David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 69 (4):621-622 (1995)
Before I come to Professor Anderson’s objections to the argument in question, I should like to clarify just a few points. The argument that I presented is taken immediately from Mortimer Adler’s presentation of it, so let us call it ‘Adler’s Argument,’ though in fact its origins go all the way back to Aristotle. My reading of Adler’s presentation of the argument was that he gave it in two different forms, one categorical, the other hypothetical. Both forms of the argument, of course, have effectively the same conclusion, which is, in the case of its categorical version, that “concepts are not physical beings” [proposition 3 for Professor Anderson] and, in the case of its hypothetical version, that “A concept is not an act of a bodily organ” [proposition 6 for Professor Anderson]. Now Adler concludes immediately from propositions 3/6 that “the power of conceptual thought is an immaterial power.” I argued in my original article that it was not obvious that this proposition was equivalent to propositions 3/6 and so I presented an additional argument to the bridge the gap [propositions a, b, c and d for Professor Anderson]. Let us call this ‘Casey’s Addendum.’.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Anderson (1995). Reply to Professor Gerard Casey. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 69 (4):619-620.
James F. Anderson (1949). Remarks on Professor Cunningham's "Reply". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 10 (2):262.
Phillip Cole (2002). Reply to Professor Brender and Professor Byrne. Social Philosophy Today 18:197-206.
Billy Joe Lucas (1997). The Second Epistemic Way Revisited: Reply to Professor Beard's, 'Professor Lucas on Omniscience'. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 42 (3):143-162.
Henry Leonard (1961). A Reply to Professor Wheatley's Note on Professor Leonard's Analysis of Interrogatives, Etc. Philosophy of Science 28 (January):55-64.
J. G. C. Anderson (1919). Professor F. Haverfield. The Classical Review 33 (7-8):165-166.
Herbert A. Simon (1983). I. Mathematical Modeling of Election Predictions: Final Reply to Professor Aubert. Inquiry 26 (2):231 – 232.
R. G. Collingwood & E. Harrison (1924). Furneaux, Haverfield, and Anderson Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae. Edited by H. Furneaux. Second Edition Revised and Largely Rewritten by J. G. C. Anderson, with Contributions by the Late Professor F. Haverfield. One Vol. 8vo. Pp. Lxxxvii + 192. Twenty-Five Maps, Plans, and Illustrations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922. 7s. 6d. Net. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 38 (1-2):22-24.
Billy Joe Lucas (2002). Logical Constructivism, Modal Logic, and Metaphysics: A Reply to Professor Pruss' ``Professor Lucas' Second Epistemic Way''. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52 (3):143-157.
W. T. H. (1877). Professor Anderson's Translation of the Edda. Journal of Speculative Philosophy 11 (1):109 -.
Alan Ross Anderson (1962). On Professor Martin's Beliefs. Journal of Philosophy 59 (21):600-607.
Thomas Donaldson (1990). Social Contracts and Corporations: A Reply to Hodapp. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 9 (2):133 - 137.
Gilbert Ryle (1950). Logic and Professor Anderson. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 28 (3):137 – 153.
W. A. Merrylees (1929). Some Features of Professor Anderson's Logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):130 – 138.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads29 ( #132,758 of 1,793,171 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #169,500 of 1,793,171 )
How can I increase my downloads?