David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Erkenntnis (1):1-24 (2013)
One way to challenge the substantiveness of a particular philosophical issue is to argue that those who debate the issue are engaged in a merely verbal dispute. For example, it has been maintained that the apparent disagreement over the mind/brain identity thesis is a merely verbal dispute, and thus that there is no substantive question of whether or not mental properties are identical to neurological properties. The goal of this paper is to help clarify the relationship between mere verbalness and substantiveness. I first argue that we should see mere verbalness as a certain kind of discourse defect that arises when the parties differ as to what each takes to be the immediate question under discussion. I then argue that mere verbalness, so understood, does not imply that the question either party is attempting to address is a non-substantive one. Even if it turns out that the parties to the mind/brain dispute are addressing subtly different questions, these might both be substantive questions to which their respective metaphysical views provide substantive answers. One reason it is tempting to reach deflationary conclusions from the charge of mere verbalness is that we fail to distinguish it from the claim that a sentence under dispute is, in a certain sense, indisputable. Another reason is that we fail to distinguish mere verbalness from a certain sort of indeterminacy. While indisputability and indeterminacy plausibly capture forms of nonsubstantiveness, I argue that mere verbalness is insufficient to establish either indisputability or indeterminacy
|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
Gerald Marsh (2010). Is the Hirsch-Sider Dispute Merely Verbal? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):459-469.
Alan Sidelle (2007). The Method of Verbal Dispute. Philosophical Topics 35 (1/2):83-113.
Karen Bennett (2009). Composition, Colocation, and Metaontology. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press.
David J. Chalmers (2011). Verbal Disputes. Philosophical Review 120 (4):515-566.
C. S. I. Jenkins (2014). Merely Verbal Disputes. Erkenntnis 79 (1):11-30.
Jiri Benovsky (2011). Endurance, Perdurance, and Metaontology. SATS (2):159-177.
Timothy Sundell (2011). Disagreements About Taste. Philosophical Studies 155 (2):267-288.
Fritz J. McDonald (2009). A Deflationary Metaphysics of Morality. Acta Analytica 25 (3):285-298.
Paul Audi (2013). How to Rule Out Disjunctive Properties. Noûs 47 (4):748-766.
Eli Hirsch (2005). Physical-Object Ontology, Verbal Disputes, and Common Sense. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (1):67–97.
Anna Brożek (2012). Spory rzeczowe i słowne. Filozofia Nauki 4.
Stojanovic (2011). When (True) Disagreement Gives Out. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (32):183-195.
William H. Hanson (1989). Two Kinds of Deviance. History and Philosophy of Logic 10 (1):15-28.
Stephen P. Stich & Shaun Nichols (1995). Second Thoughts on Simulation. In Martin Davies & Tony Stone (eds.), Mental Simulation. Blackwell.
Marian David (1997). Two Conceptions of the Synthetic A Priori. In L. E. Hahn (ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick Chisholm (The Library of Living Philosophers). Chicago: Open Court. 629--651.
Added to index2012-09-05
Total downloads37 ( #43,781 of 1,096,395 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #44,086 of 1,096,395 )
How can I increase my downloads?