Bill Wallace (a conversation in a bar)
Inquiry 18 (3):309 – 323 (1975)
| Abstract | The dialogue is concerned to do two things. In the first place it seeks to display the extreme difficulty of discussing conceptual issues with students whose academic backgrounds are the social sciences. Its point is not to criticize any element of those disciplines per se, but to illustrate the sort of misunderstandings which many beginning students appear to acquire from them. The second point is to offer a reminder that perhaps the part of philosophizing which requires the most care is the stating of just the question which one wishes to raise ? the getting into position, as it were, to think to any end | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesChad Lakies (2010). Deconstructing the Secular Magisterium: Voices Past and Present for Conversations of the Future. Heythrop Journal 51 (6):921-930.
Matthew Boyle (2010). Bar-on on Self-Knowledge and Expression. Acta Analytica 25 (1):9-20.
David Vessey & Chris Blauwkamp (2006). Hans-Georg Gadamer “the Incapacity for Conversation” (1972). Continental Philosophy Review 39 (4):351-359.
Michael Rathjen (1991). The Role of Parameters in Bar Rule and Bar Induction. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (2):715-730.
Robert T. Osborn (2008). Bill Poteat. Tradition and Discovery 35 (2):44-47.
Jerome Malitz (1983). Downward Transfer of Satisfiability for Sentences of L1,. Journal of Symbolic Logic 48 (4):1146 - 1150.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-02-04Total downloads2 ( #232,211 of 548,969 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
