David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Religious Studies 37 (1):93-101 (2001)
In an important paper, Clifford Williams advanced a Lockean-style argument to justify the parity thesis, viz., that there is no intellectual advantage to Christian physicalism or Christian dualism. In an article in Religious Studies I offered a critique of Williams's parity thesis and he has published a rejoinder to me in the same journal centring on my rejection of topic neutrality as an appropriate way to set up the mind–body debate. In this surrejoinder to Williams, I present his three main arguments and respond to each: The dualist rejection of topic neutrality is flawed because it expresses a conceptual approach to the mind–body problem instead of the preferable empirical approach. The latter favours physicalism and, in any case, clearly supports topic neutrality. If the dualist rejects the first argument, then a second parity thesis can be advanced in which an essentialist view of soul and the brain are presented in which each is essentially a thinking and feeling entity. Thus, an essentialist parity thesis is preserved. If the dualist rejects the second argument, a new topic neutrality emerges in the dialectic, so topic neutrality is unavoidable. Against the first argument, I claim that Williams makes two central confusions that undermine his case and that he fails to show how the mind–body debate can be settled empirically. Against the second argument, I claim that it leaves Williams vulnerable to a topic-neutral approach to God and it merely proffers a verbal shift with a new dualism between normal and ‘special’ matter. Against the third argument, I point out that it misrepresents the dualist viewpoint and leads to two counterintuitive features that follow from topic neutrality
|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
Clifford Williams (1996). Christian Materialism and the Parity Thesis. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 39 (1):1 - 14.
Nick Huggett (2000). Reflections on Parity Nonconservation. Philosophy of Science 67 (2):219-241.
Mozaffar Qizilbash (2007). The Mere Addition Paradox, Parity and Vagueness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (1):129–151.
Sam Coleman (2011). There is No Argument That the Mind Extends. Journal of Philosophy 108 (2):100-108.
Marvin C. Sterling (1978). Topic-Neutrality and the Identity Theory. Southwest Philosophical Studies 3 (April):41-48.
George J. Agich (1983). Disease and Value: A Rejection of the Value-Neutrality Thesis. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 4 (1).
R. Batchelor (2011). Topic-Neutrality. Mind 120 (477):1-9.
J. P. Moreland (1998). Locke's Parity Thesis About Thinking Matter: A Response to Williams. Religious Studies 34 (3):253-259.
Clifford Williams (2000). Topic Neutrality and the Mind–Body Problem. Religious Studies 36 (2):203-207.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #235,515 of 1,938,440 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #440,814 of 1,938,440 )
How can I increase my downloads?