Does Physicalism Require a Supervenience Thesis?
| Abstract | Many authors have taken up the challenge of formulating physicalism as a supervenience thesis. These endeavors have met with varying response, but it seems that the general consensus still remains that a supervenience thesis that is both sufficient and necessary for physicalism has yet to be developed. Terence Horgan1 and Jaegwon Kim2 have most famously argued that supervenience theses are not sufficiently strong for physicalism. Nonetheless, several recent articles suggest that there are philosophers who still hold out hope for some type of supervenience of the mental upon the physical being, if not both sufficient and necessary, at least necessary for physicalism.3 In this paper, I will 1) investigate some of the motivation for finding a supervenience thesis that characterizes physicalism, 2) briefly review the types of supervenience theses that have been proposed as necessary (or necessary and sufficient) for physicalism, and 3) investigate in some detail the recent supervenience thesis proposed by Frank Jackson and expounded upon by Gene Witmer. Jackson, in his recent book, claims to have a supervenience thesis that is both necessary and sufficient for physicalism. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesWarren Shrader (2008). On the Relevance of Supervenience Theses to Physicalism. Acta Analytica 23 (3):257-271.
Thomas Gardner (2005). Supervenience Physicalism: Meeting the Demands of Determination and Explanation. Philosophical Papers 34 (2):189-208.
Jessica M. Wilson (2005). Supervenience-Based Formulations of Physicalism. Noûs 39 (3):426-459.
Erhan Demircioglu (2011). Supervenience and Reductive Physicalism. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 7 (1):25-35.
Andrew R. Bailey (1998). Supervenience and Physicalism. Synthese 117 (1):53-73.
Terence E. Horgan (1981). Token Physicalism, Supervenience, and the Generality of Physics. Synthese 49 (December):395-413.
Robert Kirk (1996). Strict Implication, Supervenience, and Physicalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (2):244-57.
Tom Polger (2013). Physicalism and Moorean Supervenience. Analytic Philosophy 54 (1):72-92.
Ten G. Elshof (1997). Supervenient Difficulties with Nonreductive Physicalism: A Critical Analysis of Supervenience Physicalism. Kinesis 24 (1):3-22.
D. Gene Witmer (1999). Supervenience Physicalism and the Problem of Extras. Southern Journal of Philosophy 37 (2):315-31.
Jurgen Schroder (2006). Physicalism and Strict Implication. Synthese 151 (3):537-545.
Paul K. Moser (1992). Physicalism and Global Supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 30 (1):71-82.
Joseph A. Baltimore (forthcoming). Type Physicalism and Causal Exclusion. Journal of Philosophical Research.
Janice Dowell (2006). Formulating the Thesis of Physicalism: An Introduction. Philosophical Studies 131 (1):1-23.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads39 ( #29,838 of 549,128 )Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #10,383 of 549,128 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
