Abstract
1. Let me begin by reconstructing Fodor's argument, as I understand it. Premise P1 in the following argument is my reconstruction of Fodor's premise P. For me, the core argument is clearer if we dispense with talk of inheritance, and with talk of states, capacities, and dispositions as satisfiers for a concept. The core idea involved in Premise P seems to be this: In order for a person to satisfy the possession conditions for a complex concept C, it is necessary and sufficient that the person satisfy the possession conditions for C's constituent concepts and also satisfy the possession conditions for C's mode of composition. (The rationale for this is that otherwise, the usual account of productivity fails.) I find it clearer to reformulate the Premise P as an expression of this idea -and to reconstruct the overall argument accordingly. So here's my reconstruction:
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
