Para mais informações clique neste LINK.
29 de maio de 2014
26 de maio de 2014
24 de maio de 2014
Viriato Soromenho-Marques. Portugal na queda da Europa
Clique na imagem para ler a informação em boas condições.
21 de maio de 2014
19 de maio de 2014
Pós-Graduação em Filosofia 2014-2015
13 de maio de 2014
Social Contract Theory Past, Present, and Future
Clique no cartaz para ler a informação em melhores condições.
11 de maio de 2014
On the concept-conception distinction - Elisabetta Lalumera
Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
LanCog Group (Language, Mind and Cognition Research Group)
http://www.lancog.com/
Project Online Companion PTDC/FIL-FIL/121209/2010
SEMINAR SERIES IN ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
2013-14: Session 6
On the concept-conception distinction
Elisabetta Lalumera
University of Milano-Bicocca
16 May 2014, 15:00
Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa
Sala Mattos Romão (departamento de Filosofia)
Abstract: ‘Concept’ is a theoretical term in both philosophical and psychological theories. Some authors have put into question the existence of concepts as natural kinds, with homogeneous properties out there to be explained (Machery 2009, Malt 2010). Many others, however, concede the point but claim that concepts are part of the explanans in cognitive science and philosophy, their function being to enable us to describe and give accounts of phenomena such as language understanding, inference, categorization, decision-making and deliberation (Weiskopf 2010, Lalumera 2010, Hampton 2010). According to these authors there are phenomena that we would not be able to explain adequately without the notion of concept.
In line with this broad view, this is a conservative paper. My aim here is to defend the view that, far from being theoretically idle, the notion of concept should be supplemented by a more thorough understanding of the concept-conception distinction. In fact, the notion of concept is not fine-grained enough in some explanatory contexts. I claim that phenomena such as genuine disagreement and concept contestation can be better described in terms of both concepts and conceptions, and would otherwise remain implausibly puzzling.
Intuitively, conceptions stand to concepts as do many to one, and conceptions can be wrong, and get corrected. Though familiar, however, the concept-conception distinction is rarely focused on. Some material can be found in the debate in political philosophy, in the discussion following John Rawls, and Richard Dworkin’s work (Rawls 1999, Dworkin 1988). In the philosophy of mind and psychology Susan Carey (2009), Ruth Millikan (2000), Georges Rey (1985, 2010), and less recently Christopher Peacocke (1992, 1998) wrote about the two notions. In what follows I will individuate two different ways to draw the concept-conception distinction (sections 2 and 3), and confront them vis-à-vis the explanatory desiderata posed by cases of genuine disagreement, and concept contestation, which I present in the fourth section, drawing on well-known examples by Tyler Burge , and Timothy Williamson. Finally I discuss the notion of essentially contested concept, introduced by W. B. Gallie (1956).
One clarification before starting. Some philosophers of psychology think that the notion of concept is ambiguous between the philosophical and the psychological usage. Supporters of the ambiguity view point to the fact that concepts for philosophers are abstract objects, while concepts for psychologists are mental particulars (Margolis and Laurence 2007); that philosophers are concerned with the semantics of concepts while psychologists are not (Machery 2009); that – in a similar vein – concepts for philosophers determine their extensions, while concept for psychologists do not, or they determine a different extension (Margolis and Laurence 2007); and finally, that philosophers narrow the scope of conceptual capacities to rational deliberation and language understanding only, whereas psychologists broaden it (Machery 2009). In this paper I do not provide arguments against the ambiguity view, but I assume the rival position, namely the view that ‘concept’ is a polysemous word, whose philosophical and psychological meaning are related. One way to relate them is to agree that concepts constitute a functional kind posited to explain some traits of human behaviour, as I said above (Weiskopf 2010, Lalumera 2010), and that (typical) psychological theories and (typical) philosophical theories of concepts diverge on the agenda of what has to be explained and in what order (Carey 2009). I will suggest that conceptions may deserve the same status.
References
Burge, T. (2009) Intellectual norms and the foundations of mind. Foundations of Mind, Oxford: OUP.
Carey, S. (2009) The origins of concepts. Oxford: OUP.
Criley, M. E. (2007). Contested concepts and competing conceptions. ProQuest.
Dworkin, R. (1988). Law's Empire. Harvard, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Charness, P., Feltovich, J. E Hoffman, R. (a cura di) (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gallie , W. B. (1956) Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56, 167-98.
Gelman, S. A. (2005). Psychological Science Agenda: May 2005. Psychological Science.
Goldman, (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85-110.
Hampton, J. A. (2010). Concept talk cannot be avoided. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 212-213.
Lakoff, George. 2006a. Thinking points: Communicating our American values and vision : a progressive’s handbook. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lalumera, E. (2010). Concepts are a functional kind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 217-218.
Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts (p. 210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2007). The Ontology of Concepts—Abstract Objects or Mental Representations? 1. Noûs, 41(4), 561-593.
Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning, pp. 179-195, Cambridge.
Millikan, R. (2005). Language: a Biological Model, Oxford: OUP.
Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. The MIT Press.
Peacocke, C. (1998). Implicit conceptions, understanding and rationality. Philosophical issues, 43-88.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1999
Rey, G. (1985) Concepts and conceptions: A reply to Smith, Medin and Rips. Cognition 19:297–303.
Rey, G. (2010). Concepts versus conceptions (again). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 221-222.
Selinger, E. e Crease, R. (eds.) (2006). The Philosophy of Expertise. New York: Columbia University Press.
Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell
ALL WELCOME!
--
LanCog Research Group
www.lancog.com
Centro de Filosofia
Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa
Alameda da Universidade
Lisboa
1600-214
Portugal
LanCog Group (Language, Mind and Cognition Research Group)
http://www.lancog.com/
Project Online Companion PTDC/FIL-FIL/121209/2010
SEMINAR SERIES IN ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY
2013-14: Session 6
On the concept-conception distinction
Elisabetta Lalumera
University of Milano-Bicocca
16 May 2014, 15:00
Faculdade de Letras de Lisboa
Sala Mattos Romão (departamento de Filosofia)
Abstract: ‘Concept’ is a theoretical term in both philosophical and psychological theories. Some authors have put into question the existence of concepts as natural kinds, with homogeneous properties out there to be explained (Machery 2009, Malt 2010). Many others, however, concede the point but claim that concepts are part of the explanans in cognitive science and philosophy, their function being to enable us to describe and give accounts of phenomena such as language understanding, inference, categorization, decision-making and deliberation (Weiskopf 2010, Lalumera 2010, Hampton 2010). According to these authors there are phenomena that we would not be able to explain adequately without the notion of concept.
In line with this broad view, this is a conservative paper. My aim here is to defend the view that, far from being theoretically idle, the notion of concept should be supplemented by a more thorough understanding of the concept-conception distinction. In fact, the notion of concept is not fine-grained enough in some explanatory contexts. I claim that phenomena such as genuine disagreement and concept contestation can be better described in terms of both concepts and conceptions, and would otherwise remain implausibly puzzling.
Intuitively, conceptions stand to concepts as do many to one, and conceptions can be wrong, and get corrected. Though familiar, however, the concept-conception distinction is rarely focused on. Some material can be found in the debate in political philosophy, in the discussion following John Rawls, and Richard Dworkin’s work (Rawls 1999, Dworkin 1988). In the philosophy of mind and psychology Susan Carey (2009), Ruth Millikan (2000), Georges Rey (1985, 2010), and less recently Christopher Peacocke (1992, 1998) wrote about the two notions. In what follows I will individuate two different ways to draw the concept-conception distinction (sections 2 and 3), and confront them vis-à-vis the explanatory desiderata posed by cases of genuine disagreement, and concept contestation, which I present in the fourth section, drawing on well-known examples by Tyler Burge , and Timothy Williamson. Finally I discuss the notion of essentially contested concept, introduced by W. B. Gallie (1956).
One clarification before starting. Some philosophers of psychology think that the notion of concept is ambiguous between the philosophical and the psychological usage. Supporters of the ambiguity view point to the fact that concepts for philosophers are abstract objects, while concepts for psychologists are mental particulars (Margolis and Laurence 2007); that philosophers are concerned with the semantics of concepts while psychologists are not (Machery 2009); that – in a similar vein – concepts for philosophers determine their extensions, while concept for psychologists do not, or they determine a different extension (Margolis and Laurence 2007); and finally, that philosophers narrow the scope of conceptual capacities to rational deliberation and language understanding only, whereas psychologists broaden it (Machery 2009). In this paper I do not provide arguments against the ambiguity view, but I assume the rival position, namely the view that ‘concept’ is a polysemous word, whose philosophical and psychological meaning are related. One way to relate them is to agree that concepts constitute a functional kind posited to explain some traits of human behaviour, as I said above (Weiskopf 2010, Lalumera 2010), and that (typical) psychological theories and (typical) philosophical theories of concepts diverge on the agenda of what has to be explained and in what order (Carey 2009). I will suggest that conceptions may deserve the same status.
References
Burge, T. (2009) Intellectual norms and the foundations of mind. Foundations of Mind, Oxford: OUP.
Carey, S. (2009) The origins of concepts. Oxford: OUP.
Criley, M. E. (2007). Contested concepts and competing conceptions. ProQuest.
Dworkin, R. (1988). Law's Empire. Harvard, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Ericsson, K. A., Charness, P., Feltovich, J. E Hoffman, R. (a cura di) (2006). The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gallie , W. B. (1956) Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56, 167-98.
Gelman, S. A. (2005). Psychological Science Agenda: May 2005. Psychological Science.
Goldman, (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85-110.
Hampton, J. A. (2010). Concept talk cannot be avoided. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 212-213.
Lakoff, George. 2006a. Thinking points: Communicating our American values and vision : a progressive’s handbook. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lalumera, E. (2010). Concepts are a functional kind. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 217-218.
Machery, E. (2009). Doing without concepts (p. 210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Margolis, E., & Laurence, S. (2007). The Ontology of Concepts—Abstract Objects or Mental Representations? 1. Noûs, 41(4), 561-593.
Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning, pp. 179-195, Cambridge.
Millikan, R. (2005). Language: a Biological Model, Oxford: OUP.
Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. The MIT Press.
Peacocke, C. (1998). Implicit conceptions, understanding and rationality. Philosophical issues, 43-88.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1999
Rey, G. (1985) Concepts and conceptions: A reply to Smith, Medin and Rips. Cognition 19:297–303.
Rey, G. (2010). Concepts versus conceptions (again). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 221-222.
Selinger, E. e Crease, R. (eds.) (2006). The Philosophy of Expertise. New York: Columbia University Press.
Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell
ALL WELCOME!
--
LanCog Research Group
www.lancog.com
Centro de Filosofia
Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa
Alameda da Universidade
Lisboa
1600-214
Portugal
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
Mensagens
