Small Navigation Menu

Primary Menu

Loar's Defence of Physicalism

Citation: Law, Stephen (2004) Loar's Defence of Physicalism.

Brian Loar believes he has refuted all those antiphysicalist arguments that take as their point of departure observations about what is or isn’t conceivable. I argue that there remains an important, popular and plausible-looking form of conceivability argument that Loar has entirely overlooked. Though he may not have realized it, Saul Kripke presents, or comes close to presenting, two fundamentally different forms of conceivability argument. I distinguish the two arguments and point out that while Loar has succeeded in refuting one of Kripke's arguments he has not refuted the other. Loar is mistaken: physicalism still faces an apparently insurmountable conceptual obstacle.Article

Additional Information: Citation: Ratio (2004) 17: 60-67.
Creators: Law, Stephen and
Subjects: Philosophy
Keywords: Loar, Physicalism
Divisions: Institute of Philosophy
Collections: London Philosophy Papers
Dates:
  • 2004 (published)
Comments and Suggestions:
Description/Provenance: Submitted by Mark McBride (mark.mcbride@sas.ac.uk) on 2007-12-03T12:46:03Z No. of bitstreams: 1 S_Law_Loar.pdf: 45255 bytes, checksum: d76f91bd665d6327c1c278b2ffeea90e (MD5); Description/Provenance: Made available in DSpace on 2007-12-03T12:46:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 S_Law_Loar.pdf: 45255 bytes, checksum: d76f91bd665d6327c1c278b2ffeea90e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2004. Date accessioned: 2007-12-03T12:46:03Z; Date available: 2007-12-03T12:46:03Z; Date issued: 2004.

Statistics

View details