Why Parfit Can Rebut Johnstonʼs Reductio
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20143071 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Douglas Ehring (0000-0003-3299-0558, Southern Methodist University USA, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 86 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 583-594 |
| Publication date | 2020-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Theoria (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0040-5825 • E-ISSN: 1755-2567 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/theo.12267 |
| OpenAlex | W3045554762 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 7 |
Henry Pollock, in “Parfit's Fission Dilemma: Why Relation R Doesn't Matter”, examines the options available to Parfit for defending his “argument from below” from Johnstonʼs reductio objection. Pollock argues that Parfitʼs proposed defence against Johnston fails. In this article, I argue that Pollockʼs objections to Parfitʼs defence can be resisted
Argument (complex analysis) · Art history · Dilemma · Epistemology · Metaphysics · Pollock · Reductio ad absurdum · Chemistry · Free Will and Agency · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |