Is counterpart theory inadequate?
Journal of Philosophical Logic 5 (1):79 - 89 (1976)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,653 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesM. J. Cresswell (2004). Adequacy Conditions for Counterpart Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):28 – 41.
M. J. Cresswell (2004). Adequacy Conditions for Counterpart Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):28 – 41.
M. J. Cresswell (2004). Adequacy Conditions for Counterpart Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (1):28 – 41.
Alessandro Torza (2011). Models for Counterparts. Axiomathes 21 (4):553-579.
Delia Graff Fara (2008). Relative-Sameness Counterpart Theory. Review of Symbolic Logic 1 (2):167-189.
Michael Fara & Timothy Williamson (2005). Counterparts and Actuality. Mind 114 (453):1-30.
Murali Ramachandran (2008). Kripkean Counterpart Theory. Polish Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):89-106.
Todd Buras (2006). Counterpart Theory, Natural Properties, and Essentialism. Journal of Philosophy 103 (1):27-42.
Gordon Belot (1995). New Work for Counterpart Theorists: Determinism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (2):185-195.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads13 ( #87,816 of 548,984 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
