The aim of this thesis is to critique two approaches to explaining the relation between representational and phenomenal content. The first approach, representationism, holds that phenomenal content is entirely constituted by intentional or representational content. The second approach, phenomenism, holds that phenomenal content is not entirely constituted by intentional or representational content. There is something ’more’ to phenomenal content than just intentional content. Two types of consideration are considered in order to evaluate these two approaches as follows: The first, considers two ’metaphysical speculations’, inverted spectra and inverted earth: The second, considers causal and explanatory implications of adopting either of these two approaches. Inverted spectrums and inverted earth provide prima facie grounds for rejecting representationism(Block, 1990, 1996; Shoemaker; 199 1); however, it will be demonstrated that both ‘speculations’ do not demonstrate representationism to fail. This thesis will argue that existing responses to inverted earth, for example, Lalor (1999), Lycan (1996), and Tye (1994, 1995b, 1998b) are inadequate. However, it provides a new response to inverted earth on behalf of the wide representationist. Narrow content representationism, which holds that phenomenal contents are functions that map contexts onto contents, will be demonstrated to fail. Doubt is also cast upon teleological approaches to phenomenal content. Causal and explanatory constraints present a problem to both wide representationism and phenomenism. Wide representationalist theories have traditionally faced a challenge from attempting to explain how relational properties can be casually relevant (Fodor, 1987). These problems apply also to representationist theories of phenomenal content. Two current proponents of wide causation are considered, Wilson (1997) and Yablo (1997); their accounts are found to be problematic. Phenomenism either faces a troublesome ‘explanatory gap’ or a problematic commitment to type-type physicalist identity theories. Finally a proposed future direction for these two theories is suggested.

Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis is a proposed methodology for attributing correct application conditions, or 'meanings', to concepts. This methodology involves two stages: first, we seek an empirical understanding of the ways in which usage of a given concept has regularly delivered benefits, and, second, we seek an explication of that concept which is optimally capable of delivering benefits in these ways. Such an explication captures the 'pragmatic meaning' of a given concept. Chapters 1-3 articulate Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis and the notion of pragmatic meaning, and show how these are related to other philosophical methodologies and accounts of concept-meaning.Chapter 4 uses a 'bootstrapping argument' to establish that Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis has two important virtues. The first phase of this argument establishes that Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis has normative authority - it reveals explications that we have practical and epistemic reason to adopt, whether we take these explications to be semantically revisionary or not. This normative authority licenses using Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis, in the second phase, to explicate our shared concept of concept-meaning. This yields the conclusion that we have epistemic reason to adopt the notion of pragmatic meaning as our explication of 'concept-meaning'. Having explicated our concept in this way, we see that Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis also has descriptive authority - it is a semantically conservative tool that reveals concept-meaning, thus explicated.The initial presentation of the bootstrapping argument considers only one sort of work that our concept of concept-meaning does - helping to guide our application of other concepts. But this concept also regularly delivers benefits in a second way - by helping us to give good explanations for the behavior and behavioral success of various concept-users. Chapter 5 uses the normative authority of Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis to justify a particular account of how good explanations work. Chapter 6 draws upon this account to argue that, in order best to explain people's behavioral successes, we need an explication of concept-meaning that is closely related to the one presented in Chapter 4.Chapter 7 considers several objections and hard cases, and argues that Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis weathers these storms in good shape.

Esta dissertação é sobre filosofia do entendimento. Buscaremos responder questões como: O que é o conteúdo de um pensamento? Como entendemos um conteúdo de um pensamento? Como se dá uma deliberação? Qual o papel do conteúdo do pensamento em uma deliberação? Que tipo de acesso temos ao conteúdo do pensamento? Para tanto, nos deteremos em analisar a filosofia anti-individualista de Tyler Burge a partir das objeções levantadas por Åsa Wikforss (2006), que defende que o Princípio de Frege é incompatível com a teoria do entendimento incompleto e que a noção burgeana de conteúdo não é capaz de desempenhar à função de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa. Veremos como a leitura burgeana do Princípio de Frege é capaz de dissolver a incompatibilidade alegada. Defenderemos a tese de que o conteúdo do pensamento na concepção anti-individualista é capaz de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa mediante uma compreensão aprofundada do papel do conteúdo representacional na deliberação, considerando sua inserção no sistema filosófico de Burge que o relaciona com a teoria das garantias epistêmicas e da percepção. Ao atentarmos para a distinção entre significado lexical e significado de tradução, apresentaremos um argumento em defesa da tese de que a teoria do entendimento anti-individualista explica melhor a perspectiva cognitiva e é mais condizente com a prática comum do que as teorias do conteúdo que residem no plano de fundo da interpretação de Wikforss acerca do Princípio de Frege. Por fim, proporemos e defenderemos uma leitura alternativa do Princípio de Frege que julgamos exprimir melhor tanto a visão anti-individualista quanto a fregeana. / This thesis is concerned with the philosophy of understanding. We will try to answer questions such as: What is thought content? How do we understand a thought content? How do we deliberate? What is the role of a thought content in a deliberation? What kind of access do we have to a thought content? For this, we will focus on analyzing the anti-individualist philosophy of Tyler Burge with respect to the objections raised by Åsa Wikforss (2006), who argues that Frege's Principle is incompatible with the Theory of Incomplete Understanding and that the Burgean notion of content is not able to fulfill the function of capturing the cognitive perspective from a first person point of view. We shall see how the Burgean reading of Frege's Principle is capable of dissolving the alleged incompatibility. We will defend the thesis that thought content on the anti-individualist account is capable of capturing the cognitive perspective of the first person point of view through a deep comprehension of the role of the representational content in deliberation, considering that‟s insertion in the philosophical system of Burge‟s, who connects it with the theories of epistemic warrants and of perception. Moreover, when we look at the distinction between lexical meaning and translational meaning, we will present an argument in defense of the thesis that the anti-individualist theory of understanding better explains the cognitive perspective and is more genuine to the common practice than the content theories which are on the background of Wikforss‟ interpretation of the Frege‟s Principle. Finally, we will propose and defend an alternative reading of Frege's Principle that we think will better capture both the anti-individualistic and the Fregean views.

Esta dissertação é sobre filosofia do entendimento. Buscaremos responder questões como: O que é o conteúdo de um pensamento? Como entendemos um conteúdo de um pensamento? Como se dá uma deliberação? Qual o papel do conteúdo do pensamento em uma deliberação? Que tipo de acesso temos ao conteúdo do pensamento? Para tanto, nos deteremos em analisar a filosofia anti-individualista de Tyler Burge a partir das objeções levantadas por Åsa Wikforss (2006), que defende que o Princípio de Frege é incompatível com a teoria do entendimento incompleto e que a noção burgeana de conteúdo não é capaz de desempenhar à função de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa. Veremos como a leitura burgeana do Princípio de Frege é capaz de dissolver a incompatibilidade alegada. Defenderemos a tese de que o conteúdo do pensamento na concepção anti-individualista é capaz de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa mediante uma compreensão aprofundada do papel do conteúdo representacional na deliberação, considerando sua inserção no sistema filosófico de Burge que o relaciona com a teoria das garantias epistêmicas e da percepção. Ao atentarmos para a distinção entre significado lexical e significado de tradução, apresentaremos um argumento em defesa da tese de que a teoria do entendimento anti-individualista explica melhor a perspectiva cognitiva e é mais condizente com a prática comum do que as teorias do conteúdo que residem no plano de fundo da interpretação de Wikforss acerca do Princípio de Frege. Por fim, proporemos e defenderemos uma leitura alternativa do Princípio de Frege que julgamos exprimir melhor tanto a visão anti-individualista quanto a fregeana. / This thesis is concerned with the philosophy of understanding. We will try to answer questions such as: What is thought content? How do we understand a thought content? How do we deliberate? What is the role of a thought content in a deliberation? What kind of access do we have to a thought content? For this, we will focus on analyzing the anti-individualist philosophy of Tyler Burge with respect to the objections raised by Åsa Wikforss (2006), who argues that Frege's Principle is incompatible with the Theory of Incomplete Understanding and that the Burgean notion of content is not able to fulfill the function of capturing the cognitive perspective from a first person point of view. We shall see how the Burgean reading of Frege's Principle is capable of dissolving the alleged incompatibility. We will defend the thesis that thought content on the anti-individualist account is capable of capturing the cognitive perspective of the first person point of view through a deep comprehension of the role of the representational content in deliberation, considering that‟s insertion in the philosophical system of Burge‟s, who connects it with the theories of epistemic warrants and of perception. Moreover, when we look at the distinction between lexical meaning and translational meaning, we will present an argument in defense of the thesis that the anti-individualist theory of understanding better explains the cognitive perspective and is more genuine to the common practice than the content theories which are on the background of Wikforss‟ interpretation of the Frege‟s Principle. Finally, we will propose and defend an alternative reading of Frege's Principle that we think will better capture both the anti-individualistic and the Fregean views.

Esta dissertação é sobre filosofia do entendimento. Buscaremos responder questões como: O que é o conteúdo de um pensamento? Como entendemos um conteúdo de um pensamento? Como se dá uma deliberação? Qual o papel do conteúdo do pensamento em uma deliberação? Que tipo de acesso temos ao conteúdo do pensamento? Para tanto, nos deteremos em analisar a filosofia anti-individualista de Tyler Burge a partir das objeções levantadas por Åsa Wikforss (2006), que defende que o Princípio de Frege é incompatível com a teoria do entendimento incompleto e que a noção burgeana de conteúdo não é capaz de desempenhar à função de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa. Veremos como a leitura burgeana do Princípio de Frege é capaz de dissolver a incompatibilidade alegada. Defenderemos a tese de que o conteúdo do pensamento na concepção anti-individualista é capaz de capturar a perspectiva cognitiva de primeira pessoa mediante uma compreensão aprofundada do papel do conteúdo representacional na deliberação, considerando sua inserção no sistema filosófico de Burge que o relaciona com a teoria das garantias epistêmicas e da percepção. Ao atentarmos para a distinção entre significado lexical e significado de tradução, apresentaremos um argumento em defesa da tese de que a teoria do entendimento anti-individualista explica melhor a perspectiva cognitiva e é mais condizente com a prática comum do que as teorias do conteúdo que residem no plano de fundo da interpretação de Wikforss acerca do Princípio de Frege. Por fim, proporemos e defenderemos uma leitura alternativa do Princípio de Frege que julgamos exprimir melhor tanto a visão anti-individualista quanto a fregeana. / This thesis is concerned with the philosophy of understanding. We will try to answer questions such as: What is thought content? How do we understand a thought content? How do we deliberate? What is the role of a thought content in a deliberation? What kind of access do we have to a thought content? For this, we will focus on analyzing the anti-individualist philosophy of Tyler Burge with respect to the objections raised by Åsa Wikforss (2006), who argues that Frege's Principle is incompatible with the Theory of Incomplete Understanding and that the Burgean notion of content is not able to fulfill the function of capturing the cognitive perspective from a first person point of view. We shall see how the Burgean reading of Frege's Principle is capable of dissolving the alleged incompatibility. We will defend the thesis that thought content on the anti-individualist account is capable of capturing the cognitive perspective of the first person point of view through a deep comprehension of the role of the representational content in deliberation, considering that‟s insertion in the philosophical system of Burge‟s, who connects it with the theories of epistemic warrants and of perception. Moreover, when we look at the distinction between lexical meaning and translational meaning, we will present an argument in defense of the thesis that the anti-individualist theory of understanding better explains the cognitive perspective and is more genuine to the common practice than the content theories which are on the background of Wikforss‟ interpretation of the Frege‟s Principle. Finally, we will propose and defend an alternative reading of Frege's Principle that we think will better capture both the anti-individualistic and the Fregean views.