DOCSLIB.ORG

REPRESENTATIONAL IDEAS SYNTHESE Lffirary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REPRESENTATIONAL IDEAS SYNTHESE Lffirary REPRESENTATIONAL IDEAS SYNTHESE LffiRARY STUDIES IN EPISTEMOLOGY, LOGIC, METHODOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Managing Editor: JAAKKO HINTIKKA, Boston University Editors: DIRK VAN DALEN, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands DONALD DAVIDSON, University of California, Berkeley THEO A.F. KUIPERS, University ofGroningen, The Netherlands PATRICK SUPPES, Stanford University, California JAN WOLEN-SKI, Jagiellonian University, Krak6w, Poland VOLUME 250 REPRESENTA TIONAL IDEAS FROM PLATO TO PATRICIA CHURCHLAND by RICHARD A. WATSON Department of Philosophy, Washington University, SI. Louis. Missouri. USA Springer-Science+Business Media, B.V. Llbrary of Congrass Catalog1ng-ln-Publ1catlon Data Watson. RIchard A.• 1931- Representatlonal ldeas from Plato to Patrlcla Churchland I by Rlchard A. Watson. p. CII. -- (Synthese 11brary ; v. 250) Includes blbllographlcal references and lndex. ISBN 978-94-010-4037-2 ISBN 978-94-011-0075-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-0075-5 1. Idea (Phllosophy) 2. Representatlon (Phllosophy) 1. T1tle. II. Serles. B822.W37 1995 121' .4--dc20 95-11928 ISBN 978-94-010-4037-2 Printed on acid-free paper AlI Rights Reserved © 1995 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1995 Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover Ist edition 1995 No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or utilized in any form of by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. On the featureless Tunisian desert, a long-legged, fast-moving ant leaves the protection of the humid nest on a foraging expedition. It moves across the desert in tortuous loops, running first this way, then that, but gradually pro­ gressing ever farther away from the life-sustaining humidity of the nest. Finally it finds the carcass of a scorpion, uses its strong pincers to gouge out a chunk nearly its own size, then turns to orient within one or two degrees of the straight line between itself and the nest entrance, a one-millimeter-wide hole, forty meters distant. It runs a straight line for forty-three meters, holding its course by maintaining its angle to the sun. Three meters past the point at which it should have encountered the entrance, the ant abruptly breaks into the search pattern by which it eventually locates it. A witness to this home­ ward journey finds it hard to resist the inference that the ant on its search for food possessed at every moment a representation of its position relative to the entrance to the nest, a spatial representation that enabled it to compute the solar angle and the distance of the homeward journey from wherever it hap­ pened to encounter food. C.R. Gallistel, The Organization of Learning, p. 1 v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................ ix PREFACE ...................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1 1. Appearance and Reality ....................................................................... 1 2. Representational Ideas ......................................................................... 3 3. Platonic Ideas ....................................................................................... 5 4. Aristotelean Forms ............................................................................... 7 5. Like Knows Like .......... .......... ..... ... ....... ..... .... ........................ .... ..... ... 10 6. Ideas as Effects and Things as Causes ............................................... 11 7. Resemblance ....................................................................................... 14 8. Ontological Models ............................................................................ 17 CHAPTER 2. DESCARTES ....................................................................... 19 1. Image and Concept .... ..... ............. .......... ....... ........ ....... ....... ............ ... 19 2. Imagination and Understanding ........................................................ 22 3. Sensations and Images ....................................................................... 27 4. Non-Resembling Ideas ....................................................................... 30 5. The Priority of Ontology .................................................................... 36 6. What is an Idea? ................................................................................. 37 7. What in an Idea Makes it be of its object? ........................................ 43 8. Summary Conclusion ......................................................................... 47 CHAPTER 3. MALEBRANCHE AND ARNAULD ................................. 49 1. Faculties, Capacities, and Dispositions ............................................. 49 2. Act, Content, and Object ................................................................... 52 3. Ideas as Independent Objects ............................................................. 54 4. Ideas as Acts of Mind ........................................................................ 61 5. Ideas as Transparent, as Searchlights, and as Grapples ................... 64 VB viii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 4. LOCKE, BERKELEY, AND HUME .................................. 66 1. Primary and Secondary Ideas ........................................................... 66 2. Non-Representational Ideas ............................................................... 68 3. Particular Ideas .................................................................................. 73 CHAPTER 5. THE PICTURE THEORY ................................................... 77 1. Wittgenstein ....................................................................................... 77 2. Camap ................................................................................................ 82 3. Goodman ............................................................................................ 87 CHAPTER 6. NEUROPHILOSOPHY ..................................................... 100 1. Patricia Churchland ......................................................................... 101 2. Ruth Millikan ........................... ...................... .............. .................... 109 3. Robert Cummins ............................................................................... 111 4. Mark Rollins ..................................................................................... 114 CHAPTER 7. HAVING IDEAS ............................................................... 122 CHAPTER 8. CONCLUSION .................................................................. 142 NOTES ....................................................................................................... 143 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................... 157 SUBJECT INDEX ...................................................................................... 167 NAME INDEX ........................................................................................... 171 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Likeness Problem in Modern Philosophy was brought to my attention by Richard H. Popkin in the first course I ever took in philosophy. Popkin later directed the dissertation I wrote on the scourge of the likeness problem, Simon Foucher. In between, I was instructed concerning the importance of ontology by Gustav Bergmann. And my first essay on the subject was an M.A. thesis directed by Robert G. Turnbull, all of this taking place at the University of Iowa in the early 1950s. Over the years, I have had many discussions about the matter with them, and with Edwin Allaire, Harry Bracken, Claude Chabert, Phillip Cummins, Alan Gabbey, Reinhardt Grossman, Donald Livingston, Jerome Schiller, Sara Shute, Kathleen Squadrito, Henry Van Leeuwen, and Thomas Vernon. More recently, Robert Cummins brought to my attention the ubiquity of resemblance in contemporary theories of representation. Mark Rollins provided an excellent orientation to recent work. Steven Nadler ar­ gued with me about Arnauld and Malebranche, and suggested numerous re­ visions, some of which I have made. Jose R. Maia-Neto made astute comments on early drafts. William Lycan and Ruth Millikan, fine-grained philosophers of high accomplishment, responded heroically to my demands for comments on this coarse-grained commentary. And Justin Leiber combed the manu­ script for me. At Washington University, I appreciate the enlightened policies of Martin Israel, Dean of Arts and Sciences; Roger Gibson, Chair of the De­ partment of Philosophy; and Patty Jo Watson, who provided me with time for research and writing. I thank them all. I also thank the editors of the Ameri­ can Philosophical Quarterly in which a shortened version of Chapter 7, "Hav­ ing Ideas," appeared (Vol. 31, 1944, pp. 185-197). The first draft was completed during 1991-1992 while I was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, Califor­ nia, with financial support provided by the Mellon Foundation, for which I am grateful. I have always benefited from the encouragement of Director Emeritus Gardner Lindzey, to whom I present this book in the guise of a third-quarter report. Finally, I thank Director Philip Converse and Associate Director Robert Scott
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Quine and Whitehead: Ontology and Methodology 3
    McHENRY I QUINE AND WHITEHEAD: ONTOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY 3 philosophical scene as of late (e.g., deconstructionism, postmodem relativism), the and Whitehead: Ontology and gulf that separates Whitehead and analytical philosophy is not as great as it used to Quine 'be.3 Before I begin to explore the affinities, as well as some contrasts, between Methodology . Quine and Whitehead, a word of caution is in order. It is well known that Quine wrote his doctoral dissertation, "The Logic of Sequences: A Generalization of LeemonMcHenry Principia Mathematica," under Whitehead's direction.4 Quine also took two of Whitehead's seminars at Harvard,"Science and the Modem World" and "Cosmol­ I LEEMON McHENRY reaches philosophy at Loyola Marymount University, Los ogies Ancient and Modem," but he says that he "responded little to these courses" Angeles, CA 90045, E-mail: [email protected] and "took refuge in his relatively mathematical material on 'extensive abstrac­ tion. "'s Despite Quine's statement that he "retained a vivid sense of being in the presence of the great," he does not acknowledge any philosophical influence from · Introduction . the ph!losoph!es o!'W.V . Qu�e an d Whitehead. Rather, Camap and Russell are cited as the inspirations of Quine's The very idea· of a basis for comparing . , mcluding Qume himself. early development. A.N. Whitehead may be surprising to most philosophe� . philosophy two completely Both produced systems of thought that have taken m When Quine overlapped with Whitehead at Harvard, Whitehead was deeply at the forefron: of c�ntemp�­ involved in working out the details of his metaphysics of process--a philosophic different directions.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics, Time, and Confirmation
    Mathematics, Time, and Confirmation Ulrich Meyer Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of Cambridge, 1995 Submitted to the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy in partial fulfil- ment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. September 2001 Author: ................................. .. .... Department of Linguistics aKPhilosophy August 10, 2001 Certified by: .......................... Robert C. Stalnaker Professor of Philosophy Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: .............. Vann McGee Professor of Philosophy Chair, Committee on Graduate Students @Ulrich Meyer 2001. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants permission to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis in whole or in part. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OCT 11 2001 ARCMly LIBRARIES Mathematics, Time, and Confirmation by Ulrich Meyer Submitted to The Department of Linguistics and Philosophy on 10 August 2001 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ABSTRACT This dissertation discusses two issues about abstract objects: their role in scientific theories, and their relation to time. Chapter 1, "Why Apply Mathematics?" argues that scientific theories are not about the mathematics that is applied in them, and defends this thesis against the Quine-Putnam Indispensability Argument. Chapter 2, "Scientific Ontology," is a critical study of W. V. Quine's claim that metaphysics and mathematics are epistemologically on a par with nat- ural science. It is argued that Quine's view relies on a unacceptable account of empirical confirmation. Chapter 3, "Prior and the Platonist," demonstrates the incompatibility of two popular views about time: the "Platonist" thesis that some objects exist "outside" time, and A.
    [Show full text]
  • European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy
    European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy XII-2 | 2020 Democracy as a Form of Life Quine’s Ontology The Interplay Between Commitment and Decision Andrei Ionuţ Mărășoiu Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ejpap/2243 DOI: 10.4000/ejpap.2243 ISSN: 2036-4091 Publisher Associazione Pragma Electronic reference Andrei Ionuţ Mărășoiu, « Quine’s Ontology », European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy [Online], XII-2 | 2020, Online since 14 December 2020, connection on 15 December 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/ejpap/2243 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.2243 This text was automatically generated on 15 December 2020. Author retains copyright and grants the European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Quine’s Ontology 1 Quine’s Ontology The Interplay Between Commitment and Decision Andrei Ionuţ Mărășoiu AUTHOR'S NOTE Acknowledgments: A forerunner of this text was a part of my MA thesis in the History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Bucharest in 2010, advised by professor Mircea Flonta. I owe him a debt of gratitude for his patient guidance and thorough scrutiny. Later versions of the text were also presented at the 3rd congress of the Société de Philosophie des Sciences (Paris, 2009), and the British Society for the Philosophy of Science (Dublin, 2010), and I thank their audiences. I am especially grateful for questions and suggestions coming from prof. James Cargile, dr. Nora Grigore, prof. Pierre Wagner and dr. Ioannis Votsis. In its current form, this work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CNCS - UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P1-1.1-PD-2019-0535, within PNCDI III.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Reviews 120 This Volume of Thirty-Eight Essays, by An
    120 Book Reviews John R. Shook and Joseph Margolis, eds. A Companion to Pragmatism. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2006. xii + 431 pp. Cloth ISBN 1-4051- 1621-8 This volume of thirty-eight essays, by an impressive list of contributors, is a resource for anyone wishing to learn about pragmatism in general, its history, as well as the particular philosophies of the classical and more recent pragmatists. There are essays in A Companion to Pragmatism that discuss pragmatic philosophers in the context of the history of philosophy. For instance, Douglas Anderson in “Peirce and Cartesian Rationalism” argues that Peirce’s rejection of Cartesianism “was radical but not wholesale” (161). In other words, what Peirce inherits from modern philosophy is as important to our understanding of his philosophy as the ways he breaks away from the tradition. There are several essays in this collection that stress both the break and the continuity with the tradition of all the classical pragmatist figures. Timothy Sprigge in “James, Empiricism, and Absolute Idealism” shows the historical continuity between James and idealism. The historical and philosophical relations between Hegel and the pragmatist are explored in Kenneth Westphal’s essay “Hegel and Realism.” In “Expressivism and Mead’ Social Self” Mitchell Aboulafia argues that the pragmatists cannot be fully appreciated unless they are understood against the backdrop of the enlighment and expressivism. Thomas Alexander argues in “Dewey, Dualism, and Naturalism” that understanding how Dewey addresses the heritage of dualism (as a common western philosophical habit) provides a better insight into his general position. Other essays in A Companion to Pragmatism facilitate understanding of pragmatism by making connections or drawing similarities/differences with other philosophical traditions, some current issue or philosopher.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Quine a Verificationist?
    Appeared in: The Southern Journal of Philosophy Vol. XLI, 2003. IS QUINE A VERIFICATIONIST? Panu Raatikainen I Although Quine is widely known as an influential critic of logical positivism, there is now a growing tendency to emphasize the similarities between him and the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle.1 In particular, it has become usual to classify Quine as an adherent of verificationism, even if it is recognized that his position is somehow different from that of the positivists in being more holistic in character.2 For example, Cheryl Misak in her book-length examination of verificationism writes that ‘the holist [such as Quine] need not reject verificationism, if it is suitably formulated. Indeed, Quine often describes himself as a verificationist’.3 Misak concludes that Quine ‘can be described as a verificationist who thinks that the unit of meaning is large’;4 and when comparing Dummett and Quine, Misak states that ‘both can be, and in fact are, verificationists’.5 Further, it is remarkable that Roger Gibson, arguably the leading expositor of Quine’s philosophy, whose understanding of Quine’s thought has been repeatedly praised by Quine himself, interprets Quine unqualifiedly as a verificationist. Gibson speaks of ‘Quine’s explicit commitment to verificationism’.6 He cites as evidence the following well-known passage 1 from Quine’s famous article ‘Epistemology Naturalized’: ‘If we recognize with Peirce that the meaning of a sentence turns on what would count as evidence for its truth, and if we recognize with Duhem that theoretical sentences have their evidence not as single sentences but as larger blocks of theory, then the indeterminacy of translation is the natural conclusion.’7 And Gibson continues: ‘If this quotation leaves a lingering doubt as to whether Quine would really call himself a verificationist, the following quotation should erase all doubt’.
    [Show full text]
  • Schopenhauer Edited by Christopher Janaway Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-62106-9 - The Cambridge Companion to Schopenhauer Edited by Christopher Janaway Frontmatter More information the cambridge companion to SCHOPENHAUER Each volume of this series of companions to major philoso- phers contains specially commissioned essays by an inter- national team of scholars, together with a substantial bibli- ography, and will serve as a reference work for students and nonspecialists. One aim of the series is to dispel the intimi- dation such readers often feel when faced with the work of a difficult and challenging thinker. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) is something of a mav- erick figure in the history of philosophy. He produced a unique theory of the world and human existence based upon his notion of will. This collection analyzes the related but distinct components of will from the point of view of episte- mology, metaphysics, philosophy of mind, aesthetics, ethics, and the philosophy of psychoanalysis. This volume explores Schopenhauer’s philosophy of death, his relationship to the philosophy of Kant, his use of ideas drawn from both Bud- dhism and Hinduism, and the important influence he exerted on Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein. New readers will find this the most convenient and acces- sible guide to Schopenhauer currently available. Advanced students and specialists will find a conspectus of recent de- velopments in the interpretation of Schopenhauer. Christopher Janaway is Reader in Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London. © in this web service Cambridge University
    [Show full text]
  • Teaching Philosophy
    APA NEWSLETTER ON Teaching Philosophy Tziporah Kasachkoff & Eugene Kelly, Co-Editors Fall 2003 Volume 03, Number 1 frequently morally-conflicted personages, offers moral dilemmas ETTER FROM THE DITORS that provoke the student to formulate criteria that are morally L E pertinent to them, and eventually to appreciate the value of moral theories that attempt to justify the criteria. The article concludes with some remarks on practical questions regarding Tziporah Kasachkoff the use of films in ethics courses. The Graduate Center, CUNY, NY We encourage our readers to suggest themselves as reviewers of books and other material that they think may be Eugene Kelly especially good for classroom use. Please remember again that New York Institute of Technology, NY our publication is devoted to pedagogy and not to theoretical discussions of philosophical issues, and this purpose should also Welcome to the Fall 2003 edition of the APA Newsletter on be borne in mind when reviewing material for our publication. Teaching Philosophy. We are pleased to present three papers of As always, we encourage our readers to write for our interest to teachers of philosophy, and several reviews of books publication. We welcome papers that respond, comment on or that can be used in the philosophy classroom. take issue with any of the material that appears within our pages. The first paper, “A Graduate Seminar on Teaching The following guidelines for submissions should be followed: Philosophy,” by Martin Benjamin, presents the history, objectives, content, syllabus, and required readings of a seminar he initiated • The author’s name, the title of the paper and full mailing at Michigan State University for graduate students in philosophy address should appear on a separate sheet of paper.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cambridge Companion to Ockham
    the cambridge companion to ockham Each volume of this series of companions to major philosophers contains specially commissioned essays by an international team of scholars, together with a substantial bibliography, and will serve as a reference work for students and nonspecialists. One aim of the series is to dispel the intimidation such readers often feel when faced with the work of a difficult and challenging thinker. The Franciscan William of Ockham (c. 1288–1347) was an English medieval philosopher, theologian, and political theorist. Along with Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus, he is regarded as one of the three main figures in medieval philosophy after around 1150. Ockham is important not only in the history of philosophy and theo- logy but also in the development of early modern science and of modern notions of property rights and church-state relations. This volume offers a full discussion of all significant aspects of Ockham’s thought: logic, philosophy of language, metaphysics and natural philosophy, epistemology, ethics, action theory, political thought, and theology. It is the first study of Ockham in any lan- guage to make full use of the new critical editions of his works and to consider recent discoveries concerning his life, education, and in- fluences. New readers will find this the most convenient and accessible guide to Ockham currently available. Advanced students and spe- cialists will find a conspectus of recent developments in the inter- pretation of Ockham. Paul Vincent Spade is Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University. Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Arizona, on 07 Apr 2017 at 16:44:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/termsCambridge Companions.
    [Show full text]
  • Wednesday 8Am&Sunday Noon Masses in Extraordinary Form
    (Wednesday 8am&Sunday noon Masses in Extraordinary Form) Welcome to St. Peter Church! Office Hours Monday - Thursday, 8:30 am - 2:00 pm Closed on Holy Days & Holidays. We extend a warm welcome to new visitors as well as to returning parishioners! If you would like to join our parish community, please stop in or call the Parish Office (740-282-7612) to register as a parishioner. Current parishioners, please inform the office of any changes such as phone number or address. Happy New Year! St. Peter Church Groups For further information refer to the St. Peter Church website: www.stpetersteub.com Adoration Chapel Coordinator: Mrs. Kathy Bender, 740-544-6446 Altar Servers Coordinator: Dr. Steve Hildebrand, 740-283-2893 Bereavement Ministry: Mrs. Fiona Ruminski, 740-275-8754 Catholic Women’s Club (CWC): Mrs. Beatrice Antol, (304-723-1850). We continue to collect glasses for the Lion’s Club. Please bring your donations to the church office. Dead Theologians Society Coordinators: Deacon Tom Maedke, 740-381-2115 & Rhett Young, 805-390-0326 EDGE Youth Group: Jacob Konkolics, (570) 317-6103, [email protected], catholicfaithformation.org/the-edge Knights of Columbus St. John Neumann Council: Roger Gibson, GK, 216-571-7967 Lectors & Extraordinary Ministers Coordinator: Mr. Pete Polimeni, 740-283-1401 Music Director: Rose McGrath, [email protected], 937-719-2391 Natural Family Planning : Steve and Ann Craig, 740-457-9663, www.NFPandmore.org Parish Council: Mrs. Mary Jo Yanda, President, 740-282-4153 Parish Book Club Coordinator: Fr. Bradley Greer - Meetings on the 3rd Saturday of every month in the school building.
    [Show full text]
  • ANALYTICITY AGAIN1 Jerry Fodor and Ernie Lepore Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science
    ANALYTICITY AGAIN1 Jerry Fodor and Ernie Lepore Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science Introduction It would be ever so nice if there were a viable analytic/synthetic distinction. Though nobody knows for sure, there would seem to be several major philosophical projects that having one would advance. For example: analytic sentences2 are supposed to have their truth values solely in virtue of the meanings (together with the syntactic arrangement) of their constituents; i.e., their truth values are supposed to supervene on their linguistic properties alone.3 So they are true in every possible world where they mean what they mean here.4 So they are necessarily true. So if there were a viable analytic/synthetic distinction (‘a/s distinction’ often hereafter), we would understand the necessity of at least some necessary truths. If, in particular, it were to turn out that the logical and/or the mathematical truths are analytic, we would understand why they are necessary. It would be ever so nice to understand why the logical and/or mathematical truths are necessary (cf. Gibson 1998; Quine 1998). Any account of necessity would be welcome, but one according to which necessary truths are analytic has special virtues. Necessity isn’t, of course, an epistemic property. Still, suppose that the necessity of a sentence arises from the meanings of its parts. It’s natural to assume that one of the things one knows in virtue of knowing one’s language is what the expressions of the language mean (cf., e.g., Boghossian 1994). A treatment of modality in terms of analyticity therefore connects the concept of necessity with the concept of knowledge; and knowledge is, of course, an epistemic property.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge, Language and Logic: Questions for Quine Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science
    KNOWLEDGE, LANGUAGE AND LOGIC: QUESTIONS FOR QUINE BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Editors ROBERT S. COHEN, Boston University JURGEN RENN, Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science KOSTAS GAVROGLU, University ofAthens Editorial Advisory Board THOMAS F. GLICK, Boston University ADOLF GRUNBAUM, University of Pittsburgh SYLVAN S. SCHWEBER, Brandeis University JOHN J. STACHEL, Boston University MARX W. WARTOFSKY t (Editor 1960-1997) VOLUME 210 w.v. Quine [Photo: Harvard News Office] KNOWLEDGE, LANGUAGE ANDLOGIC: QUESTIONS FOR QUINE Edited by: ALEX ORENSTEIN Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York and PETR KOTATKO The Philosophical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V. A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-1-4020-0253-3 ISBN 978-94-011-3933-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-3933-5 Printed an acid·free paper All Rights Reserved © 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2000 No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, inc1uding photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. For Professor Quine in celebration of his 90th birthday T ABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE xi EPISTEMOLOGY AND NATURALISM W.V. QUINE / I, You and It: an Epistemological Triangle T. SZUBKA / Quine and Davidson on Perceptual Knowledge 7 A. GEORGE / Quine and Observation 21 A.c. GRAYLING / Naturalistic Assumptions 47 K. LEHRER / Justification, Coherence and Quine 57 L.
    [Show full text]
  • Ernie Lepore
    ERNIE LEPORE CURRICULUM VITAE ACADEMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS: • 2014-present, Board of Governors Professor, Rutgers University • 1998-Present, Professor II, Rutgers University, Philosophy Department • 1990-1998, Professor I, Rutgers University, Philosophy Department • 1986-1990, Associate Professor, Rutgers University, Philosophy Departments • 1981-1986, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University, Philosophy Department • 1981-Spring, Visiting Professor, Rutgers University, Philosophy Department • 1978-1981, Assistant Professor, University of Notre Dame, Philosophy Department • 2010-2017, Acting Co-Director, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science • 2002-2010, Associate Director, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science • 1997-2002, Director, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science • 1996-1999, 2006-2014, Undergraduate Director, Rutgers Cognitive Science • 2018-present, Part Time Visiting Professor, Huazhong University (China) • 2009-Summer, Visiting Professor, St Petersburg State University • 2007-Spring, Visiting Professor, Ecole Normale Superior • 2005-2011, Part-time Visiting Professor, University of Oslo • 2004-Spring, Visiting Professor, University of Santiago (Spain) • 1995-Spring Visiting Professor, University of Minnesota • 1995-Winter, Visiting Professor, University of California at Berkeley • 1994-Fall, Visiting Scholar, Third University of Rome • 1992-1994, Director, Rutgers Junior Year Abroad In Italy • 1991-Spring, Visiting Professor, Washington University, St. Louis • 1988-Spring, Visiting Professor, University of Venice • 1983-Summer,
    [Show full text]