Philosophical Perspectives 21 (1):475–494 (2007)
|Abstract||Identity theorists make claims like ‘pain = C-fibre stimulation’. These claims must be necessary if true, given that terms like ‘pain’ and ‘C-fibre stimulation’ are rigid. Yet there is no doubt that such claims appear contingent. It certainly seems that there could have been C-fibre stimulation without pains or vice versa. So identity theorists owe us an explanation of why such claims should appear contingent if they are in fact necessary.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Steven R. Bayne (1988). Kripke's Cartesian Argument. Philosophia 18 (July):265-270.
Michael E. Levin (1975). Kripke's Argument Against the Identity Thesis. Journal of Philosophy 72 (March):149-67.
William G. Lycan (1974). Kripke and the Materialists. Journal of Philosophy 71 (October):677-89.
Terence E. Horgan & John L. Tienson (2001). Deconstructing New Wave Materialism. In Carl Gillett & Barry M. Loewer (eds.), Physicalism and its Discontents. Cambridge University Press.
Janet Levin (2011). Reconstruing Modal Intuitions. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (1):97-112.
George A. Sher (1977). Kripke, Cartesian Intuitions, and Materialism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):227-38.
Colin McGinn (1977). Anomalous Monism and Kripke's Cartesian Intuitions. Analysis 2 (January):78-80.
Peter Hanks (2008). Conceiving of Pain. Dialogue 47 (2):351-376.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads67 ( #13,299 of 551,105 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,370 of 551,105 )
How can I increase my downloads?