Philosophical Studies (forthcoming)

Authors
Alex Byrne
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract
This comment concentrates on Y&H’s preferred framework for discussing the issue of broad vs. narrow content, arguing that it is not well-suited to the task; once a more traditional framework is adopted, Y&H’s case against internalism is strengthened. The comment ends by briefly mentioning an appealing internalist picture that their otherwise comprehensive critique does not address.
Keywords narrow content  internalism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-020-01548-2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Relativism and Monadic Truth.Herman Cappelen & John Hawthorne - 2009 - Oxford University Press UK.
The Logical Form of Action Sentences.Donald Davidson - 1967 - In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action. University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 81--95.
Possible Worlds.Robert Stalnaker - 1976 - Noûs 10 (1):65-75.

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Reply to Byrne.Juhani Yli-Vakkuri & John Hawthorne - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Nature of Content: A Critique of Yli-Vakkuri and Hawthorne.Sarah Sawyer - forthcoming - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.
Narrow Content.Juhani Yli-Vakkuri & John Hawthorne - 2018 - Oxford University Press.
There is No Viable Notion of Narrow Content.Sarah Sawyer - 2007 - In Brian P. McLaughlin & Jonathan D. Cohen (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 20-34.
Narrow Content.Robert Stalnaker - 1990 - In C. Anthony Anderson & Joseph Owens (eds.), Propositional Attitudes: The Role of Content in Logic, Language, and Mind. Stanford: Csli.
How Narrow is Narrow Content?François Recanati - 1994 - Dialectica 48 (3-4):209-29.
Narrow Mental Content.Curtis Brown - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What Narrow Content is Not.Ned Block - 1991 - In Barry M. Loewer & Georges Rey (eds.), Meaning in Mind: Fodor and His Critics. Blackwell.
Real Narrow Content.Uriah Kriegel - 2008 - Mind and Language 23 (3):304–328.
An Argument for Holism.Ned Block - 1995 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95:151-70.
How Narrow is Narrow Content?François Recanati - 1994 - Dialectica 48 (3-4):209-229.
In Defense of Social Content.John Biro - 1992 - Philosophical Studies 67 (3):277-93.
How “Meaning” Became “Narrow Content”.Paweł Grabarczyk - 2016 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 46 (1):155-171.
Narrow Content: Motivations and Problems.Scott Francis Walden - 1994 - Dissertation, City University of New York

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-09-11

Total views
173 ( #54,418 of 2,403,708 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
173 ( #2,885 of 2,403,708 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes