Skip to main content
Log in

Comments on Neta's Contextualism and a puzzle about seeing

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Chisholm, R. (1976). Person and object: A metaphysical study. Illinois: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, R. (1989). On metaphysics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm, R. (1996). A realistic theory of categoires. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J., & Rosenkrantz, G. (1994). Substance among other categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J., & Rosenkrantz, G. (1997). Substance: Its nature and existence. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, E. J. (2001). The possibility of metaphysics: Substance, identity, and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neta, R. (2005). Skepticism, contextualism, and a puzzle about seeing. Philosophical Studies (present volume).

  • Van Inwagen, P. (1990). Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Gallimore.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gallimore, R. Comments on Neta's Contextualism and a puzzle about seeing. Philos Stud 134, 65–69 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9022-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-006-9022-7

Keywords

Navigation