Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Seems plausible to accept the thesis that “it is not objects per se that have a special status in the mind of the child”. I grasp this thesis in the sense that the only stuff that infants can individuate are not objects, but this not implies that objects do not make the core contribution to our (adult) metaphysical conceptual scheme, i.e. to constitute a platform for basic adaptive environmental performances in adult life. Plausibly, any young human cognitive system needs to stabilize capacities to track holes and shadows since these non concrete entities could be indispensable in a world perceived as populated with objects.|
|Keywords||Objects Individuation Tracking systems Metaphysics of infants|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Jeffrey Goodman (2007). A Novel Category of Vague Abstracta. Metaphysica 8 (1):79-96.
Crawford L. Elder (2011). Familiar Objects and Their Shadows. Cambridge University Press.
Iris Einheuser (2009). Some Remarks on “Language-Created Entities”. Acta Analytica 24 (3):185-192.
Daniel A. Kaufman (2002). Composite Objects and the Abstract/Concrete Distinction. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:215-238.
Panayot Butchvarov (1957). Concrete Entities and Concrete Relations. The Review of Metaphysics 10 (3):412 - 422.
Urszula Wybraniec-Skardowska (1989). On the Eliminatibility of Ideal Linguistic Entities. Studia Logica 48 (4):587 - 615.
Tyron Goldschmidt (2012). Metaphysical Nihilism and Necessary Being. Philosophia 40 (4):799-820.
Added to index2009-03-20
Total downloads18 ( #74,653 of 741,159 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #9,670 of 741,159 )
How can I increase my downloads?