[1]
See for example, Aristotle’s De anima.
[2]
See however, Apperly & Butterfill (2009) and Butterfill & Apperly (2013).
[3]
The notion of triangulation that appears in Davidson’s later works, replacing the notion of the so-called omniscient interpreter, captures the idea that we can only attribute mental (propositional) attitudes to others by interpreting their utterances. In both instances, we identify contents: the content of the utterance as well as the content of the underlying mental attitude. This is, according to Davidson, a necessary unit: without an utterance, we cannot ascribe determinate propositional attitudes, which is why Davidson is committed to the view that non-linguistic creatures cannot be interpreted, at least not in a way that allows for the ascription of thoughts. This does not imply that Davidson has to negate mental states in animals, but it does mean that we cannot understand these mental states. The issue of interpretability will be raised below (see issue #3).
[4]
The reason why Davidson is committed to this view can be derived from the triangulation argument: since animals do not possess language, we cannot attribute determinate propositional attitudes to them. We have thus no way of knowing how they represent the world, since this is not graspable to us through our usual means of interpretation. The question, however, is whether this epistemic opacity with regard to animal cognition necessarily entails the ontological statement that their representation schema are in fact different from ours, if representation schema are seen to comprise sensory and affective states as well, and perhaps even doxastic states preceding properly expressed, i.e., propositionally coined, beliefs.
[5]
In fact, my point is here not to claim that this is Davidson’s motivation proper, but that we, as philosophers, can easily fall for the language-bias, language being not only the instrument but also most often the object of our trade.
[6]
One might object that Davidson’s focus on language is a result of his roots in British analytic philosophy. While that is certainly true, it remains to be seen where the preoccupation with language as a “window“ into the workings of the mind is derived from within this tradition; I have a hunch that the inner-speech bias I sketch plays a role here as well.
[7]
It is debated whether there is a special (that is, a unique, proprietary and distinctive) phenomenology of thinking (cf. Bayne & Montague 2011). I suspect, however, that this debate suffers from a lack of distinction between the contents (or intentional aspects) of thought and the phenomenal aspects of consciousness. The point I wish to make is that the characterization of thought we gain through introspective observation of ourselves while thinking does not grant insight into the processes that precede and produce thoughts – and this point is neutral with respect to the question whether there actually is such a thing as a distinct phenomenology of cognition.
[8]
See, for example: Vygotsky (1934/1978); Watson (1920); Carruthers (2002). Inner speech in Vygotsky’s view means the overlap (so to speak) of our faculty of thought and our faculty of speech (cf. Jones & Fernyhough 2006).