Errepresentazioen egibaldintzak: zerbaitez jardun eta zerbaiti buruzkoa izan

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that some philosophers have misinterpreted John Perry’s “Thought without Representation” ([1986] 2000) in two ways. They have taken, on the one hand, his distinction between a representation being about something vs concerningsomething to be exclusive, and, on the other hand, that he used relativized propositions to capture the truth-conditions of representations with unarticulated constituents. I argue that Perry's distinction is not exclusive and that he argues that unarticulated constituents are part of a representation's truth-conditions, and that representations are about both articulated and unarticulated constituents. I also argue that accepting relativized propositions would directly contradict Perry’s thesis defending in “Thought without Representation”.