back to ideas for this text


Single Idea 2483

[from 'In a Critical Condition' by Jerry A. Fodor, in 18. Thought / B. Mechanics of Thought / 4. Language of Thought ]

Full Idea

Mentalese doesn't need Grice's theory of natural-language meaning, or indeed any theory of natural-language meaning whatsoever.

Gist of Idea

Mentalese doesn't require a theory of meaning

Source

Jerry A. Fodor (In a Critical Condition [2000], Ch. 6)

Book Reference

Fodor,Jerry A.: 'In Critical Condition' [MIT 2000], p.68


A Reaction

Presumably what is represented by mentalese is a quite separate question from whether there exists a mentalese that does some sort of representing. Sounds plausible.

Related Idea

Idea 2524 A language of thought doesn't explain content [Dennett]