|Abstract||Coincidence (e.g., of a statue and the piece of bronze which constitutes it) comes in two varieties – permanent and temporary. Moderate monism (about coincidence) is the position that permanent coincidence, but not temporary coincidence, entails identity. Extreme monism (also known as the stage theory) is the position that even temporary coincidence entails identity. Pluralists are opponents of monism tout court. The intuitively obvious, commonsensical position (= my own position) is moderate monism. It is therefore important to see if it can be sustained|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Michael Lockwood (1981). What Was Russell's Neutral Monism? Midwest Studes in Philosophy 6 (1):143-58.
Erik C. Banks (2010). Neutral Monism Reconsidered. Philosophical Psychology 23 (2):173-187.
Michael V. Antony (2003). Davidson's Argument for Monism. Synthese 135 (1):1-12.
Sophie Gibb (2006). Why Davidson is Not a Property Epiphenomenalist. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (3):407 – 422.
Uriah Kriegel (2012). Kantian Monism. Philosophical Papers 41 (1):23-56.
W. L. Stanton (1983). Supervenience and Psychophysical Law in Anomalous Monism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64 (January):72-9.
Rex Welshon (1999). Anomalous Monism and Epiphenomenalism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 80 (1):103-120.
Jim Stone (2009). Moderate Monism: Reply to Noonan and Mackie. Analysis 69 (1):91-95.
Harold W. Noonan (2008). Moderate Monism and Modality. Analysis 68 (297):88–94.
Pablo Rychter (2011). How Coincidence Bears on Persistence. Philosophia 39 (4):759-770.
Added to index2010-07-25
Total downloads16 ( #81,690 of 722,701 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,701 )
How can I increase my downloads?