Mental Representations and Millikan’s Theory of Intentional Content: Does Biology Chase Causality?

Southern Journal of Philosophy 37 (1):113-140 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In her landmark book, Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories (Millikan1984),1 Ruth Garrett Millikan utilizes the idea of a biological function to solve philosophical problems associated with the phenomena of language, thought, and meaning. Language and thought are activities of biological organisms, according to Millikan, and we should treat them as such when trying to answer related philosophical questions. Of special interest is Millikan’s treatment of intentionality. Here Millikan employs the notion of a biological function to explain what it is for one thing in nature, a bee dance (43), for example, to be about another, in this case, the location of a nectar source. My concern in this paper is to understand whether Millikan’s account of intentionality adequately explains how humans achieve reference, in language or thought, to individuals and groups in their environment. In bringing her theory of intentional content to bear on human activities, Millikan focuses largely on natural language. Thus, in what follows, I begin by laying out the biology-based principles that underlie Millikan’s theory of content, then proceed with an explanation of how the theory is to apply to natural language. As it appears, Millikan’s account of how content is determined for natural language terms and sentences rests on the determinacy of intentional content at the psychological level. This leads me to take a careful look at what Millikan says about the content of mental representations, in hopes of finding a sufficient basis there for the application of Millikan’s theory of content to natural language. Ultimately, I conclude that Millikan’s theory faces a problem of vacuity. If we approach the theory as a theory of intentional content, intended to explain the nature of reference, the theory is lacking in an extremely important respect: Millikan explains how it could be one of the biological functions of a mental or natural language term to refer, without telling us precisely what in the natural order constitutes the reference relation..

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,154

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Meaning and Normativity: A Study of Teleosemantics.Sang Kyu Shin - 2003 - Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin
A proper understanding of Millikan.Justine Kingsbury - 2006 - Acta Analytica 21 (40):23-40.
Content and Function: A Defense of Millikanian Teleosemantics.Justine Margaret Joy Kingsbury - 1999 - Dissertation, Rutgers the State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick
Teleosemantics and Useless Content.Andrés L. Jaume - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 42:85-90.
Ruth Garrett Millikan: O cómo la biosemántica revolucionó la filosofía de la mente.Erika Torres - 2022 - In Aurora Georgina Bustos Arellano & Jocelyn Martínez (eds.), Las filósofas que nos formaron. Injusticias, retos y propuestas en la filosofía. Nuevo Leon, Mexico: Centro de Estudios Humanísticos, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. pp. 24-40.
Millikan’s Isomorphism Requirement.Nicholas Shea - 2012 - In Dan Ryder, Justine Kingsbury & Kenneth Williford (eds.), Millikan and her critics. Malden, MA: Wiley. pp. 63–86.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
890 (#24,672)

6 months
111 (#50,383)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert D. Rupert
University of Colorado, Boulder

Citations of this work

Color.Barry Maund - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Teleosemantics and productivity.Manolo Martinez - 2013 - Philosophical Psychology 26 (1):47-68.

Add more citations