This is mind bytes, a series for philosophy bites.
With me, David Edmonds, and me, Nigel Warburton.
There are lots of types of dog, Rottweilers, poodles, Labradors, german shepherds, Jack Russell Terriers and so on.
You know what I mean when I use these terms.
But in understanding them, are you having to conjure up mental images of these various breeds?
The idea that we can understand concepts because we have some sort of image of them is philosophically unfashionable.
But Jesse Prince thinks it's the correct account.
Jesse Prince, welcome to Mindbites.
Very good to be here.
The topic we're going to focus on is thinking with pictures.
Now, it seems to me that when I think about a dog, I get a mental image of a dog.
Why would anybody think that isn't the case with you?
I agree.
This should be the default view.
I think it's the common sense view, the one we get through introspection.
But throughout the history of philosophy, especially beginning with the rationalists of the modern period, the mental picture view came under strenuous attack.
And in the 20th century, it's really been a minority position.
The majority of philosophers have believed that we don't think in pictures.
We think in something more like words.
So let's go with the rationalists.