Jean-Michel Roy

My first goal is to question a received view about the development of Analytical Philosophy. According to this received view Analytical Philosophy is born out of a Linguistic Turn establishing the study of language as the foundation of the discipline; this primacy of language is then overthrown by the return of the study of mind as philosophia prima through a second Cognitive Turn taken in the mid-sixties. My contention is that this picture is a gross oversimplification and that the Cognitive Turn should better be seen as an extension of the Linguistic one. Indeed, if the Cognitive Turn gives explicit logical priority to the study of mind over the study of language, one of its central features is to see the mind as a representational system offering no substantial difference with a linguistic one. However, no justification is offered for the fundamental assimilation of the nature of a mental representation with that of a linguistic symbol supporting this picture of the mind, although the idea that a system of mental representations is identical in structure with a system of linguistic symbols has been argued over and over. I try to demonstrate this point through a close critical examination of Fodor's paradigmatic notion of 'double reduction.' My second claim is that the widespread contemporary assimilation of a mental representation with a symbol of a linguistic kind is no more than a prejudice. Finally I indicate that this prejudice cannot survive a rigorous critical examination.

L’article s’attache à poser et définir le problème de la pertinence de la théorie de l’accointance de Russell pour le débat contemporain sur la conscience phénoménale, ainsi qu’à en entreprendre l’examen. Il avance deux hypothèses principales. La première est que, d’un point de vue théorique, ce problème recouvre principalement la question de savoir s’il convient de défendre une conception intentionnaliste de la nature de la conscience phénoménale. La seconde est qu’une partie importante du débat contemporain, correspondant au camp de ceux qui se réclament d’une approche non représentationaliste de la conscience phénoménale et qui est illustré de façon centrale par le travail du philosophe Ned Block, répondent négativement à une telle question et reconnaissent donc du même coup, quoique de manière principalement implicite, que ce qui est en fait pertinent dans la théorie de l’accointance russellienne c’est que son auteur en soit venu à la rejeter en 1919.