Dear Folks,

Left things too late. The official due date is now Friday, 10 December by 4PM.
Unofficially, you can push that to the l3th December but please don't (and

you will suffer half a grade level). Revised questions follow.
Phil 3220 Philosophy of Language. 3rd paper.
Paper goes in my Phil. Dept. mail box or slipped under my office door. Also the
last possible date is Monday, 13 December; starting the next day I am fined for

each failure to turn in a grade for each student for each hour. I strongly plead

for you to get it in by 4PM, Friday, or earlier.

Answer one or possibly two of the following questions. I suggest you write at

least 1,500 words.

1) Sketch the basic program of the logical positivists (analytic/synthetic distinction
with philosophy as analysis and dismissal of metaphysics; verifiability criterion of
meaning; a unified science the source of truth expressed in a unified, logically-
braced language (perhaps, as Fodor suggests, an animal can have beliefs (an object
“language” that is (1) Obedience to Leibniz’s law and (2) requires first order logic  and
its ban on self reference  and its collapse/transformation in face of “Two Dogmas,”

the externalist criteria of meaning, and the putative restoration of natural
necessities. Comment, if you like, on:  Whither philosophy now?
2) Sketch how language, above all its intentional idiom and propositional attitude
endorsement of “folk psychology,” affords us humans a “language of thought” that

much displays intentionality and teleology).  Non-human animals do not seem to

have such a language. In what respects does it seem appropriate, or in what respects
inappropriate, to apply folk psychology and its language to them (whether for “getting
along” with animals or “scientifically understanding” them?)
3) For thinking and believing, etc., we would seem to require “meanings” (i.e., what
sentences convey about the world, what makes them true if true) AND computational
relationships (relations of implication between sentences). The first requirement
lends itself to “externalist” accounts, the second leads to “internalist” ones. In what
ways is this conflict like or unlike the old one between correspondence and coherence
theories of truth?
4) Describe and assess Chomsky’s attack on Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (and tacitly on
Quine).
5) Describe and assess Kripke’s defense of natural necessities. Both Kripke and Chomsky
are in some sense rationalists (natural necessities), while they also seem miles apart.
6) Chomsky maintains that language (meaning a grasp of a discrete infinity of structures,
etc.) is a species-specific characteristic of humans. To some degree it would seem that

animals think and communicate. What sort of line can (or can’t) be drawn here? What do
you think about the “stuck pig problem”? I.e., animals sometimes seem to suffer MORE
that humans; on utilitarian grounds (act so as to achieve the maximum balance of pleasure
over pain (suffering)), should not this mean that we should sometimes be more inclined to
avoid animal suffering than human suffering).
7) Summarize Everett’s claim that his Indians lack “universal grammar” and that their
language, in  its poverty also limits what they can think. What do the LangBuzz
Authors say against Everett’s claim. Assess.

Have a spectacular Christmas and New Year. justin