Abstract
Mental fictionalism maintains that: (1) folk psychology is a false theory, but (2) we should nonetheless keep using it, because it is useful, convenient, or otherwise beneficial to do so. We should (or do) treat folk psychology as a useful fiction-false, but valuable. Yet some argue that mental fictionalism is incoherent: if a mental fictionalist rejects folk psychology then she cannot appeal to fictions in an effort to keep folk psychological discourse around, because fictions presuppose the legitimacy of folk psychology. Call this the Argument from Cognitive Collapse. In this paper, I defend several different mental fictionalist views against cognitive collapse.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 405-424 |
Number of pages | 20 |
Journal | Res Philosophica |
Volume | 93 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Apr 2016 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© 2016 Meg Wallace.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy