Qua -Talk and Other Forms of Quackery
Part One
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 5954161 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James Van Cleve (0000-0002-8627-8075, University of Southern California, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 11 |
| Publication date | 2025-11-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy Compass (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1747-9991 • E-ISSN: 1747-9991 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/phc3.70054 |
| OpenAlex | W7104736964 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 23 |
The Latin term "qua" is used occasionally in ordinary discourse but more often as a philosophical term of art. Its purpose is sometimes to avoid what would otherwise be contradictions, as in "necessarily two-legged qua cyclist, contingently two-legged qua mathematician." In this paper, I identify and clarify several of the philosophical uses of "qua," approving some and criticizing others. I discuss the use of "qua" in connection with six different authors: David Lewis, Kit Fine, and Donald Davidson in Part One, and Aristotle, Spinoza, and Kant in Part Two
Connection (principal bundle · Ordinary language philosophy · Philosophical methodology · Sine qua non · Term (time
| Highly cited | No |
|---|