History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (2):131-134 (2003)
|Abstract||Let me begin my reply to Professor Roark’s objections in good old scholastic fashion, by a distinction. Philosophical objections can be good in two senses. In the first, trivial sense, a good objection is one that convincingly shows the presence of a genuine error in a position or reasoning. Such objections are useful, but uninspiring. In the second, non-trivial sense, a good philosophical objection broadens and deepens our understanding of the problems at issue, whether or not they manage to refute the opponent’s position. In this reply I am going to argue that even if Roark’s objections may not be necessarily good in the first, trivial sense, they are..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
William Ramsey (1990). Where Does the Self-Refutation Objection Take Us? Inquiry 33 (December):453-65.
Tom Carson (1993). Hare on Utilitarianism and Intuitive Morality. Erkenntnis 39 (3):305 - 331.
Anselm (1979). St. Anselm's Proslogion with a Reply on Behalf of the Fool. University of Notre Dame Press.
Gyula Klima, Saint Anselm's Proof: A Problem of Reference, Intentional Identity and Mutual Understanding.
Tony Roark (2003). Aristotle's Definition of Time Is Not Circular. Ancient Philosophy 23 (2):301-318.
Tony Roark (2004). Why Aristotle Says There Is No Time Without Change. Apeiron 37 (3):227 - 246.
Tony Roark (2003). Conceptual Closure in Anselm's Proof. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (1):1-14.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #201,730 of 548,984 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?