Nelida Gentile

In several works that start from the seminal text Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, Ruth Millikan has presented her well know teleosemantic approach to philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. Millikan presents her theory of linguistic signs as a theory which, unlike other semantic theories, is able to more adequately solve problems such as that which is called “Freges’s puzzle”. Millikan considers that the Fregean modes of presentation are inconsistent with a representational theory of mind. In this paper, the relevance of Millikan’s objections to Frege is evaluated and the scope of these objections is discussed in the context of her own conception. We conclude that Millikan’s analysis of Fregean semantics relies on false assumptions and, in consequence, her doctrine is weakened.

In the early 80's the problem of incommensurability was reavived around of semantic holism versus causal realism discussion. In "Observation Reconsidered", Jerry Fodor argues -against Hanson, Kuhn and Feyerabend- the neutral character of perception judgments. Four years after Churchland writes "Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: a Reply to Jerry Fodor". The objections are examined and answered again by Fodor in "A Reply To Churchland's 'Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality"'. In this paper I analyze the more relevan! aspects of this dispute and attempt to show the scarcity ofthe evidence available to solve the question. In a final section, however, I examine the conception holded by Michael Bishop that, in rny opinion, represents an interesting perspective in support for the Fodor's conclusions.