Armchair Methods in Philosophy of Mind
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19475796 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Christopher S Hill (0000-0003-1036-1195, corresponding author), ProtoSociology Project |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 39 |
| Pages | 204-220 |
| Publication date | 2022-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | ProtoSociology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1434-4319 |
| Publisher | Philosophy Documentation Center (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.5840/protosociology20223911 |
| OpenAlex | W4323967014 |
| Language | EN |
Jaegwon Kim relied principally on armchair methods in approaching problems in philosophy of mind. This paper is concerned with the nature of such methods and their prospects of success. Identifying the main armchair methods as introspection, modal reasoning involving conceivability tests, and conceptual analysis, the paper argues that insofar as the first two members of this trio aim to reveal the constitutive metaphysical natures of mental states, they are unable to reach their objective. In contrast, it defends conceptual analysis, arguing that Quine’s attempt to discredit it fails. More specifically, it maintains that a certain form of conceptual role semantics is immune to Quine’s strictures against meaning, and that this conception of meaning allows room for armchair discoveries about the meanings of our words (though it has no tendency to provide access to deep facts about the constitutive metaphysical natures of extralinguistic entities)
Analytic philosophy · Contemporary philosophy · Epistemology · Introspection · Metaphysics · Modal · Philosophy of language · Philosophy of mind · Quine · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Psychology
| Highly cited | No |
|---|