I 96
Reductionism/Grice/Avramides: the real bone of contention between reductive and anti-reductive Griceans is the profound epistemic asymmetry - (that thoughts could be known without language).
For symmetry/asymmetry: >
Terminology/Avramides.
Both, reductionism and anti-reductionism are agains superficial epistemic aymmetry:
Def Superficial Epistemic Asymmetry/Radical Interpetation/Avramides: Thesis: that we can solve the problem of Radical interpretation by understanding the foreign language through firstly learning the beliefs and intentions ((s) without language, because the psychological concepts are more fundamental).
>
Avramides on Grice, >
Thinking without language.
I 96
DavidsonVsReductionism: of the semantic on the mental. - Without knowledge of the language beliefs cannot be verified.
The method of radical interpetation (RI) fails: you cannot first establish foreign beliefs and intentions.
>
Radical interpretation.
I 112
Reductionism/Avramides: must accept thinking without language.
Antireductionism: must deny just that.
I 127f
Mind/AvramidesVsReductionism: Thesis: the image of the reductionism of the objective mind is wrong. - It goes back to its distinction between superficial and deep epistemic asymmetry.
I 130
Avramides Thesis: deep epistemic symmetry does not include ontological symmetry (despite Davidson). Mind/Avramides:The right (subjective) image of the mind requires the semantic and the psychological to be understood on the same level.
>
Meaning theory.
I 128
Summary/Antireductionism/Avramides: is the right about how we can understand propositional attitudes - Reductionism: is right about what propositional attitudes are.
I 166
AvramidesVsReductionism: overlooks the fact that we have to characterize behavior semantically at some point.
Normal evidence is the only means to maintain the thesis that semantic and psychological concepts are on the same level.
I 168
The dispute over reductionism is about epistemic, not ontological questions.
>
Epistemic/ontologic.
I 166
Grice: Thesis: the psychological is an essential part of the semantic.
Reductionism/Avramides: the reductionism denies that!
Thinking without language: if we attribute it, the semantic and the psychological may not be very interdependent.
Solution/AvramidesVsReductionism: behavior is observable even with speechless creatures. - This forms part of our concept of the psychological.
>
Animals, cf. >
Animal language.
I 167
Manifestation/Avramides: it would be wrong to say that it must be more complex if the attributed thoughts are more complex.
More complex is rather a linguistic behavior.
>
Compositionality, >
Complexity.
The reductive Gricean accepts deep epistemic asymmetry - the antireductionist denies it.
>
Terminology/Avramides.
VsReductionism: with that he has nothing more to do with interpretation and understanding.
- - -
Graeser I 128
AvramidesVsReductionism/Graeser: reductionism disregards the intimate connection between the psychological and the semantic and ultimately does nothing to contribute to the clarification of the mind and the thoughts.
