dor_id: 4115835

506.#.#.a: Público

590.#.#.d: Cada artículo es evaluado mediante una revisión ciega única. Los revisores son externos nacionales e internacionales.

510.0.#.a: Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Revistes Cientifiques de Ciencies Socials Humanitais (CARHUS Plus), Latinoamericanas en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades (CLASE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH PLUS), Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal (Latindex), SCOPUS, Journal Storage (JSTOR), The Philosopher’s Index, Ulrich’s Periodical Directory

561.#.#.u: http://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/

650.#.4.x: Artes y Humanidades

336.#.#.b: article

336.#.#.3: Artículo de Investigación

336.#.#.a: Artículo

351.#.#.6: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

351.#.#.b: Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía

351.#.#.a: Artículos

harvesting_group: RevistasUNAM

270.1.#.p: Revistas UNAM. Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM en revistas@unam.mx

590.#.#.c: Open Journal Systems (OJS)

270.#.#.d: MX

270.1.#.d: México

590.#.#.b: Concentrador

883.#.#.u: http://www.revistas.unam.mx/front/

883.#.#.a: Revistas UNAM

590.#.#.a: Coordinación de Difusión Cultural, UNAM

883.#.#.1: https://www.publicaciones.unam.mx/

883.#.#.q: Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM

850.#.#.a: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

856.4.0.u: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/view/552/532

100.1.#.a: Gómez, César

524.#.#.a: Gómez, César (1984). Inescrutabilidad de la referencia, lenguajes privados y estructura de la mente. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 16 No 48, 1984; 19-34. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115835

245.1.0.a: Inescrutabilidad de la referencia, lenguajes privados y estructura de la mente

502.#.#.c: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

561.1.#.a: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM

264.#.0.c: 1984

264.#.1.c: 2018-12-07

506.1.#.a: La titularidad de los derechos patrimoniales de esta obra pertenece a las instituciones editoras. Su uso se rige por una licencia Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Internacional, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es, fecha de asignación de la licencia 2018-12-07, para un uso diferente consultar al responsable jurídico del repositorio por medio del correo electrónico alberto@filosoficas.unam.mx

884.#.#.k: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/view/552

001.#.#.#: critica:oai:ojs2.132.248.184.97:article/552

041.#.7.h: spa

520.3.#.a: In this essay the author proposes an interpretation of Quine´s thesis of inescrutability of reference as an inescrutability of the mental. In order to support his interpretation, Prof. Gómez characterizes reference as an intentional notion. Gómez recalls the differences between ocassion sentences and sentences of the form ‘x is P’. In the last group of sentences, reference appears with the singular term. When we interpret occasion sentences, we need nothing more than to detect its stimulus meaning, but when we seek to interpret sentences of the form ‘x is P’ we shall introduce something more, namely, intentionality; that is, mental events. So Gómez says that inescrutability of reference is nothing more than the impossibility of characterize, from the interpreter´s point of view, mental events using non-mental descriptions. If this is the case, then a manual of translation is just a way of ascribing to speakers mental events as their reason for holding that a certain word refers to a certain object. On this view, two different manuals of translation based upon the same empirical evidence are two different ascriptions of mental events (based on the same empirical ground). If we consider two manuals of translation of spanish based on the same empirical evidence, one of them interpreting the word ‘perro’ as (1) dog and the other as (2) dog-shadow, then we shall not be able to decide which is the correct one. We shall not be able to know whether a speaker speaks spanish or proxy-spanish. Gómez says that the difference between explaining linguistic behaviour or spanish speakers as (1) or as (2) is to make use of different psychophysical laws. But if we consider Davidson identification of mental events with physical events, then the manuals of translation to which (1) and (2) belong must correspond to different physical situations. So it seems that the difference between spanish and proxy-spanish is an ontological one. But Gómez argues that there is not a physical difference between speakers of spanish and of proxy-spanish, since the sole possibility of saying that someone is a proxy-spanish speaker requires to dind the reasons of the intentional behaviour of the speakers of a language L, independently of our knowledge of L. Gómez says that the idea that we could detect the mental events that are the primary reasons of the linguistic behaviour of the speakers of L without understanding L is just an illusion based on the dogma of a mental museum autonomous of language. We cannot ascribe detailed beliefs to the speakers of L without knowing the meanings of the words of L. Gómez concludes that if reference is an intentional notion and we accept the binomial intentionality-theoricity with regard to language, then the under-determination of empirical theories seems to imply the inescrutability of the mental. But a consequence of considering a theory of meaning as composed of mental verbs is that we shall consider it as a psychophysic theory. [G.M. Hurtado] In this essay the author proposes an interpretation of Quine´s thesis of inescrutability of reference as an inescrutability of the mental. In order to support his interpretation, Prof. Gómez characterizes reference as an intentional notion. Gómez recalls the differences between ocassion sentences and sentences of the form ‘x is P’. In the last group of sentences, reference appears with the singular term. When we interpret occasion sentences, we need nothing more than to detect its stimulus meaning, but when we seek to interpret sentences of the form ‘x is P’ we shall introduce something more, namely, intentionality; that is, mental events. So Gómez says that inescrutability of reference is nothing more than the impossibility of characterize, from the interpreter´s point of view, mental events using non-mental descriptions. If this is the case, then a manual of translation is just a way of ascribing to speakers mental events as their reason for holding that a certain word refers to a certain object. On this view, two different manuals of translation based upon the same empirical evidence are two different ascriptions of mental events (based on the same empirical ground). If we consider two manuals of translation of spanish based on the same empirical evidence, one of them interpreting the word ‘perro’ as (1) dog and the other as (2) dog-shadow, then we shall not be able to decide which is the correct one. We shall not be able to know whether a speaker speaks spanish or proxy-spanish. Gómez says that the difference between explaining linguistic behaviour or spanish speakers as (1) or as (2) is to make use of different psychophysical laws. But if we consider Davidson identification of mental events with physical events, then the manuals of translation to which (1) and (2) belong must correspond to different physical situations. So it seems that the difference between spanish and proxy-spanish is an ontological one. But Gómez argues that there is not a physical difference between speakers of spanish and of proxy-spanish, since the sole possibility of saying that someone is a proxy-spanish speaker requires to dind the reasons of the intentional behaviour of the speakers of a language L, independently of our knowledge of L. Gómez says that the idea that we could detect the mental events that are the primary reasons of the linguistic behaviour of the speakers of L without understanding L is just an illusion based on the dogma of a mental museum autonomous of language. We cannot ascribe detailed beliefs to the speakers of L without knowing the meanings of the words of L. Gómez concludes that if reference is an intentional notion and we accept the binomial intentionality-theoricity with regard to language, then the under-determination of empirical theories seems to imply the inescrutability of the mental. But a consequence of considering a theory of meaning as composed of mental verbs is that we shall consider it as a psychophysic theory. [G.M. Hurtado]

773.1.#.t: Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 16 No 48 (1984); 19-34

773.1.#.o: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

046.#.#.j: 2021-09-28 00:00:00.000000

022.#.#.a: ISSN electrónico: 1870-4905; ISSN impreso: 0011-1503

310.#.#.a: Cuatrimestral

300.#.#.a: Páginas: 19-34

264.#.1.b: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM

758.#.#.1: http://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica

doi: https://doi.org/10.22201/iifs.18704905e.1984.552

handle: 5db8346eb6ce64fd

856.#.0.q: application/pdf

file_creation_date: 2010-10-11 21:49:39.0

file_modification_date: 2010-10-28 22:13:08.0

file_creator: Claudia Chavez

file_name: 55bbc1e41ab12c597c327a93830fe0ea5f55c0ca4aba5ee5d9dca06225015bce.pdf

file_pages_number: 16

file_format_version: application/pdf; version=1.5

file_size: 211671

245.1.0.b: Inescrutabilidad de la referencia, lenguajes privados y estructura de la mente

last_modified: 2021-11-09 23:50:00

license_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es

license_type: by-nc-nd

No entro en nada

No entro en nada 2

Artículo

Inescrutabilidad de la referencia, lenguajes privados y estructura de la mente

Gómez, César

Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM, publicado en Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, y cosechado de Revistas UNAM

Licencia de uso

Procedencia del contenido

Cita

Gómez, César (1984). Inescrutabilidad de la referencia, lenguajes privados y estructura de la mente. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol 16 No 48, 1984; 19-34. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115835

Descripción del recurso

Autor(es)
Gómez, César
Tipo
Artículo de Investigación
Área del conocimiento
Artes y Humanidades
Título
Inescrutabilidad de la referencia, lenguajes privados y estructura de la mente
Fecha
2018-12-07
Resumen
In this essay the author proposes an interpretation of Quine´s thesis of inescrutability of reference as an inescrutability of the mental. In order to support his interpretation, Prof. Gómez characterizes reference as an intentional notion. Gómez recalls the differences between ocassion sentences and sentences of the form ‘x is P’. In the last group of sentences, reference appears with the singular term. When we interpret occasion sentences, we need nothing more than to detect its stimulus meaning, but when we seek to interpret sentences of the form ‘x is P’ we shall introduce something more, namely, intentionality; that is, mental events. So Gómez says that inescrutability of reference is nothing more than the impossibility of characterize, from the interpreter´s point of view, mental events using non-mental descriptions. If this is the case, then a manual of translation is just a way of ascribing to speakers mental events as their reason for holding that a certain word refers to a certain object. On this view, two different manuals of translation based upon the same empirical evidence are two different ascriptions of mental events (based on the same empirical ground). If we consider two manuals of translation of spanish based on the same empirical evidence, one of them interpreting the word ‘perro’ as (1) dog and the other as (2) dog-shadow, then we shall not be able to decide which is the correct one. We shall not be able to know whether a speaker speaks spanish or proxy-spanish. Gómez says that the difference between explaining linguistic behaviour or spanish speakers as (1) or as (2) is to make use of different psychophysical laws. But if we consider Davidson identification of mental events with physical events, then the manuals of translation to which (1) and (2) belong must correspond to different physical situations. So it seems that the difference between spanish and proxy-spanish is an ontological one. But Gómez argues that there is not a physical difference between speakers of spanish and of proxy-spanish, since the sole possibility of saying that someone is a proxy-spanish speaker requires to dind the reasons of the intentional behaviour of the speakers of a language L, independently of our knowledge of L. Gómez says that the idea that we could detect the mental events that are the primary reasons of the linguistic behaviour of the speakers of L without understanding L is just an illusion based on the dogma of a mental museum autonomous of language. We cannot ascribe detailed beliefs to the speakers of L without knowing the meanings of the words of L. Gómez concludes that if reference is an intentional notion and we accept the binomial intentionality-theoricity with regard to language, then the under-determination of empirical theories seems to imply the inescrutability of the mental. But a consequence of considering a theory of meaning as composed of mental verbs is that we shall consider it as a psychophysic theory. [G.M. Hurtado] In this essay the author proposes an interpretation of Quine´s thesis of inescrutability of reference as an inescrutability of the mental. In order to support his interpretation, Prof. Gómez characterizes reference as an intentional notion. Gómez recalls the differences between ocassion sentences and sentences of the form ‘x is P’. In the last group of sentences, reference appears with the singular term. When we interpret occasion sentences, we need nothing more than to detect its stimulus meaning, but when we seek to interpret sentences of the form ‘x is P’ we shall introduce something more, namely, intentionality; that is, mental events. So Gómez says that inescrutability of reference is nothing more than the impossibility of characterize, from the interpreter´s point of view, mental events using non-mental descriptions. If this is the case, then a manual of translation is just a way of ascribing to speakers mental events as their reason for holding that a certain word refers to a certain object. On this view, two different manuals of translation based upon the same empirical evidence are two different ascriptions of mental events (based on the same empirical ground). If we consider two manuals of translation of spanish based on the same empirical evidence, one of them interpreting the word ‘perro’ as (1) dog and the other as (2) dog-shadow, then we shall not be able to decide which is the correct one. We shall not be able to know whether a speaker speaks spanish or proxy-spanish. Gómez says that the difference between explaining linguistic behaviour or spanish speakers as (1) or as (2) is to make use of different psychophysical laws. But if we consider Davidson identification of mental events with physical events, then the manuals of translation to which (1) and (2) belong must correspond to different physical situations. So it seems that the difference between spanish and proxy-spanish is an ontological one. But Gómez argues that there is not a physical difference between speakers of spanish and of proxy-spanish, since the sole possibility of saying that someone is a proxy-spanish speaker requires to dind the reasons of the intentional behaviour of the speakers of a language L, independently of our knowledge of L. Gómez says that the idea that we could detect the mental events that are the primary reasons of the linguistic behaviour of the speakers of L without understanding L is just an illusion based on the dogma of a mental museum autonomous of language. We cannot ascribe detailed beliefs to the speakers of L without knowing the meanings of the words of L. Gómez concludes that if reference is an intentional notion and we accept the binomial intentionality-theoricity with regard to language, then the under-determination of empirical theories seems to imply the inescrutability of the mental. But a consequence of considering a theory of meaning as composed of mental verbs is that we shall consider it as a psychophysic theory. [G.M. Hurtado]
Idioma
spa
ISSN
ISSN electrónico: 1870-4905; ISSN impreso: 0011-1503

Enlaces