REFERENCES
Ackerman, D. F. (1981): 'The Informativeness of Philosophical Analysis', Midwest Studies in Philosophy VI, 313–320.
Ackerman, D. F. (1986): 'Essential Properties and Philosophical Analysis', Midwest Studies in Philosophy XI, 305–313.
Bealer, G. (1982): Quality and Concept. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chisholm, R. M. and Potter, R. C. (1981): 'The Paradox of Analysis: A Solution', Metaphilosophy 12(1), 1–6.
Jubien, M. (1993): Ontology, Modality and the Fallacy of Reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
King, Jeffrey C. (1994): 'Can Propositions be Naturalistically Acceptable?', Midwest Studies in Philosophy XIX, 53–75.
King, Jeffrey C. (1995): 'Structured Propositions and Complex Predicates', NOUS 29(4), 516–535.
King, Jeffrey C. (1996): 'Structured Propositions and Sentence Structure', forthcoming in Journal of Philosophical Logic.
May, R. (1985): Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, Cambridge, Mass.
Putnam, H. (1975): Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2, pp. 215–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rieber, S. D. (1994): 'The Paradoxes of Analysis and Synonymy', Erkenntnis 41, 103–116.
Sosa, E. (1983): 'Classical Analysis', The Journal of Philosophy 80(11), 695–710.
Thomason, N. (1992): 'Some Problems with Chisholm and Potter's Solution to the Paradox of Analysis', Metaphilosophy 23(1–2), 132–138.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
King, J.C. What Is a Philosophical Analysis?. Philosophical Studies 90, 155–179 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004254128428
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004254128428