Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):381-396 (2007)
|Abstract||(NEG) is widely accepted both by internalist and by externalists. In fact, there have been very few opponents of (NEG). Timothy Williamson (e.g., 2000) rejects (NEG), for reasons that have by now received a great deal of scrutiny.2 John McDowell also rejects (NEG), but his reasons have not received the scrutiny they deserve. This is in large part because those reasons have not been well understood. We believe that McDowell’s challenge to (NEG) is important, worthy of fair assessment, and maybe even correct. In this paper, we explain McDowell’s challenge to (NEG), and also explain how McDowell can address a seemingly fatal objection to his view.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Carl B. Sachs (2012). Resisting the Disenchantment of Nature: McDowell and the Question of Animal Minds. Inquiry 55 (2):131-147.
John MacFarlane (2008). McDowell's Kantianism. Theoria 70 (2-3):250-265.
Jes Vega Encabo (2006). Appearances and Disjunctions: Empirical Authority in McDowell's Space of Reasons. Teorema 25 (1):63-81.
Anil Gomes (2011). McDowell's Disjunctivism and Other Minds. Inquiry 54 (3):277-292.
Jon Robert Gajewski (2007). Neg-Raising and Polarity. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (3):289-328.
Charles Travis (2005). A Sense of Occasion. Philosophical Quarterly 55 (219):286–314.
Duncan Pritchard (2003). McDowell on Reasons, Externalism and Scepticism. European Journal of Philosophy 11 (3):273-294.
Ram Neta & Duncan Pritchard (2007). McDowell and the New Evil Genius. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2):381–396.
Cheryl K. Chen (2006). Empirical Content and Rational Constraint. Inquiry 49 (3):242 – 264.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads33 ( #36,559 of 549,084 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,333 of 549,084 )
How can I increase my downloads?