A note about a Quinean argument against direct reference
Philosophia 24 (1-2):157-170 (1994)
| 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: 5,875 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGraham Oppy (2002). Paley's Argument for Design. Philo 5 (2):161-173.
Ishtiyaque Haji (2008). Reflections on the Incompatibilist's Direct Argument. Erkenntnis 68 (1):1 - 19.
Michael J. Shaffer & Jason A. Warnick (2004). Bursting Bealer's Bubble: How the Starting Points Argument Begs the Question of Foundationalism Against Quine. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34 (1):87-106.
Michael A. Bishop (2003). The Pessimistic Induction, the Flight to Reference and the Metaphysical Zoo. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (2):161 – 178.
Kirk A. Ludwig (1993). Direct Reference in Thought and Speech. Communication and Cognition 26 (1):49-76.
Thomas Hofweber (2005). Supervenience and Object-Dependent Properties. Journal of Philosophy 102 (1):5-32.
Otávio Bueno (2010). Quine's Double Standard: Undermining the Indispensability Argument Via the Indeterminacy of Reference. Principia 7 (1-2):17-39.
Nathan Salmon (2008). That F. Philosophical Studies 141 (2):263 - 280.
Paul D. Thorn (2011). Undercutting Defeat Via Reference Properties of Differing Arity: A Reply to Pust. Analysis 71 (4):662-667.
Matthew H. Slater (2005). A Contextualist Reply to the Direct Argument. Philosophical Studies 125 (1):115 - 137.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads4 ( #180,404 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
