Erkenntnis 62 (1):29 - 46 (2005)
|Abstract||In this paper, I will argue that Radfords real question is not the conceptual one, as it is usually taken, but the causal one, and show that Waltons account, which treats Radfords puzzle as the conceptual question, is not a satisfactory solution to it. I will also argue that contrary to what Walton claims, the causal question is not only important, but also closely related to the conceptual and normative questions. What matters is not that Walton has not solved Radfords puzzle per se, but that he has not recognized the importance of this puzzle. While doing this, I will suggest a revision to the cognitive theory of emotion.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lewis Powell (2012). How to Refrain From Answering Kripke's Puzzle. Philosophical Studies 161 (2):287-308.
M. A. Moffett (2002). A Note on the Relationship Between Mates' Puzzle and Frege's Puzzle. Journal of Semantics 19 (2):159-166.
Assaf Sharon & Levi Spectre (2010). Dogmatism Repuzzled. Philosophical Studies 148 (2).
Stefan Wintein (2012). On the Behavior of True and False. Minds and Machines 22 (1):1-24.
István Aranyosi (2009). The Reappearing Act. Acta Analytica 24 (1):1-10.
Philip Atkins (2013). A Pragmatic Solution to Ostertag's Puzzle. Philosophical Studies 163 (2):359-365.
Brian Rabern & Landon Rabern (2008). A Simple Solution to the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever. [REVIEW] Analysis 68 (2):105-112.
Gabriel Uzquiano (2010). How to Solve the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever in Two Questions. Analysis 70 (1):39-44.
Gregory Wheeler & Pedro Barahona (2012). Why the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever Cannot Be Solved in Less Than Three Questions. Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):493-503.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #78,732 of 549,533 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,533 )
How can I increase my downloads?