ABSTRACT
The current debate over what conditions a scheme of mental representation needs to satisfy in order to explain the systematicity of thought is characterized in such a way that (contrary to Fodor, Pylyshyn, and McLaughlin) any complete representational scheme (whether classical or non-classical) can explain the systematicity of thought. Though FPM might reply that non-classical schemes only satisfy these conditions in an unprincipled fashion, this shifts the discussion to less empirical considerations.
