DOCSLIB.ORG

The Possibility of Conceptual Clarity in Philosophy Author(S): Michael A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Possibility of Conceptual Clarity in Philosophy Author(S): Michael A The Possibility of Conceptual Clarity in Philosophy Author(s): Michael A. Bishop Source: American Philosophical Quarterly , Jul., 1992, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 267-277 Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical Publications Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20014420 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms and University of Illinois Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Sat, 12 Sep 2020 22:43:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms American Philosophical Quarterly Volume 29, Number 3, July 1992 THE POSSIBILITY OF CONCEPTUAL CLARITY IN PHILOSOPHY Michael A. Bishop A HE attempt to analyze and clarify con? The next stage of counterexample philoso? cepts is a trademark of Western philosophy. phy involves philosophical sharpshooters And this is how it should be. Given the rela? taking aim at the classical account of the tively non-empirical nature of the philosophi? concept by proposing counterexamples. cal endeavor, philosophers must be concerned While the paradigm is probably Gettier's with the state of their primary instruments? (1963) counterexample to (K), counterex? language and the concepts expressed by lan? amples have also been levelled against guage. The aim of this paper is to make sense of each of the classical accounts noted above: a pattern of argumentation typically employed Tyler B?rge against Lewis' account of con? in the effort to clarify philosophically impor? vention (1975), Jaegwon Kim against tant concepts. The upshot will be that only by Lewis' account of causation (1973), Hilary adopting a thoroughgoing naturalism will we Putnam against Goldman's account of have any real chance to achieve the goal of knowledge (1983), Paul Ziff against conceptual clarity in philosophy. Grice's account of meaning (1967), Sylvain Bromberger against Hempel's account of I. COUNTEREXAMPLE PHILOSOPHY explanation (1966), Philip Kitcher against Counterexample philosophy is a distinc? Salmon's account of causation (1989), and tive pattern of argumentation philosophers John Searle against Putnam's account of since Plato have employed when attempting mental states (1980). to hone their conceptual tools. It begins The final stage of counterexample philos? when someone proposes a classical account ophy involves one of three potential re? of a philosophically important concept. A sponses to an apparently successful classical account of a concept offers singly counterexample. One might amend the ac? necessary and jointly sufficient conditions count so it no longer succumbs to the coun? for the application of a term expressing that terexample, at which point philosophical concept. Probably the best known of these is sharpshooters reset their sights on the re? the traditional account of knowledge. vised account. Or one might admit defeat: no amount of tinkering will save the ac? (K) X is knowledge iff X is a justified true belief count. Finally, one might bite the bullet by holding fast to the classical account even The list of philosophers who have advanced though many think the counterexample is classical accounts of concepts would not only successful. J. J. C. Smart's discussion of al? include many of the greatest figures in the his? leged counterexamples to act utilitarianism tory of philosophy, but also many highly re? is a classic case of bullet biting: "The fact garded contemporary philosophers. Consider that [utilitarianism] has consequences just a fraction of these: David Lewis on con? which conflict with some of our particular vention (1969) and on causation (1973), Alvin moral judgements need not be decisive Goldman on knowledge (1967), H.P. Grice on against it.... I am not concerned with what meaning (1957), Carl Hempel on explanation our moral customs and institutions in fact (1948), Wesley Salmon on causation (1984), are... I am concerned with a certain view and Hilary Putnam on mental states (1967). about what they ought to be" (1973, p. 56). 267 This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Sat, 12 Sep 2020 22:43:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 268 / AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY Which of these responses is appropriate de? vision and the target term is, by itself, irrele? pends on the philosopher's aim in adducing vant to the acceptability of the revision. But the account. Counterexample philosophy what makes one revision more successful has three potential aims. than another? If there are no rules about (1) Conceptual analysis: A serious and this, if willy-nilly conceptual revision is the venerable psychological hypothesis holds aim, then it seems a worthless and absurd proj? that many concepts are made up of other ect. Assuming the conservative endeavors concepts. For example, the concept bachelor (analysis and explication) are unlikely to suc? might be constructed out of the concepts ceed, it is essential we respond to this challenge available unmarried man. If we adopt this on pain of forfeiting counterexample philoso? psychological hypothesis, one might propose phy as a tool for conceptual clarification. that the success condition on a classical ac? Section IV is a response to this challenge. count is that the concept expressed by the One might argue that these options do not term on one flank of the biconditional be exhaust the potential goals of counterexam? constituted by the concepts expressed by the ple philosophy. Philosophers might set them? terms on the other flank of the biconditional. selves the goal of providing an account of For instance, (K) is a successful instance of metaphysical reality. So (K) succeeds just in conceptual analysis just in case our concept case it tells us what knowledge really is. Will knowledge is made up of the conjunction of the proponent of metaphysical counterex? our concepts justified true belief. ample philosophy offer an account of how (2) Conceptual explication: In order for an we can know when we have found metaphys? instance of conceptual explication to suc? ical reality? If not, then counterexample phi? ceed, the extensions of the target term and losophy is futile since we cannot know when its classical account must be identical with it succeeds. But suppose he does offer such respect to all clear instances and non-in? an account. If part of the test for determining stances of the target term.1 On this view, (K) whether we have found metaphysical reality is a successful explication just in case any? involves checking whether the extension of the thing that is a clear case of knowledge is also target term has been preserved, at least in the a clear case of justified true belief and anything clear cases, then metaphysical counterexam? that is a clear non-instance of knowledge is also ple philosophy will fall victim to the argument a clear non-instance of justified true belief. against conceptual explication in section III. If How our concepts are psychologically repre? sented is irrelevant to this endeavor. metaphysical counterexample philosophy does not involve preserving the extension of Sections II and III of this paper will offer the target term, then it faces the challenge empirical reasons why conceptual analysis faced by conceptual revision discussed above and explication cannot succeed. If this is and in section IV. So for the purposes of this right, how are we to understand the attempt paper, metaphysical counterexample philoso? by some very distinguished philosophers to phy can be seen as either futile, an instance of give classical accounts of philosophically im? explication, or an instance of revision. portant terms? Is it merely a mistake of a bygone era? Perhaps. But before we dispose II. The FUTILITY OF of such a significant piece of philosophical Conceptual Analysis heritage, we should consider the third poten? tial aim of counterexample philosophy. Classical conceptual analysis aims to de? (3) Conceptual revision: So far we have scribe the structure of a philosophically im? considered conservative aims of counterex? portant concept in terms of singly necessary ample philosophy?they set out to preserve and jointly sufficient conditions. This en? something important about the target term. deavor is doomed because most concepts are Conceptual revision does not set the preser? not structured classically. This is not news to vation of the target term's intension or ex? philosophers. Since Wittgenstein (1953), tension as a condition for success. Finding a philosophers have argued that there are no difference between the extensions of the re classical conditions for the application of our This content downloaded from 34.195.88.230 on Sat, 12 Sep 2020 22:43:18 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms conceptual clarity in philosophy / 269 terms. But even ifvte assume that philosoph? philosophy is not the method that ought to ically important concepts are represented be employed in finding those features. classically, it does not follow that counterex? Nicholas Rescher (1973, 1985) has ad? ample philosophy as currently practiced is a vanced another argument to the conclusion reasonable method to use to discover the that even if concepts are classically struc? structure of our concepts. Questions about tured, conceptual analysis as practiced can? the actual structure of our concepts are in not succeed. Philosophically pivotal principle as empirical as questions about the concepts, like most of our concepts, are "at? actual structure of iron.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE? Author(S): Hilary Putnam Source: Metaphilosophy , July 1970, Vol
    IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE? Author(s): Hilary Putnam Source: Metaphilosophy , July 1970, Vol. 1, No. 3 (July 1970), pp. 187-201 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24434824 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Metaphilosophy This content downloaded from 99.137.65.114 on Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:10:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms M ETA PHILOSOPHY Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1970 IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE?" Hilary Putnam In the last decade enormous progress seems to have been made in the syntactic theory of natural languages, largely as a result of the work of linguists influenced by Noam Chomsky and Zellig Harris. Comparable progress seems not to have been made in the semantic theory of natural languages, and perhaps it is time to ask why this should be the case. Why is the theory of meaning so hard? The meaning of common nouns. To get some idea of the difficulties, let us look at some of the problems that come up in connection with general names. General names are of many kinds.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae of Alvin Plantinga
    CURRICULUM VITAE OF ALVIN PLANTINGA A. Education Calvin College A.B. 1954 University of Michigan M.A. 1955 Yale University Ph.D. 1958 B. Academic Honors and Awards Fellowships Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1968-69 Guggenheim Fellow, June 1 - December 31, 1971, April 4 - August 31, 1972 Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1975 - Fellow, Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship, 1979-1980 Visiting Fellow, Balliol College, Oxford 1975-76 National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships, 1975-76, 1987, 1995-6 Fellowship, American Council of Learned Societies, 1980-81 Fellow, Frisian Academy, 1999 Gifford Lecturer, 1987, 2005 Honorary Degrees Glasgow University, l982 Calvin College (Distinguished Alumni Award), 1986 North Park College, 1994 Free University of Amsterdam, 1995 Brigham Young University, 1996 University of the West in Timisoara (Timisoara, Romania), 1998 Valparaiso University, 1999 2 Offices Vice-President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1980-81 President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1981-82 President, Society of Christian Philosophers, l983-86 Summer Institutes and Seminars Staff Member, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Metaphysics, 1968 Staff member and director, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion, 1973 Director, National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar, 1974, 1975, 1978 Staff member and co-director (with William P. Alston) NEH Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion (Bellingham, Washington) 1986 Instructor, Pew Younger Scholars Seminar, 1995, 1999 Co-director summer seminar on nature in belief, Calvin College, July, 2004 Other E. Harris Harbison Award for Distinguished Teaching (Danforth Foundation), 1968 Member, Council for Philosophical Studies, 1968-74 William Evans Visiting Fellow University of Otago (New Zealand) 1991 Mentor, Collegium, Fairfield University 1993 The James A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History
    The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History 1960 FIRST COLLOQUIUM Wilfrid Sellars, "On Looking at Something and Seeing it" Ronald Hepburn, "God and Ambiguity" Comments: Dennis O'Brien Kurt Baier, "Itching and Scratching" Comments: David Falk/Bruce Aune Annette Baier, "Motives" Comments: Jerome Schneewind 1961 SECOND COLLOQUIUM W.D. Falk, "Hegel, Hare and the Existential Malady" Richard Cartwright, "Propositions" Comments: Ruth Barcan Marcus D.A.T. Casking, "Avowals" Comments: Martin Lean Zeno Vendler, "Consequences, Effects and Results" Comments: William Dray/Sylvan Bromberger PUBLISHED: Analytical Philosophy, First Series, R.J. Butler (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell's, 1962. 1962 THIRD COLLOQUIUM C.J. Warnock, "Truth" Arthur Prior, "Some Exercises in Epistemic Logic" Newton Garver, "Criteria" Comments: Carl Ginet/Paul Ziff Hector-Neri Castenada, "The Private Language Argument" Comments: Vere Chappell/James Thomson John Searle, "Meaning and Speech Acts" Comments: Paul Benacerraf/Zeno Vendler PUBLISHED: Knowledge and Experience, C.D. Rollins (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. 1963 FOURTH COLLOQUIUM Michael Scriven, "Insanity" Frederick Will, "The Preferability of Probable Beliefs" Norman Malcolm, "Criteria" Comments: Peter Geach/George Pitcher Terrence Penelhum, "Pleasure and Falsity" Comments: William Kennick/Arnold Isenberg 1964 FIFTH COLLOQUIUM Stephen Korner, "Some Remarks on Deductivism" J.J.C. Smart, "Nonsense" Joel Feinberg, "Causing Voluntary Actions" Comments: Keith Donnellan/Keith Lehrer Nicholas Rescher, "Evaluative Metaphysics" Comments: Lewis W. Beck/Thomas E. Patton Herbert Hochberg, "Qualities" Comments: Richard Severens/J.M. Shorter PUBLISHED: Metaphysics and Explanation, W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. 1965 SIXTH COLLOQUIUM Patrick Nowell-Smith, "Acts and Locutions" George Nakhnikian, "St. Anselm's Four Ontological Arguments" Hilary Putnam, "Psychological Predicates" Comments: Bruce Aune/U.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Proper Names and Their Role in Social Ontology
    Proper Names and Their Role in Social Ontology Marek Nagy Palacký University, Olomouc Abstract: The article deals with an applicability of John Searle’s theory of social ontology to linguistic category of proper names . We suggest that in the context of Searle’s theory we can consider proper names to be a kind of social institution . By several examples from anthropolinguistic research and from the field of theoretical onomastics we try to show that proper names meet conditions specified by John Searle, in particu- lar that – through different communities all over the world – they are “holders” of various types of deontic power . At the end of our article we shortly weigh the possibility that proper names can be regard as status indicators (in terms of Searle’s theory) too . Keywords: baptism, deontic power, onomastics, proper names, social ontology . Blake, John? Nothing here. Alright, try my legal name. You should use your full name. I like that name, Robin. Dark Knight Rises To speak about problems of proper names in the context of philo- sophical views of John Searle makes sense for various reasons . Primar- ily, professor Searle has dealt with the category of proper names re- peatedly: In fact, he started his career with the text Proper Names (see Searle 1958) and the conception presented here brought him directly in “textbooks” of this important philosophical debate; proper names as rather strange and interesting individuals are aptly shown also in Sear- le’s Speech Acts (see Searle 1969; the evidence of strangeness could be the mentioned and everlasting discussion on their reference behavior, Organon F 19 (2012), 137-147 © 2012 The Author.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
    January 2011 Volume 84, Issue 3 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association apa THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION Central Division Program University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 www.apaonline.org The American Philosophical Association Central Division One Hundred Eighth Annual Meeting Minneapolis Hilton Hotel Minneapolis, Minnesota March 30 - April 2, 2011 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (ISSN 0065-972X) is published five times each year and is distributed to members of the APA as a benefit of membership and to libraries, departments, and institutions for $75 per year. It is published by The American Philosophical Association, 31 Amstel Ave., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Periodicals Postage Paid at Newark, DE and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Proceedings and Addresses, The American Philosophical Association, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Editor: David E. Schrader Phone: (302) 831-1112 Publications Coordinator: Erin Shepherd Fax: (302) 831-8690 Associate Editor: Robin Smith Web: www.apaonline.org Meeting Coordinator: Linda Smallbrook Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association, the major publication of The American Philosophical Association, is published five times each academic year in the months of September, November, January, February, and May. Each annual volume contains the programs for the meetings of the three Divisions; the membership list; Presidential Addresses; news of the Association, its Divisions and Committees, and announcements of interest to philosophers. Other items of interest to the community of philosophers may be included by decision of the Editor or the APA Board of Officers.
    [Show full text]
  • THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS Thispage Intentionally !Efi Blank THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS
    ROY A. SORENSEN THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS Thispage intentionally !efi blank THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ROY A. SORENSEN OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS New York Oxford Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Săo Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin lbadan Copyright © 1992 by Roy A. Sorensen First published in 1992 by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Av enue, New York, New York 10016 First Issued as an Oxford University Press paperback, 1998 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press, !ne. AU rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sorensen, Roy A. Thought expriments Roy A. Sorensen p. cm. Includes bibliographica1 references and index. ISBN 0-19-507422-X ISBN 0-19-512913-X (pbk.) 1 Thought and thinking. 2. Logic 3. Philosophy and science 1. Title B105.T54S67 1992 !01-dc20 9136760 1357 986 42 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper For Julia, a woman of fine distinctions Thispage intentionally !efi blank ACKNOWLEDG MENTS This book has indebted me to many people. The first group consists of the individuals who attended colloquia given at the Graduate Center of the City University of New Yo rk, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, Rutgers University, the State University of New Yo rk at Stony Brook, Virginia Tech, and the 1990 lnter-University Conference for Philosophy of Science in Du­ brovnik.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Essentialism Tom Leddy, San Jose State University
    San Jose State University From the SelectedWorks of Tom Leddy 2014 Anti-Essentialism Tom Leddy, San Jose State University Available at: https://works.bepress.com/tom_leddy/194/ This is a post-print of Thomas Leddy, “Anti-Essentialism,” The Encyclopedia of Aesthetics, 2nd Ed., ed. Michael Kelly (Oxford U. Press, 2014). If you wish to find correct pagination for a quote you should go to the published version. At SJSU The Encyclopedia of Aesthetics is available for students and faculty electronically in MLK Library. http://catalog.sjlibrary.org/record=b4969786~S1 ESSENTIALISM Anti-Essentialism From the late nineteenth century to the 1950s one of the main foci of aesthetic inquiry was the attempt to develop definitions of art and such related concepts as visual art, music, tragedy, beauty, and metaphor. Clive Bell (1958) [orig. 1914] famously stated that either all works of visual art have some common quality or when we speak of “work of art” we speak nonsense. DeWitt H. Parker (1939) argued more generally that the assumption underlying every philosophy of art is the existence of some common nature present in all the arts. This search for a common quality or nature of art was generally take to be a form of essentialism When analytic philosophers came to aesthetics in the 1950s they saw it as dominated by the essentialism of G.W.F. Hegel and such idealist followers as Benedetto Croce (1922) and Robin George Collingwood (1938). It was in this context that John A. Passmore (1954) attacked aestheticians for pretentiously saying nothing and for trying to retain mystery rather than dispel it.
    [Show full text]
  • Selim Berker
    Selim Berker Mailing Address: Department of Philosophy Emerson Hall Harvard University 25 Quincy St. Cambridge, MA 02138 Phone: (617) 413-5559 E-mail: [email protected] Employment: Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University, 2015–present John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Humanities, Department of Philosophy, Harvard University, 2013–2015 Fellow, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, 2013–2014 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University, 2007–2013 Laurance S. Rockefeller Visiting Faculty Fellow, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, 2009–2010 Instructor in Philosophy, Harvard University, 2006–2007 Education: Ph.D. in philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007 M.A. in physics, Harvard University, 2000 (admitted as Ph.D. candidate but left to pursue philosophy) A.B. summa cum laude in physics, Harvard College, 1998 Areas of Specialization: Ethics, Epistemology Areas of Competence: Metaphysics, Logic, Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language Publications: “Coherentism via Graphs,” Philosophical Issues 25 (2015): 322–52. “Reply to Goldman: Cutting Up the One to Save the Five in Epistemology,” Episteme 12 (2015): 145–53. “Does Evolutionary Psychology Show That Normativity Is Mind-Dependent?” in Justin D’Arms and Daniel Jacobson (eds.), Moral Psychology and Human Agency: Philosophical Essays on the Science of Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2014), 215–52. “The Rejection of Epistemic Consequentialism,” Philosophical Issues 23 (2013): 363–87. “Epistemic Teleology and the Separateness of Propositions,” Philosophical Review 122 (2013): 337–93. “Gupta’s Gambit,” Philosophical Studies 152 (2011): 17–39. “The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (2009): 293– 329. [Selected by The Philosopher’s Annual as one of the ten best philosophy papers published in 2009.] “Luminosity Regained,” Philosophers’ Imprint 8, no.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PUBLICATIONS of PAUL ZIFF "The Notion of a Work of Art With
    PAUL ZIFF THE PUBLICATIONS OF PAUL ZIFF DISSERTATION. "The Notion of a Work of Art with Special Reference to the Esthetic Theory ofR. G. Collingwood," Cornell University, 1952,222 pp. BOOKS Semantic Analysis, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1960, xi + 255 pp. (Fourth printing, 1964; paperback, 1967). 1. M. Hanson, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1962, 51 pp. with 33 plates. Philosophic Turnings, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1966, xiv + 186 pp. Itinerari Filosofici e Linguistici, editori Laterza, Bari, Italia, 1969, Introduzione di Tullo de Mauro. Understanding Understanding, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1972, viii + 146 pp. Antiaesthetics: An Appreciation of the Cow with the Subtile Nose, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984, 164 pp. Epistemic Analysis: A Coherence Theory of Knowledge, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984,220 pp. ARTICLES "Art and the 'Object of Art'." Mind, Vol. LX (1951), pp. 466-480. Reprinted in Aesthetics and Language, ed. William Elton, Oxford, England: Blackwell, 1954. "The Task of Defining a Work of Art," The Philosophical Review, Vol. LXII (1953), pp. 58-78. Reprinted in Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Criticism, ed. M. Levich, New York: Random House, 1963; also reprinted in a volume by F. Coleman; and in Gennan, "Was es heifst zu definieren, was ein Kunstwerk ist," Theorien der Kunst, ed. Dieter Henrich and Wolfgang Iser, Frankfurt am Main, Gennany Suhrkamp Verlag, 1982, pp. 524-550. 199 D. Jamieson (ed.), Language, Mind, and Art, 199-203. © 1994 Kluwer Academic Publishers. 200 THE PUBLICATIONS OF PAUL ZIFF "Reasons in Art Criticism," in Philosophy and Education, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Tomberlin & Van Inwagen, Eds., ALVIN PLANTINGA
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 5 Issue 2 Article 12 4-1-1988 Tomberlin & van Inwagen, eds., ALVIN PLANTINGA (PROFILES, VOL. 5) Edward Wierenga Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Wierenga, Edward (1988) "Tomberlin & van Inwagen, eds., ALVIN PLANTINGA (PROFILES, VOL. 5)," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 , Article 12. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol5/iss2/12 This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. 214 Faith and Philosophy Alvin Plantinga (Profiles, Vol. 5), ed. by James E. Tomberlin and Peter van Inwagen. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985. Pp. ix and 420. $55.00 (hardcover), $24 (paper). EDWARD WIERENGA, Center for Philosophy of Religion, University of Notre Dame and University of Rochester. This is an excellent book. It begins with Plantinga's "Self-Profile," a 94-page personal and intellectual autobiography. Writing with characteristic wit, insight, and modesty, Plantinga describes first his upbringing and education, including in this section anecdotes of the famous Wayne State department and detailing the influence his association with Calvin College has had on his commitment to Christian scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Publications
    Publications Gilbert Harman January 26, 2015 Contents 1 BOOKS 1 1.1 Authored . 1 1.2 Edited . 4 2 ARTICLES 4 3 REVIEWS 22 1 BOOKS 1.1 Authored 1. Kulkarni, S. and Harman, G. An Elementary Introduction to Statistical Learning Theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011, pp. xiv, 209. 2. Harman, G. and Kulkarni, S., Reliable Reasoning: Induction and Statisti- cal Learning Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007, pp. x, 108. • Translated into Japanese by Kaniike Yoichi (Tokyo: Keiso Shobo, 2009.) • Paperback version 2012. • Electronic version (for Kindle) 2010. 3. Explaining Value and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. (Oxford: Claren- don Press, 2000), pp. xiv, 238. • Online edition, 2003, with chapter abstracts and keywords, available from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com. 1 4. Reasoning, Meaning, and Mind (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. viii, 291. [Essays.] • Online edition, with chapter abstracts and key words, 2003, available from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com. 5. Harman, G. and Thomson, J., Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), pp. x, 225. • Brief excerpt reprinted as \How can there be more than one answer to a moral question?" in Judith Friedman et al. (eds.) What Should We Value? (Princeton University, 2000) pp. 74-5. 6. Skepticism and the Definition of Knowledge (New York, Garland: 1990), pp. xvi, 166. [This is my Ph. D. dissertation, Harvard, 1964, with a new preface.] 7. Change in View: Principles of Reasoning (Cambridge, Massachusetts; M.I.T. Press/Bradford Books: 1986) pp. xiv, 147. Print on demand edi- tion 2013. • Excerpt (pp. 29-48) reprinted in Steven Luper (ed.), Essential Knowl- edge: Readings in Epistemology (New York, Pearson: 2004), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • New Readings in Philosophical Analysis
    Contents PREFACE Vll 1. Herbert Feigl Nel"" Reflections on EmpiricL~m PART I REFERENCE AND DESCRIPTlONS 2. Roderick M. Chisholm Beyond Being and Nonbeing 15 3. Gottlob Frege On Concept and Object 23 4. Gustav Bergmann Propositional Functions 31 5. P. F. Strawson On Referring 35 6. ,P. F. Strawson A Reply to Mr. Sellars 51 7. Bertrand Russell Mr. Strawson on Referring 55 8. Keith S. Donnellan Reference and Definite Descriptions 59 9. Arthur W. Burks A Theory ofProper Names 72 PART II ANALYTlCITY AND NECESSITY 10. W. V. Quine Two Dogmas ofEmpiricism 81 ll. W. V. Quine Carnap and Logical Truth 95 12. Rudolph Carnap Meaning Postulates 110 13. Rudolph Carnap Meaning and Synonymy in Natural Languages 116 14. H. P. Grice and P. F. Strawson In Defense ofa Dogma 126 15. Benson Mates Analytic Sentences 137 16. Max Black Necessary Statements and Rules 143 17. Arthur Pap The Linguistic Theory ofLogical Necessity 158 PART III TRUTH AND MEANING 18. Rudolph Carnap Meaning and Necessity 173 19. J. Hintikka Semantics for Propositional Attitudes 181 ix x Contents 20. Donald Davidson Truth and M eaning 196 21. Arthur Pap Note on the "Semantic" and tlze "Ahsolute" Concept ol Truth 208 22. Wilfrid Sellars Truth and 'Correspondence' 214 23. J. L. Austin The Meaning ola Word 232 24. William P. AIston M eaning and Use 243 PART IV PROBLEMS OF KNOWLEDGE 25. Roderick M. Chisholm Epistemic Terms 259 26. Roderick M. Chisholm On Some Marks olEvidence 268 27. Roderick Firth Chisholm and the Ethics ol Belief 282 28. Roderick Firth Coherence, Certainty, and Epistemic Priority 290 29.
    [Show full text]