Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Studies 38 (3):305-308 (1980)
|Abstract||Norman Malcolm has maintained that impure memory is a de dicto mixture of factual memory and later knowledge or inference. E. Stiffler objects that impure memory must be given a de re analysis because later knowledge must be applied to earlier memory to yield impure memory. I show that the conditions of Stiffler's de re analysis are neither necessary nor sufficient and that Malcolm can easily give a de dicto solution to the application problem.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeffrey Blustein (2008). The Moral Demands of Memory. Cambridge University Press.
Gianfranco Dalla Barba (2000). Memory, Consciousness, and Temporality: What is Retrieved and Who Exactly is Controlling the Retrieval? In Endel Tulving (ed.), Memory, Consciousness, and the Brain: The Tallinn Conference.
Guy Mcclung (1972). Malcolm and Zemach on the Definition of Memory. Dianoia 40:40-44.
Stanley Munsat (1965). A Note on Factual Memory. Philosophical Studies 16 (3):33-39.
Norman Malcolm (1963). A Definition of Factual Memory. In Knowledge and Certainty. Cornell University Press.
P. Graf & B. Uttl (2001). Prospective Memory: A New Focus for Research. Consciousness and Cognition 10 (4):437-450.
John T. Saunders (1965). Does All Memory Imply Factual Memory? Analysis 25 (January):109-115.
Andrew Naylor (1983). Justification in Memory Knowledge. Synthese 55 (2):269 - 286.
Eric Stiffler (1980). Malcolm on Impure Memory. Philosophical Studies 38 (October):299-304.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,430 of 723,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 723,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?