Skip to main content
Log in

Why the new theorist may still need to explain cognitive significance but not mind doing it

  • Discussion
  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • H. Wettstein [1986], “Has Semantics Rested on A Mistake?”,Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 83, 185–209, reprinted in Wettstein [1991], H. Wettstein [1991],Has Semantics Rested On A Mistake? An Other Essays, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California 109–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Wettstein [1988], “Cognitive Significance Without Cognitive Content,”Mind 97, 1–28, reprinted in Wettstein [1991], H. Wetstein [1991],Has Semantics Rested On A Mistake? And Other Essays, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 132–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Wettstein [1989], “Turning The Tables on Frege, or How Is it That ‘Hesperus Is Hesperus’ Is Trivial” inPhilosophical Perspectives, Volume 3,Philosophy of Mind and Action Theory, edited by J. Tomberlin, California, Atascadero Ridgeview, 317–39, reprinted in Wettstein [1991], H. Wettstein [1991],Has Semantics Rested On A Mistake? And Other Essays, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 159–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • H. Wettstein [1991],Has Semantics Rested On A Mistake? And Other Essays, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garavaso, P. Why the new theorist may still need to explain cognitive significance but not mind doing it. Philosophia 28, 455–465 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379794

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379794

Keywords

Navigation