Self-referential arguments in philosophy

Grazer Philosophische Studien 74 (1):177-197 (2007)
Abstract
The paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of arguments of proper self-reference, arguments of self-application and arguments of iterative application. A formalization of the underlying logical structure of these arguments helps to identify the implicit premises on which these arguments rest. If the premises are plausible, the conclusions reached by these arguments must be taken seriously. In particular, all the types of argument discussed, when sound, show that certain theories that purport to be universally applicable are not tenable. The argumentative power of such arguments then depends on how devastating it is for the theories in question to give up their claim of universal applicability.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,727
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Reply to Professor Craig.Graham Oppy - 1995 - Sophia 34 (2):15-29.
Transcendental Arguments and the Problem of Dogmatism.Oskari Kuusela - 2008 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (1):57 – 75.
Sextus Empiricus and the Tripartition of Time.J. Warren - 2003 - Phronesis 48 (4):313 - 343.
Deprioritizing the A Priori Arguments Against Physicalism.Richard Brown - 2010 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 17 (3-4):47-69.
Argument by Analogy.André Juthe - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (1):1-27.
Who Needs Valid Moral Arguments?Mark T. Nelson - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (1):35-42.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
37 ( #144,268 of 2,197,345 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #298,877 of 2,197,345 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature