Single Idea 2477

[catalogued under 19. Language / A. Nature of Meaning / 7. Meaning Holism / b. Language holism]

Full Idea

If learning that fish typically live in streams is part of learning "fish", typical utterances of "pet fish" (living in bowls) are counterexamples. This argument iterates (e.g "big pet fish"). So learning where they live can't be part of learning "fish".

Gist of Idea

If to understand "fish" you must know facts about them, where does that end?

Source

Jerry A. Fodor (In a Critical Condition [2000], Ch. 5)

Book Reference

Fodor,Jerry A.: 'In Critical Condition' [MIT 2000], p.57


A Reaction

Using 'typical' twice is rather misleading here. Town folk can learn 'fish' as typically living in bowls. There is no one way to learn a word meaning.