Millikan vs. Millikan: biosemantics and the role of the consumer

Abstract Millikan’s biosemantics is commonly characterized as a “consumer theory” of representational content. Proponents of this characterization interpret Millikan as privileging representation consumers over representation producers in her account of content determination. However, Millikan herself rejects this interpretation and claims to give producers and consumers equal weight in her theory. In this paper, I propose to resolve this issue by arguing that there are actually two Millikanian theories of content, a consumer theory that is explicitly formulated in her earlier work and a significantly different, “hybrid” theory that is implicitly presupposed in much of her later work. This result is not only of exegetical value, but also of great systematic interest, since both theories turn out to be interesting proposals in their own right that face significantly different tasks and challenges.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Synthese
Published
2025-08-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-025-05241-x
Primary Topic
Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Millikan vs. Millikan: biosemantics and the role of the consumer

Peter Schulte
Synthese
Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
article

Millikan vs. Millikan: biosemantics and the role of the consumer

Peter Schulte
article en

Abstract

Abstract Millikan’s biosemantics is commonly characterized as a “consumer theory” of representational content. Proponents of this characterization interpret Millikan as privileging representation consumers over representation producers in her account of content determination. However, Millikan herself rejects this interpretation and claims to give producers and consumers equal weight in her theory. In this paper, I propose to resolve this issue by arguing that there are actually two Millikanian theories of content, a consumer theory that is explicitly formulated in her earlier work and a significantly different, “hybrid” theory that is implicitly presupposed in much of her later work. This result is not only of exegetical value, but also of great systematic interest, since both theories turn out to be interesting proposals in their own right that face significantly different tasks and challenges.

SyntheseVol. 206(3)
Umeå University (SE)
University of Connecticut
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.