Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Studies 129 (3):627–635 (2006)
|Abstract||A critical discussion of selected chapters of the first volume of Scott Soames’s Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. It is argued that this volume falls short of the minimal standards of scholarship appropriate to a work that advertises itself as a history, and, further, that Soames’s frequent heuristic simplifications and distortions, since they are only sporadically identified as such, are more likely confuse than to enlighten the student. These points are illustrated by reference to Soames’s discussions of Russell’s logical system and the place of the theory of descriptions in his ontological development. It is then argued that Soames’s interpretation of the point of G.E. Moore’s famous “proof” of an external world, while not straightforwardly undermined by the textual evidence, is nonetheless questionable, and plausibly overlooks what is novel in Moore’s discussion. This, it is argued, in his attempt to offer a common sense “refutation of idealism”, rather than (as is more commonly supposed) an anti-skeptical argument “from differential certainty”.|
|Keywords||Soames Russell Moore ontology external world theory of descriptions Meinong descriptions proof of an external world|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christopher Pincock, Comments on Scott Soames, Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, Volume I.
Daniel Stoljar (2006). Should Moore Have Followed His Own Method? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129 (3):609 - 618.
Daniel Stoljar (2006). Review: Should Moore Have Followed His Own Method? [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129 (3):609 - 618.
Michael Kremer (2008). Soames on Russell's Logic: A Reply. Philosophical Studies 139 (2):209 - 212.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads48 ( #26,538 of 722,940 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,940 )
How can I increase my downloads?