Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 171, Issue 3, pp 517–533 | Cite as

Centrality and marginalisation

  • Brian Weatherson
Article

Welcome to the history of late analytic philosophy

It’s a good time to be doing history of late analytic philosophy. There is flurry of new and exciting work on how philosophy got from the death pangs of positivism and ordinary language philosophy to where it is today. Some may see this as a much needed gap in the literature. Indeed, there are a couple of reasons for scepticism about there being such a field as history of late analytic philosophy, both of which are plausible but wrong.

One reason is that it is too recent. But it is not be too recent for general historical study; there are courses in history departments on September 11, so it’s not like looking at philosophy from 30 to 40 years ago is rushing in where historians fear to tread. And indeed, if logical positivism could be treated historically in the 1960s, and ordinary language philosophy could be treated historically at the turn of the century, it seems a reasonable time to look back at the important works of the 1970s...

Keywords

Thought Experiment Implicit Knowledge Characteristic Error Philosophy Department Gettier Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Carruthers, P. (1990). The metaphysics of the Tractatus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carruthers, P. (2011). The opacity of mind: An integrative theory of self-knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chudnoff, E. (2011). What should a theory of knowledge do? Dialectica, 65(4), 561–579. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.2011.01285.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Devitt, M. (2010). Experimental semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82(2), 418–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Devitt, M., & Sterelny, K. (1987). Language and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fodor, J. (2000). The mind doesn’t work that way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics (pp. 3–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  10. Goldman, A. I. (1976). Discrimination and perceptual knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy, 73(20), 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gopnik, A. (2009). The philosophical baby: What children’s minds tell us about truth, love, and the meaning of life. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  12. Harman, G. (1973). Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar
  14. Hetherington, S. (2001). Good knowledge, bad knowledge: On two dogmas of epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ichikawa, J., Ishani, M., & Brian, W. (2012). In defence of a Kripkean dogma. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(1), 56–68. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2010.00478.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  17. Kilkarni, S., & Harman, G. (2011). An elementary introduction to statistical learning theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein, G. A. (1999). Sources of power. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Levinstein, B. (2013). Accuracy as epistemic utility. PhD Dissertation, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, D. (1981). What puzzling Pierre does not believe. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 59(3), 283–289. doi: 10.1080/00048408112340241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lewis, D. (1988). The trap’s dilemma. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 66(2), 220–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(4), 549–567. doi: 10.1080/00048409612347521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. (1997a). Finkish dispositions. Philosophical Quarterly, 47(187), 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, D. (1997b). Naming the colours. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75(3), 325–342. doi: 10.1080/00048409712347931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, D. (2004a). Causation as influence. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. A. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 75–106). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lewis, D. (2004b). Void and object. In J. Collins, N. Hall, & L. A. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 277–290). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Machery, E., Mallon, R., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2012). If folk intuitions vary, then what? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2011.00555.x.Google Scholar
  28. Nagel, J. (2007). Epistemic intuitions. Philosophy Compass, 2(6), 792–819. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00104.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nagel, J. (2013). Intuitions and experiments: A defense of the case method in epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85(3), 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nesbø, J. (2009). The Redeemer. (trans: Bartlett, D.). London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  31. Nolan, D. (2005). David lewis. Chesham: Acumen Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Pryor, J. (2000). The sceptic and the dogmatist. Noûs, 34(4), 517–549. doi: 10.1111/0029-4624.00277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruetsche, L. (2011). Interpreting quantum theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sainsbury, M. (1995). Vagueness, ignorance and margin for error. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46, 589–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sartwell, C. (1992). Why knowledge is merely true belief. Journal of Philosophy, 89(4), 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwarz, W. (2009). David Lewis: Metaphysik und analyse. Paderborn: Mentis-Verlag.Google Scholar
  37. Sterelny, K. (2012). The evolved apprentice: How evolution made humans unique. Cambridge, MA.: Bradford.Google Scholar
  38. Sugden, R. (2000). Credible worlds: The status of theoretical models in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 7(1), 1–31. doi: 10.1080/135017800362220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sugden, R. (2009). Credible worlds, capacities and mechanisms. Erkenntnis, 70(1), 3–27. doi: 10.1007/s10670-008-9134-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tribe, K. (2002). The Cambridge economics tripos 1903–1955 and the training of economists. The Manchester School, 68(2), 222–248. doi: 10.1111/1467-9957.00191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Warfield, T. A. (2005). Knowledge from falsehood. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 405–416. doi: 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2005.00067.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weatherson, B. (2003a). Many many problems. Philosophical Quarterly, 53(213), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weatherson, B. (2003b). What good are counterexamples? Philosophical Studies, 115(1), 1–31. doi: 10.1023/A:1024961917413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weatherson, B. (2004). Luminous margins. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82(3), 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Whewell, W. (1840). The philosophy of the inductive sciences, founded upon their history. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
  46. Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Michigan - Ann ArborAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.ArchéUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsScotland

Personalised recommendations