Foster's Case Against Matter
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This paper has two parts. The first is an exposition of John Foster's argument that ultimate reality, whatever else it might be, is not physical, and could not be. The second part is a somewhat tentative discussion of this argument, in which I consider ways it might be challenged or amended. I suggest that while Foster's argument may not render materialism untenable, at the very least it forces the materialist to adopt certain other controversial views, and so is a force to be reckoned with. I shall use the term physical anti-realism to denote the thesis that ultimate reality does not, and cannot possibly, contain anything material or physical. By physicalism I mean the doctrine that ultimate reality can be physical, at least in part. What Foster means by "ultimate reality" will be explained shortly, but it can be taken roughly to mean: the world as it really is, objectively, as opposed to how it appears to be, or how we conceive it to be. The full-scale version of Foster's argument for physical anti-realism is to be found in the first eleven chapters of The Case for Idealism.2 In the remaining six chapters, he argues that the best way of accommodating this negative result is to adopt a version of phenomenalism, by holding that the physical world exists, but only as a "creation" of contingent constraints on the course of human sensory experience. In what follows, I shall be concerned only with the negative part of Foster's argument, his case against physicalism. Foster himself has recently provided a shorter version of his argument, in "The Succinct Case for Idealism".3 The latter work, henceforth The Succinct Case, as opposed to just The Case, is mainly given over to the anti-realist argument, and provides an excellent introduction to it. The exposition which follows may well be longer than the entire Succinct Case.
|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
John Foster (2008). A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism. Oxford University Press.
John A. Foster (2000). The Nature of Perception. New York: Oxford University Press.
John Foster (1996). The Succinct Case for Idealism. In Howard Robinson (ed.), Objections to Physicalism. Clarendon Press 293-313.
Mari Mikkola (2010). Is Everything Relative? Anti-Realism, Truth and Feminism. In A. Hazlett (ed.), New Waves in Metaphysics. Palgrave-Macmillan
Keith Frankish (2007). The Anti-Zombie Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (229):650–666.
H. Langsam (2012). A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism, by John Foster. Mind 121 (483):812-816.
R. W. Fischer (2011). A World For Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism. By John Foster. Heythrop Journal 52 (1):170-171.
P. Coates (2010). A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism * by John Foster. Analysis 70 (4):795-797.
Peter Forrest (2009). A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism – John Foster. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (237):740-743.
Agustín Vicente (2004). The Overdetermination Argument Revisited. Minds and Machines 14 (3):331-47.
Jared Bates (2000). Comments on Foster's 'On Tarski's Theory of Logical Consequence--A Reply to Bates'. Southwest Philosophy Review 16 (2):191-194.
Timothy A. Kenyon (2000). Indeterminacy and Realism. In Andrew Brook, Don Ross & David L. Thompson (eds.), Dennett's Philosophy: A Comprehensive Assessment. MIT Press 77--94.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads13 ( #280,846 of 1,911,469 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?