David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Marcin Milkowski Konrad Talmud-Kaminski (ed.), Beyond Description: Naturalism and Normativity. College Publications (2010)
I argue that Quine’s rejection of Carnap’s “radical” (FLPV; TDE 39) and “phenomenalistic” (FSS 15-16) reductionism—as it is manifest in the Aufbau—may be understood in terms of a broader historical context. In particular, it may be understood as a rejection of a contemporary variant of the second horn of Meno’s Paradox. As a result, Quine’s motivation to adopt naturalism may be understood independently of his pragmatic concerns. According to Quine, it was simply unreasonable (i.e. paradoxical) to adopt a Carnapian phenomenalistic/mentalistic (non-naturalistic) approach to epistemology. Armed with what could only be his invigorated faith in the naturalistic method, he was then, as I see it, equipped to break what we may characterize as the physicalistic version of the naturalistic circle. This is a repudiation that, I show, entails his rejection of “attenuated” (FLPV; TDE 41) reductionism and concomitantly, his rejection of “analyticity,” if not “certainty” altogether. As a result, Quine could simultaneously dismiss what we may characterize as the Humean version of the naturalistic circle. Meanwhile, the practicality of an admittedly fallible science could be unashamedly embraced, although not just for the sake of its practicality—as Quine himself seems to misleadingly indicate throughout his work—but instead, as just noted, to avoid the seemingly Platonic paradox of Aufbauian reductionism.
|Keywords||W.V. Quine Carnap|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Cheng-Hung Tsai (2002). Generalizing and Normalizing Quine's Epistemology. Philosophical Writings 19:3-21.
Wolfgang Spohn, Carnap Versus Quine, or Aprioristic Versus Naturalized Epistemology, or a Lesson From Dispositions.
Eric J. Loomis (2006). Empirical Equivalence in the Quine-Carnap Debate. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):499–508.
Richard Creath (1991). Every Dogma has its Day. Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):347-389.
P. M. S. Hacker (2006). Passing by the Naturalistic Turn: On Quine's Cul-de-Sac. Philosophy 81 (2):231-253.
Paul Gregory (2003). Putting the Bite Back Into. Principia 7 (1-2):115-129.
Rogério Passos Severo (2009). Quine – Peter Hylton. [REVIEW] Philosophical Quarterly 59 (237):738-740.
Christopher Hookway (1994). Naturalized Epistemology and Epistemic Evaluation. Inquiry 37 (4):465 – 485.
Paul A. Gregory (2003). Two Dogmas'–All Bark and No Bite? Carnap and Quine on Analyticity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633–648.
Marian David (1996). Analyticity, Carnap, Quine, and Truth. Philosophical Perspectives 10:281 - 296.
Paul Gregory (2003). 'Two Dogmas'--All Bark and No Bite? Carnap and Quine on Analyticity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633 - 648.
Roger F. Gibson (1994). Quine and Davidson: Two Naturalized Epistemologists. Inquiry 37 (4):449 – 463.
Robert Sinclair (2007). Quine's Naturalized Epistemology and the Third Dogma of Empiricism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 45 (3):455-472.
Added to index2011-08-03
Total downloads171 ( #23,810 of 1,926,202 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #87,068 of 1,926,202 )
How can I increase my downloads?