Abstract

The main goal of this paper is to defend so-called _atomist_ approaches to concept individuation against the threat presented by what I will refer to as _Frege’s Problem Psychologized_ (FPP): difficulties presented by putative cases of co-referring but distinct concepts. The discussion will provide an opportunity to highlight the virtues of a particularly austere, reference-based version of Concept Atomism and to draw attention to some broader morals, notably that even a radical version of atomism is consistent with embracing various features of cognition that are of interest to psychologists and empirically oriented philosophers.