Erkenntnis

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 141–164 | Cite as

Burgeoning skepticism

  • Willem De Vries
Article

Abstract

This paper shows that the resources mobilized by recent arguments against individualism in the philosophy of mind also suffice to construct a good argument against a Humean-style skepticism about our knowledge of extra-mental reality. The argument constructed, however, will not suffice to lay to rest the attacks of a truly global skeptic who rejects the idea that we usually know what our occurrent mental states are.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. BakerL. R.: 1986, ‘Just What Do We Have in Mind?’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy V, 25–48.Google Scholar
  2. BakerL. R.: 1987, ‘Content by Courtesy’, The Journal of Philosophy 84, 200–206.Google Scholar
  3. BakerL. R.: 1987a, Saving Belief, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  4. BonjourL.: 1985, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  5. BruecknerA.: 1986, ‘Brains in a Vat’, The Journal of Philosophy 83, 148–67.Google Scholar
  6. BurgeT.: 1977, ‘Belief De Re’, The Journal of Philosophy 74, 338–62.Google Scholar
  7. BurgeT.: 1979, ‘Individualism and the Mental’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy IV, 73–121.Google Scholar
  8. Burge, T.: 1982, ‘Other Bodies’, in Woodfield, 1982, pp. 97–120.Google Scholar
  9. BurgeT.: 1983, ‘Two Thought Experiments Reviewed’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23, 284–93.Google Scholar
  10. BurgeT.: 1988, ‘Individuation and Self-Knowledge’, The Journal of Philosophy 85, 649–63.Google Scholar
  11. ChisholmR.: 1957, Perceiving, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  12. DennettD. C.: 1987, Evolution, Error, and Intentionality’, in The Intentional Stance, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 287–321.Google Scholar
  13. FodorJ. A.: 1982, ‘Cognitive Science and the Twin-Earth Problem’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23, 98–118.Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, J. A.: unpub., ‘Narrow Content and Meaning Holism’.Google Scholar
  15. FodorJ. A.: 1987, Psychosemantics, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. GoldmanA.: 1976, ‘Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge’, The Journal of Philosophy 73, 771–91.Google Scholar
  17. McDermottM.: 1986, ‘Narrow Content’, Australiasian Journal of Philosophy 64, 277–88.Google Scholar
  18. McGinn, C.: 1982, ‘The Structure of Content’, in Woodfield, 1982, pp. 201–58.Google Scholar
  19. Pappas, G.: 1978, ‘Some Forms of Epistemological Skepticism’, in Pappas and Swain, 1978.Google Scholar
  20. PappasG., and SwainM.: 1978, Essays on Knowledge and Justification, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.Google Scholar
  21. PutnamH.: 1975, ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’, Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, vol. 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 215–71.Google Scholar
  22. SellarsW.: 1963, Science, Perception and Reality, Humanities Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Sellars, W.: 1963a, ‘Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind’, in Sellars, 1963, pp. 127–96.Google Scholar
  24. Sellars, W.: 1963b, ‘Phenomenalism’, in Sellars, 1963, pp. 60–105.Google Scholar
  25. Taylor, K.: unpub., ‘Narrow Content: Functionalism and the Mind-Body Problem’Google Scholar
  26. WoodfieldA.: 1982, Thought and Object, The Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Willem De Vries
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations