|Abstract||Naturalism as spare as this is by no means platitudinous. However, most opposition to naturalism in contemporary philosophy is not opposition to naturalism in this basic sense, but to a more specific view of the relevance of science to philosophy. Similarly on the pro-naturalistic side. What most self-styled naturalists have in mind is the more specific view. As a result, I think, both sides of the contemporary debate pay insufficient attention to a different kind of philosophical naturalism — a different view of the impact of science on philosophy. This different view is certainly not new — it has been with us at least since Hume — but nor is it prominent in many contemporary debates|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
David Copp (2003). Why Naturalism? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (2):179-200.
Jaegwon Kim (2003). The American Origins of Philosophical Naturalism. Journal of Philosophical Research 28:83-98.
Steven Horst (2009). Naturalisms in Philosophy of Mind. Philosophy Compass 4 (1):219-254.
Paul Redding, From Object Naturalism, to Subject Naturalism, to Idealism: On Price's “Naturalism Without Representationalism”.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads83 ( #9,012 of 548,939 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,203 of 548,939 )
How can I increase my downloads?