Reply to Hawthorne
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10350296 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Allan Gibbard (University of Michigan, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2002 |
| Volume | 64 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 179-183 |
| Publication date | 2002-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0031-8205 • E-ISSN: 1933-1592 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2002.tb00150.x |
| OpenAlex | W2049606605 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
Goodness, rational permissibility, and the like might be gruesome properties.That is to say, they might not well suit causal-explanatory purposes.Or at least, these properties are gruesome for all their normative concepts tell us by themselves.Perhaps hedonists are right and such properties are anything but gruesome, but perhaps instead, the most gruesome-minded ethical pluralists are right-normative concepts by themselves don't settle the issue.At the end I I mean, of course, one-place predicates and their concepts.Like questions arise for multi-place plan-laden predicates
Citation · Library science · Computer Science · Philosophy · Philosophy, Science, and History · Pragmatism in Philosophy and Education
Is Knowledge Closed Under Known Entailment? The Strange Case of Hawthorne's “Heavyweight Conjunct” (and Other Strange Cases)
Why safety doesn’t save closure
Authority without privilege
Towards closure on closure
Contextualism and radical scepticism
Wittgenstein and the groundlessness of our believing
Do Normative Judgements Aim to Represent the World
| Citations per year | 0.41 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2009 - 2021 (13) |
| Highly cited | No |