Philosophia

, Volume 28, Issue 1–4, pp 455–465 | Cite as

Why the new theorist may still need to explain cognitive significance but not mind doing it

  • Pieranna Garavaso
Discussion

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. H. Wettstein [1986], “Has Semantics Rested on A Mistake?”,Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 83, 185–209, reprinted in Wettstein [1991], H. Wettstein [1991],Has Semantics Rested On A Mistake? An Other Essays, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California 109–131.Google Scholar
  2. H. Wettstein [1988], “Cognitive Significance Without Cognitive Content,”Mind 97, 1–28, reprinted in Wettstein [1991], H. Wetstein [1991],Has Semantics Rested On A Mistake? And Other Essays, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 132–158.Google Scholar
  3. H. Wettstein [1989], “Turning The Tables on Frege, or How Is it That ‘Hesperus Is Hesperus’ Is Trivial” inPhilosophical Perspectives, Volume 3,Philosophy of Mind and Action Theory, edited by J. Tomberlin, California, Atascadero Ridgeview, 317–39, reprinted in Wettstein [1991], H. Wettstein [1991],Has Semantics Rested On A Mistake? And Other Essays, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 159–177.Google Scholar
  4. H. Wettstein [1991],Has Semantics Rested On A Mistake? And Other Essays, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Philosophia 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieranna Garavaso
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Minnesota at MorrisMorrisUSA

Personalised recommendations