Authors
Domenic Marbaniang
Central India Theological Seminary
Abstract
Sometimes philosophers have been misunderstood. It could be because the philosopher's communication was vague. It could also be because the philosopher didn't use Ockham's razor and multiplied terms unnecessarily forcing reviewers to impose the razor, with the result that what needs to be cut is not cut and what was essential is taken out of the equation. This article cites two cases, one of the Indian thinker M.M. Thomas and other of Peter Van Inwagen, who claimed that their thoughts were misrepresented by some other well known thinker.
Keywords Understanding philosophy  Peter Van Inwagen  M.M Thomas
Categories (categorize this paper)
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Comments on Peter van Inwagen’s Material Beings. [REVIEW]Jay F. Rosenberg & Peter van Inwagen - 1993 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (3):701.
Van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument.Michael Huemer - 2000 - Philosophical Review 109 (4):525-544.
The Probability of the Possible.Ron Wilburn - 2014 - European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 10 (1):44-55.
Van Inwagen on Free Will.Peter van Inwagen - 2004 - In Joseph K. Campbell (ed.), Freedom and Determinism. Cambridge MA: Bradford Book/MIT Press.
Peter van Inwagen, Substitutional Quantification, and Ontological Commitment.William Craig - 2014 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 55 (4):553-561.
Conceivability, Possibility and the Resurrection of Material Beings.Thomas Atkinson - 2016 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 80 (2):115-132.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-01-16

Total views
71 ( #145,552 of 2,433,195 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #73,448 of 2,433,195 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes