There is No Question of Physicalism

Mind 99 (394):185-206 (1990)
Authors
Tim Crane
Central European University
Hugh Mellor
Cambridge University
Abstract
Many philosophers are impressed by the progress achieved by physical sciences. This has had an especially deep effect on their ontological views: it has made many of them physicalists. Physicalists believe that everything is physical: more precisely, that all entities, properties, relations, and facts are those which are studied by physics or other physical sciences. They may not all agree with the spirit of Rutherford's quoted remark that 'there is physics; and there is stamp-collecting',' but they all grant physical science a unique ontological authority: the authority to tell us what there is. Physicalism is now almost orthodox in much philosophy, notably in much recent philosophy of mind. But although often invoked, it is rarely explicitly defined. It should be. The claim that everything is physical is not as clear as it seems. In this paper, we examine a number of proposed definitions of physicalism and reasons for being a physicalist. We will argue both that physicalism lacks a clear and credible definition, and that in no non-vacuous interpretation is it true. We are concerned here only with physicalism as a doctrine about the empirical world. In particular, it should not be confused with nominalism, the doctrine that there are no universals.2 Nominalism and physicalism are quite independent doctrines. Believers in universals may as consistently assert as deny that the only properties and relations are those studied by physical science. And nominalists may with equal consistency assert or deny that physical science could provide enough predicates to describe the world. That is the question which concerns physicalists, not whether physical predicates name real universals. (We will for brevity write as if they do, but we do not need that assumption.)
Keywords Causation  Mental  Metaphysics  Physicalism  Psychology  Supervenience
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/mind/XCIX.394.185
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Is There a Fundamental Level?Jonathan Schaffer - 2003 - Noûs 37 (3):498–517.
On Characterizing the Physical.Jessica M. Wilson - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 131 (1):61-99.
Global Supervenience and Dependence.Karen Bennett - 2004 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (3):501-529.

View all 60 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
976 ( #1,597 of 2,293,852 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
121 ( #2,440 of 2,293,852 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature