Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:31:55.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Confusion is corruptive belief in false identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Elmar Unnsteinsson
Elmar Unnsteinsson*
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
*
Email: elmar.geir@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Speakers are confused about identity if they mistake one thing for two or two things for one. I present two plausible models of confusion, the Frege model and the Millikan model. I show how a prominent objection to Fregean models fails and argue that confusion consists in having false implicit beliefs involving the identity relation. Further, I argue that confused identity has characteristic corruptive effects on singular cognition and on the proper function of singular terms in linguistic communication.

Keywords

ReferenceconfusionidentityMillikanGriceFrege puzzleimplicit belief
Type
Critical Notice
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 2016 , pp. 204 - 227
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bach, K. 1987. Thought and Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 2010. Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, J. L. 2002. Confusion: A Study in the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. 2002. Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. 1978. Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. 1982. "Beyond Belief". In Thought and Object, edited by A. Woodfield, 1-95. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted in Dennett 1987, 117–202.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. 1987. The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. 1991. “Real Patterns.” The Journal of Philosophy 88(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Donnellan, K. 1968."Putting Humpty Dumpty Together Again." The Philosophical Review 77 (2): 203–215. Reprinted in Donnellan 2012, 31–48.Google Scholar
Donnellan, K. 2012. Essays on Reference, Language, and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Field, H. 1973. “Theory Change and the Indeterminacy of Reference.” The Journal of Philosophy 70(14): 462–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. 1978."Propositional Attitudes." The Monist 61 (4):501–523. Reprinted in Fodor 1981, 177–203.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1981. Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science. Sussex: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1985.“Fodor’s Guide to Mental Representation: The Intelligent Auntie’s Vade-mecum”. Mind 94 (373):76–100. Reprinted in Fodor 1990, 3–30.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. 1987. Psychosemantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. 1990. A Theory of Content and Other Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 1994. “A Continuum of Semantic Optimism.” In Mental Representation, edited by Stich, S. and Warfield, T., 259–277. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hampshire, S. 1975. Freedom of the Individual. 2nd ed. London: Chatto & Windus.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. 1968. “Quantifying in.” Synthese 19(1–2): 178–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. 2013. “De re belief.” In The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series. Volume 9. Presidential Addresses of The APA 1981--1990, edited by Hull, R. T., 25–37. The American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 1979."A Puzzle about Belief." In Meaning and Use, edited by A. Margalit, 139–183. Dordrecth: Reidel Reprinted in Kripke 2011, 125–161.Google Scholar
Kripke, S. 2011. Philosophical Troubles: Collected Papers. vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lawlor, K. 2001. New Thoughts about Old Things: Cognitive Policies as the Ground of Singular Concepts. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Lawlor, K. 2005. “Confused Thought and Modes of Presentation.” The Philosophical Quarterly 55(218): 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, K. 2007. “A Notional Worlds Approach to Confusion.” Mind & Language 22(2): 150–172.Google Scholar
Marcus, R. B. 1981. “A Proposed Solution to a Puzzle about Belief.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6: 501–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, R. B. 1983. “Rationality and Believing the Impossible." The Journal of Philosophy 80 (6):321–338. Reprinted in Marcus 1993, 143–161.Google Scholar
Marcus, R. B. 1990."Some Revisionary Proposals about Belief and Believing." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (Supplement):133–153. Reprinted in Marcus 1993, 233–255.Google Scholar
Marcus, R. B. 1993. Modalities: Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1989a. “Biosemantics.” The Journal of Philosophy 86(6): 281-297. Reprinted in Millikan 1993, 83--102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1989b. “In Defense of Proper Functions.” Philosophy of Science 56(2): 288-302. Reprinted in Millikan 1993, 13--30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1993. White Queen Psychology and Other Essays for Alice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1994. “On Unclear and Indistinct Ideas.” Philosophical Perspectives 8: 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 1997. “Images of Identity. In Search of Modes of Presentation.” Mind 106(423): 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R. G. 2000. On Clear and Confused Ideas: An Essay about Substance Concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Origgi, G., and Sperber, D.. 2000. “Evolution, Communication and the Proper Function of Language.” In Evolution and the Human Mind, edited by Carruthers, P. and Chamberlain, A., 140–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D., and Shea, N.. 2002. “Ruth Millikan’s On Clear and Confused Ideas.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65(2): 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. 2012. In Reference and Reflexivity. 2nd ed. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 2012. Mental Files. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, M. 2013. “Marcus on Belief and Belief in the Impossible.” Theoria 28(3): 407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, N. 1986. Frege’s Puzzle. Atacadero, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. 1981. “Indexicals and the Theory of Reference.” Synthese 49(1): 43–100.Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, E. 2013. “A Dispositional Approach to the Attitudes: Thinking Outside of the Belief Box.” In New Essays on Belief: Constitution, Content and Structure, edited by Nottelmann, N., 75–99. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unnsteinsson, E. 2014. “Compositionality and Sandbag Semantics.” Synthese 191(14): 3329–3350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unnsteinsson, E. 2016. “Wittgenstein as a Gricean Intentionalist.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 24(1): 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unnsteinsson, E. Forthcoming. “A Gricean Theory of Malaprops.”.Google Scholar
Wilson, D., and Sperber, D.. 2012. Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar