widow. The word has two meanings. It can refer to a male whose wife has passed away. It can also refer to a house’s part. Therefore, a person has to consider the object in the conversation for them to understand the expression. A connotative name denotes the object or certain attributes. Therefore, denotation is determined by a connotation. As well, an object can have various names. In this case, the denotation of the object is considered to have various connotations. Some names can only have a connotation, and in this case, the word is considered to be the objects singular meaning.
The descriptivist theory of names points out the meaning of a name is similar to the attributes of the objects described by the speaker. The referent, in this case, is the object that fits onto the speaker’s description. The theory differs from the direct reference theory in that it does not present connotations (Rehman, 2017). The only meaning of an expression relies on the speaker’s description. According to the theory, every proper name is associated with a specific object and a specific description. It is such a description that points to the exact meaning of the expression. The theory is considered to be a non-judgmental approach to any language because it describes how a language is written or spoken (Yang, 2017). An example of the difference between the direct reference and the descriptivist of names theories is how a speaker presents the word window. In the case of direct reference theory, the reader will be left to determine whether the word means a person whose wife has died or a house’s part. In the descriptivist theory, the speaker will have described the attributes of the object they are referring to. Therefore, it will be easier for the reader to understand the meaning of the word since it will not have connotations.
Section B
Question 2
The poverty of the stimulus argument points out that the linguistic received by young children is not enough to account for their advanced knowledge in a piece of certain knowledge (Chomsky, 2010). Therefore, a child has to be born with an ability to understand a particular language for them to understand it well. However, it is challenging to define what is considered to be enough linguistic input that should be given to a child for them to understand a language well. In some cases, children learn more than one language and end up in being fluent in them. In such a case, the child can learn that makes it easy for them to understand a language. Children might be brought up in the same environment, and some of them end up understanding a particular language more than the others. Such children had the same linguistic input but ended up understanding the languages differently. This is an indication that children need to be born with a particular ability for them to understand a language. Although the environment might determine a child’s understanding, their inborn ability plays the largest role. In the case where a child has a high ability to understand a particular language, they might not need much linguistic input. If the child does not have much ability, they might require more linguistic input for them to understand the language.
Cowie’s curry example challenges the Poverty of the Stimulus Argument by claiming that it leaves empiricism untouched (Laurence & Margolis, 2001). Empiricism theory points out that knowledge only comes from sensory experience (Rediehs, 2016). The challenge is not convincing enough because knowledge does not primarily come from sensory experience. A lot of factors are involved concerning learning linguistics. For instance, the environment of a child and their ability to learn that language play a huge role. If knowledge only came from sensory experience, then children exposed to less linguistic input might end up not knowing a particular knowledge. However, this is not always the case in real life. The poverty of stimulus points out that the child inborn ability is a great determinant to how they understand a particular language (Chomsky, 2010). In this case, empiricism is not left out because the inborn ability will also determine the child’s ability of sensory response to experience. If a child is put in the right environment, their inborn ability to understand a language will facilitate their sensory response to the environment. In turn, the child will understand the language better as compared to a chi...