Quine's word and object
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Western philosophy since Descartes has been marked by certain seminal books whose concern is the nature and scope of human knowledge. After Descartes Meditations, works by Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant are perhaps the most familiar and enduringly influential examples. Quine’s Word and Object (1960) does not conspicuously announce itself as a successor to these, but that is very much what it is. And after Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, it is amongst the most likely of the philosophical fruits of the 20th century to attain something like the prestige of those earlier works (setting aside the century’s great achievements in pure logic and immediately related areas). Yet unlike so many of those earlier works, Quine’s book has the rare virtue in philosophy that it is possible, for readers here and now, to entertain seriously the possibility that its principal claims are literally true.
|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
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? Erkenntnis 48 (1):85-104.
W. V. Quine (1960). Word and Object. The Mit Press.
Donald Davidson (2003). Quine's Externalism. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):281-297.
Byong-Chul Park (1998). Wittgenstein's Use of the Word 'Aspekt'. Synthese 115 (1):131-140.
Panu Raatikainen (2005). On How to Avoid the Indeterminacy of Translation. Southern Journal of Philosophy 43 (3):395-413.
W. V. O. Quine (1960). Word & Object. The Mit Press.
R. L. Goodstein (1961). Book Review:Word and Object W. Van Orman Quine. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 28 (2):217-.
Olaf Mueller (1998). Does the Quine/Duhem Thesis Prevent Us From Defining Analyticity? On Fallacy in Quine. Erkenntnis 48 (1):81 - 99.
Alex Byrne (2007). Soames on Quine and Davidson. Philosophical Studies 135 (3):439-449.
Roger F. Gibson (ed.) (2004). The Cambridge Companion to Quine. Cambridge University Press.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?