Article

Confronting Language, Representation, and Belief: A Limited Defense of Mental Continuity

Kristin Andrews and Ljiljana Radenovic

in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Evolutionary Psychology

Published in print February 2012 | ISBN: 9780199738182
Published online September 2012 | | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199738182.013.0003

Series: Oxford Library of Psychology

 Confronting Language, Representation, and Belief: A Limited Defense of Mental Continuity

More Like This

Show all results sharing these subjects:

  • Psychology
  • Social Psychology

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

According to the mental continuity claim (MCC), human mental faculties are physical and beneficial to human survival, so they must have evolved gradually from ancestral forms and we should expect to see their precursors across species. Materialism of mind coupled with Darwin's evolutionary theory leads directly to such claims and even today arguments for animal mental properties are often presented with the MCC as a premise. However, the MCC has been often challenged among contemporary scholars. It is usually argued that only humans use language and that language as such has no precursors in the animal kingdom. Moreover, language is quite often understood as a necessary tool for having representations and forming beliefs. As a consequence, by lacking language animals could not have developed representational systems or beliefs. In response to these worries, we aim to mount a limited defense of the MCC as an empirical hypothesis. First, we will provide a short historical overview of the origins of the MCC and examine some of the motives behind traditional arguments for and against it. Second, we will focus on one particular question, namely, whether language as such is necessary for having beliefs. Our goal is to show that there is little reason to think language is necessary for belief. In doing so, we will challenge a view of belief that is widely accepted by those working in animal cognition, namely, representational belief, and we will argue that if belief is nonrepresentational, then different research questions and methods are required. We will conclude with an argument that to study the evolution of belief across species, it is essential to begin the study of subjects in their social and ecological environment rather than in contexts that are not ecologically valid along the social and ecological dimensions. Thus, rather than serving as a premise in an argument in favor of animal minds, the MCC can only be defended by empirical investigation, but importantly, empirical investigation of the right sort.

Keywords: metal continuity claim; evolutionary theory; modern synthesis; language; belief; representation; nonrepresentational belief

Article.  15280 words. 

Subjects: Psychology ; Social Psychology

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.