Combining Philosophers

Ideas for Herodotus, Tim Crane and Bernecker / Dretske

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these philosophers

display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers


4 ideas

18. Thought / C. Content / 5. Twin Earth
The Twin Earth argument depends on reference being determined by content, which may be false. [Crane]
     Full Idea: The Twin Earth argument does not refute internalism, since it depends on the 'Content-Determines-Reference' principle, which internalists can reject.
     From: Tim Crane (Elements of Mind [2001], 4.37)
     A reaction: The idea is that content should be understood in a context (e.g. on a particular planet). Indexicals count against a totally narrow view of content (Twins thinking 'I am here').
18. Thought / C. Content / 6. Broad Content
Semantic externalism ties content to the world, reducing error [Bernecker/Dretske]
     Full Idea: Semantic externalism ties our mental content down to our actual environment so there is no possibility of massive error.
     From: Bernecker / Dretske (Knowledge:Readings in Cont.Epist [2000], Pt.V Int)
     A reaction: This sounds more prescriptive than descriptive. People do make massive errors in their concepts. Maybe educated people are more externalist (respectful of experts) than uneducated people?
Broad content entails the existence of the object of the thought [Crane]
     Full Idea: If a mental state is broad, then the existence of the mental state entails the existence of its object.
     From: Tim Crane (Elements of Mind [2001], 1.7)
     A reaction: Hence thinking of non-existent things like unicorns is problematic for externalists. However, externalists can think about numbers or Platonic ideals.
18. Thought / C. Content / 8. Intension
In intensional contexts, truth depends on how extensions are conceived. [Crane]
     Full Idea: Intensional contexts are those where truth or falsehood depends on the way the extensions are conceived.
     From: Tim Crane (Elements of Mind [2001], 1.4)
     A reaction: An important distinction for anyone defending an internalist view of concepts or of knowledge