Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Author Item Excerpt Meta data
Avramides, Anita
Books on Amazon
Reductionism 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) - both: Vs superficial eA: (Def Superficial Epistemic Asymmetry/Radical Interpetation/RI/Avramides: Thesis: that we can solve the problem of RI by understanding the foreign language through firstly learning the beliefs and intentions ((s) without language, because the psychological concepts are more fundamental).
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.
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 Thesis: deep epistemic symmetry does not include ontological symmetry (despite Davidson) - the right (subjective) image of the mind requires the semantic and the psychological to be understood on the same level. -
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 are 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.
I 166
Grice: Thesis: the psychological is an essential part of the semantic. - Reductionism/Avramides: denies that! - Thinking without language: if we attribute it, the semantic and the psychological may not be very interdependent. - Solution/AvramidesVsReductionism: behavior even with speechless creatures - this forms part of our concept of the psychological.
I 167
Manifestation/Avramides: it would be wrong to say that it must be more complex if the attributed thoughts are! - More complex is rather a linguistic behavior (>compositionality) - the reductive Gricean accepts deep epistemic asymmetry, the antireductionist: denies it. - VsReductionism: with that he has nothing more to do with interpretation and understanding.
Grasses I 128
AvramidesVsReductionism/Graeser: 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. - ((s) Reductionism/(s): must even deny a connection, because it is suspended after the reduction.)

Avr I
A. Avramides
Meaning and Mind Boston 1989

> Counter arguments against Avramides
> Counter arguments in relation to Reductionism

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX file
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-04-25