Review of Metaphysics 21 (3):421 - 446 (1968)
AbstractThe point of this paper is to show that one of the three traditional theories, namely, that usually attributed to Aristotle on the strength of the famous "sea fight" passage, is indefensible. To this end I will first present the traditional theories and some of the reasons which philosophers have given for holding them. Then I will show how proponents of two of these theories can develop an invincible argument against the third.
Similar books and articles
The Real Truth About the Unreal Future.Rachael Briggs & Graeme A. Forbes - 2012 - In Karen Bennett & Dean Zimmerman (eds.), Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, volume 7.
In Memory of Richard Jeffrey: Some Reminiscences and Some Reflections on The Logic of Decision.Alan Hájek - 2006 - Philosophy of Science 73 (5):947-958.
Quality Control in Academic Publishing: Challenges in the Age of Cyberscience.Michael Nentwich - 2004 - Poiesis and Praxis 3 (3):181-198.
Caesar's Gallic War (IV. 20–38, and V.). Partly in the Original, and Partly in Translation. Edited by R. W. Livingstone and C. E. Freeman. Oxford University Press: 1919. [REVIEW]E. H. Blakeney - 1920 - The Classical Review 34 (1-2):47-.
On the History of the Unreal Condition in Latin.H. C. Nutting - 1901 - The Classical Review 15 (01):51-53.
Moral Obligations Towards Future Generations in African Thought.Kevin Gary Behrens - 2012 - Journal of Global Ethics 8 (2-3):179-191.
On Some Unreal Distinctions in Ethics.Henry David Aiken - 1966 - Journal of Philosophy 63 (21):697-699.
Is the Abstract Unreal?W. H. Sheldon - 1904 - Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 1 (17):449-453.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
How to Make Things Have Happened.Graham Nerlich - 1979 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):1 - 22.
On the Nature of Time : A Biopragmatic Perspective on Language, Thought, and Reality.Nils B. Thelin - unknown
References found in this work
No references found.