Results for ' Interest-relativity'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  25
    Experiments on Contextualism and Interest Relative Invariantism.Ángel Pinillos - 2016 - In Wesley Buckwalter & Justin Sytsma (eds.), Blackwell Companion to Experimental Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell. pp. 349–358.
    The research project of common sense or folk behavior for the specific purposes of advancing epistemology has quickly become one of the largest in experimental philosophy. This chapter explains some of this work as it relates to two positions in epistemology: contextualism and interest relative invariantism (IRI). Naturally, questions arise about the relevance of folk behavior to debates in epistemology. First, there is the dialectical issue concerning the extent to which epistemologists have in fact relied on ordinary behavior in (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2. Defending interest-relative invariantism.Brian Weatherson - 2011 - Logos and Episteme 2 (4):591-609.
    I defend interest-relative invariantism from a number of recent attacks. One common thread to my response is that interest-relative invariantism is a muchweaker thesis than is often acknowledged, and a number of the attacks only challenge very specific, and I think implausible, versions of it. Another is that a number of the attacks fail to acknowledge how many things we have independent reason to believe knowledge is sensitive to. Whether there is a defeater for someone's knowledge can be (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  3. Profiling interest relativity.Delia Graff Fara - 2008 - Analysis 68 (4):326-335.
    Draft (Version 1.1, October 2007): (PDF file) A reply to Jason Stanley’s Analysis criticism of my interest-relative view on vagueness.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  4. Empirical tests of interest-relative invariantism.Chandra Sekhar Sripada & Jason Stanley - 2012 - Episteme 9 (1):3-26.
    According to Interest-Relative Invariantism, whether an agent knows that p, or possesses other sorts of epistemic properties or relations, is in part determined by the practical costs of being wrong about p. Recent studies in experimental philosophy have tested the claims of IRI. After critically discussing prior studies, we present the results of our own experiments that provide strong support for IRI. We discuss our results in light of complementary findings by other theorists, and address the challenge posed by (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   70 citations  
  5. Context, interest relativity and the sorites.Jason Stanley - 2003 - Analysis 63 (4):269–281.
    According to what I will call a contextualist solution to the sorites paradox, vague terms are context-sensitive, and one can give a convincing dissolution of the sorites paradox in terms of this context-dependency. The reason, according to the contextualist, that precise boundaries for expressions like “heap” or “tall for a basketball player” are so difficult to detect is that when two entities are sufficiently similar (or saliently similar), we tend to shift the interpretation of the vague expression so that if (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   47 citations  
  6.  5
    Profiling interest relativity.Deliagraff Fara - 2008 - Analysis 68 (4):326-335.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  7.  37
    Interest-Relative Invariantism and Indifference Problems.David Coss - 2018 - Acta Analytica 33 (2):227-240.
    Interest-relative invariantism is the view that practical interests encroach upon knowledge. In other words, the more that is at stake for S, the harder it is for her true belief to be an instance of knowledge. Russell and Doris argue that IRI theorists are committed to indifference being knowledge-making feature of IRI, where knowledge comes easier for subjects the less they care. In this paper, I explain why indifference cases are problematic and which assumptions about IRI generate them. I (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Context, Interest-Relativity, and Knowledge.Jason Stanley - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  9. Profiling interest relativity.Delia Graff Fara - 2008 - Analysis 68 (4):326-335.
  10.  72
    Interest-relative invariantism and knowledge from ignorance.Federico Luzzi - 2012 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (1):31-42.
    The principle of Counter-Closure embodies the widespread view that when a proposition is believed solely as the conclusion of single-premise deduction, it can be known only if the premise is also known. I raise a problem for the compatibility of Jason Stanley's Interest-Relative Invariantism (IRI) with Counter-Closure. I explore the landscape of options that might help Stanley resolve this tension and argue that a trilemma confronts Stanley: he must either (i) renounce a key intuition that lies at the foundation (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. Interest-Relative Invariantism. [REVIEW]Stephen Schiffer - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (1):188 - 195.
    In his important book Knowledge and Practical Interests, Jason Stanley advances a proposal about knowledge and the semantics of knowledge ascriptions which he calls interest-relative invariantism. A theory of knowledge ascriptions of the form ‘A knows that S’ is invariantist.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  12. Interest‐Relative Invariantism.Jason Stanley - 2005 - In Knowledge and practical interests. New York: Oxford University Press.
    This chapter explains and develops a version of Interest-Relative Invariantism about knowledge, according to which whether or not someone knows that p at a certain time depends in part on what is at stake for them in being right about p at that time.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Interest‐Relative Invariantism versus Contextualism.Jason Stanley - 2005 - In Knowledge and practical interests. New York: Oxford University Press.
    This chapter is devoted to a thorough-going comparison of Interest-Relativism Invariantism and contextualism. It argues that the contextualist is committed to a worse error-theory than the advocate of Interest-Relativism Invariantism. It concludes by arguing that neither contextualism nor Interest-Relative Invariantism helps with the problem of skepticism.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. Shifting sands: An interest relative theory of vagueness.Delia Graff Fara - 2000 - Philosophical Topics 28 (1):45--81.
    I propose that the meanings of vague expressions render the truth conditions of utterances of sentences containing them sensitive to our interests. For example, 'expensive' is analyzed as meaning 'costs a lot', which in turn is analyzed as meaning 'costs significantly greater than the norm'. Whether a difference is a significant difference depends on what our interests are. Appeal to the proposal is shown to provide an attractive resolution of the sorites paradox that is compatible with classical logic and semantics.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   122 citations  
  15.  1
    Interest‐Relative Invariantism versus Relativism.Jason Stanley - 2005 - In Knowledge and practical interests. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Relativism about knowledge-attributions is the thesis that knowledge attributions express propositions the truth of which is relative to a judge. On this view, a knowledge attribution may express a proposition that is true for one judge, and false for another. This chapter explains and criticizes various versions of relativism about knowledge attributions.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  70
    The Pitfalls of Interest-Relative Invariantism.David Coss - 2016 - Acta Analytica 31 (3):253-261.
    In this paper, I present and extend Neta’s : 180–187 2007) counter-example against interest-relative invariantism. I first outline IRI, briefly explaining the content of the view and illustrating how it diverges from more classical approaches to epistemology. I then distinguish between two forms the view can take: a strong and a moderate formulation. After this, I argue that Neta’s counter-example only succeeds at undermining the strongest variant, leaving the weaker counterpart unscathed. After all of this is accomplished, I extend (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17. Shifting sands : an interest-relative theory of vagueness.Delia Graff Fara - 2010 - In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Arguing about language. New York: Routledge.
    Saul Kripke pointed out that whether or not an utterance gives rise to a liar-like paradox cannot always be determined by checking just its form or content.1 Whether or not Jones’s utterance of ‘Everything Nixon said is true’ is paradoxical depends in part on what Nixon said. Something similar may be said about the sorites paradox. For example, whether or not the predicate ‘are enough grains of coffee for Smith’s purposes’ gives rise to a sorites paradox depends at least in (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  18.  56
    Remarks on the Interest-relative Theory of Vagueness.María Cerezo - 2013 - Acta Analytica 28 (3):381-394.
    I discuss the interest-relative account of vagueness and argue for a distinction between relational vague predicates and non-relational vague predicates depending on the kind of properties expressed by them. The strategy rests on three arguments arising from the existence of clear cases of a vague predicate, from contexts in which a different answer is required for questions about whether a vague predicate applies to an item, and whether such an item satisfies the interest of an agent, and from (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19. Shifting sands : an interest-relative theory of vagueness.Delia Graff Fara - 2010 - In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Arguing about language. New York: Routledge.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  20. Contextualism and Interest-Relative Invariantism.E. I. Coffman - 2012 - In Andrew Cullison (ed.), The Continuum Companion to Epistemology. Continuum. pp. 199.
    Classical Invariantism (CI): The truth-value of a given knowledge-ascribing (-denying) sentence is (a) invariant across conversational contexts and (b) independent of how important it is to the subject (S) that the relevant proposition (P) be true.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21.  30
    Whales, fish and Alaskan bears: interest-relative taxonomy and kind pluralism in biology.Henry Taylor - 2019 - Synthese 198 (4):3369-3387.
    This paper uses two case studies to explore an interest-relative view of taxonomy and how it complements kind pluralism in biology. First, I consider the ABC island bear, which can be correctly classified into more than one species. I argue that this classificatory pluralism can be explained by reference to the range of alternative explanatory interests in biology. In the second half of the paper, I pursue an interest-relative view of classification more generally. I then apply the resultant (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  22.  27
    How Puzzles of Petitionary Prayer Solve Themselves: Divine Omnirationality, Interest-Relative Explanation, and Answered Prayer.Daniel M. Johnson - 2020 - Faith and Philosophy 37 (2):137-157.
    Some have seen in the divine attribute of omnirationality, identified by Alexander R. Pruss, the promise of a dissolution of the usual puzzles of petitionary prayer. Scott Davison has challenged this line of thought with a series of example cases. I will argue that Davison is only partially correct, and that the reasons for this reveal an important new way to approach the puzzles of petitionary prayer. Because explanations are typically interest-relative, there is not one correct account of “answered (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23. Is Knowledge Context-Sensitive? Contextualism vs Interest-Relative Invariantism.Joanna Odrowaz-Sypniewska - 2009 - Filozofia Nauki 17 (4):95.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. Time-Relative Interests and Abortion.S. Liao - 2007 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 4 (2):242-256.
    The concept of a time-relative interest is introduced by Jeff McMahan to solve certain puzzles about the badness of death. Some people (e.g. McMahan and David DeGrazia) believe that this concept can also be used to show that abortion is permissible. In this paper, I first argue that if the Time-Relative Interest Account permits abortion, then it would also permit infanticide.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  25. Killing and the Time-relative Interest Account.Nils Holtug - 2011 - The Journal of Ethics 15 (3):169-189.
    Jeff McMahan appeals to what he calls the “Time-relative Interest Account of the Wrongness of Killing ” to explain the wrongness of killing individuals who are conscious but not autonomous. On this account, the wrongness of such killing depends on the victim’s interest in his or her future, and this interest, in turn, depends on two things: the goods that would have accrued to the victim in the future; and the strength of the prudential relations obtaining between (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  26. Abortion, Time-Relative Interests, and Futures Like Ours.Peter Nichols - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):493-506.
    Don Marquis has argued most abortions are immoral, for the same reason that killing you or me is immoral: abortion deprives the fetus of a valuable future. Call this account the FLOA. A rival account is Jeff McMahan’s, time-relative interest account of the wrongness of killing. According to this account, an act of killing is wrong to the extent that it deprives the victim of future value and the relation of psychological unity would have held between the victim at (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  27.  61
    The Ethics of Killing: Strengthening the Substance View with Time-relative Interests.Bruce P. Blackshaw - 2019 - The New Bioethics (Online):1-17.
    The substance view is an account of personhood that regards all human beings as possessing instrinsic value and moral status equivalent to that of an adult human being. Consequently, substance view proponents typically regard abortion as impermissible in most circumstances. The substance view, however, has difficulty accounting for certain intuitions regarding the badness of death for embryos and fetuses, and the wrongness of killing them. Jeff McMahan’s time-relative interest account is designed to cater for such intuitions, and so I (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  28.  16
    Conflicts of Interest: experiences of close relatives of patients suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Ingrid Bolmsjö & Göran Hermerén - 2003 - Nursing Ethics 10 (2):186-198.
    It is well known that close relatives of terminally ill patients endure great emotional stress. Many factors, such as existential concerns, contribute to the distress of these relatives. In this study, interviews were conducted to explore experiences concerning life restrictions, emotional distress, and limited support, in a group of close relatives of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The purpose was to identify, illuminate and clarify ethical problems related to these experiences. The results indicate that close relatives of patients with (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  29.  14
    Is absolute time relatively interesting?Robert J. Sternberg - 1979 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (2):281-282.
  30. The harm of death, time-relative interests, and abortion.David Degrazia - 2007 - Philosophical Forum 38 (1):57–80.
    Regarding the sinking lifeboat scenario involving several human beings and a dog, nearly everyone agrees that it is right to sacrifice the dog. I suggest that the best explanation for this considered judgment, an explanation that appears to time-relative interests, contains a key insight about prudential value. This insight, I argue, also provides perhaps the most promising reply to the future-like-ours argument, which is widely regarded as the strongest moral argument against abortion. Providing a solution to a longstanding puzzle in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  31. The Relative Identity of All Objects: Tiantai Buddhism Meets Analytic Metaphysics.Li Kang - forthcoming - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy.
    According to Zhiyi 智顗 (538–597), the founder of the Chinese Buddhist Tiantai school 天臺宗, “one object is all objects;” hence, all objects are profoundly interconnected. In this paper, I critically examine Zhiyi’s metaphysics of objects as presented in the historical Tiantai texts and subsequently develop a contemporary and accessible thesis of interconnectedness by integrating Zhiyi’s views with resources from contemporary analytic philosophy, particularly relative identity. By drawing on Zhiyi’s insights and incorporating contemporary philosophical ideas, I also illustrate how historical Chinese (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  41
    Physical Relativity: Space-Time Structure From a Dynamical Perspective.Harvey R. Brown - 2005 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK.
    Physical Relativity explores the nature of the distinction at the heart of Einstein's 1905 formulation of his special theory of relativity: that between kinematics and dynamics. Einstein himself became increasingly uncomfortable with this distinction, and with the limitations of what he called the 'principle theory' approach inspired by the logic of thermodynamics. A handful of physicists and philosophers have over the last century likewise expressed doubts about Einstein's treatment of the relativistic behaviour of rigid bodies and clocks in (...)
  33. Practical Interests, Relevant Alternatives, and Knowledge Attributions: An Empirical Study.Joshua May, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Jay G. Hull & Aaron Zimmerman - 2010 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (2):265–273.
    In defending his interest-relative account of knowledge in Knowledge and Practical Interests (2005), Jason Stanley relies heavily on intuitions about several bank cases. We experimentally test the empirical claims that Stanley seems to make concerning our common-sense intuitions about these bank cases. Additionally, we test the empirical claims that Jonathan Schaffer seems to make in his critique of Stanley. We argue that our data impugn what both Stanley and Schaffer claim our intuitions about such cases are. To account for (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   80 citations  
  34. Interests, evidence and games.Brian Weatherson - 2018 - Episteme 15 (3):329-344.
    Pragmatic encroachment theories have a problem with evidence. On the one hand, the arguments that knowledge is interest-relative look like they will generalise to show that evidence too is interest-relative. On the other hand, our best story of how interests affect knowledge presupposes an interest-invariant notion of evidence. -/- The aim of this paper is to sketch a theory of evidence that is interest-relative, but which allows that ‘best story’ to go through with minimal changes. The (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  35.  11
    Review: Why Is Relativity Interesting? [REVIEW]C. W. Kilmister - 1991 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (3):413 - 423.
  36.  64
    Why is relativity interesting? [REVIEW]C. W. Kilmister - 1991 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (3):413-423.
  37. A defense of the time-relative interest account : a response to Campbell.Jeff McMahan - 2019 - In Espen Gamlund & Carl Tollef Solberg (eds.), Saving People from the Harm of Death. New York: Oxford University Press.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  38.  13
    Genetic counselling, confidentiality, and the medical interests of relatives.R. Gillon - 1988 - Journal of Medical Ethics 14 (4):171-172.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  39.  15
    Relative Identity.Harold Noonan - 2017 - In Bob Hale, Crispin Wright & Alexander Miller (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Chichester, UK: Wiley. pp. 1013–1032.
    This chapter considers Geach's claims solely as pertaining to the philosophy of language and philosophical logic, though much of the interest of the concept of relative identity concerns its applicability to other areas: the metaphysical controversy about personal identity and the debate in philosophical theology on the doctrine of the Trinity. It describes Geach's views under six headings: the non‐existence of absolute identity; the sortal relativity of identity; the derelativization thesis; the counting thesis; the thesis of the irreducibility (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  40.  16
    Reading relative clauses in English.Edward Gibson, Timothy Desmet, Daniel Grodner, Duane Watson & Kara Ko - 2005 - Cognitive Linguistics 16 (2):313-353.
    Two self-paced reading experiments investigated several factors that influence the comprehension complexity of singly-embedded relative clauses (RCs) in English. Three factors were manipulated in Experiment 1, resulting in three main effects. First, object-extracted RCs were read more slowly than subject-extracted RCs, replicating previous work. Second, RCs that were embedded within the sentential complement of a noun were read more slowly than comparable RCs that were not embedded in this way. Third, and most interestingly, object-modifying RCs were read more slowly than (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  41.  4
    Relativity.Arthur W. Conway - 1915 - London: G. Bell & sons.
    Excerpt from Relativity The four chapters which follow are four lectures delivered before the Edinburgh Mathematical Colloquium on the subject of Relativity. As many of the audience had their chief interests in other branches of mathematical science, it was necessary to start ab initio. The best method appeared to be to treat the subject in the historical order; I have brought it down to the stage in which it was left by Minkowski. If I have stimulated any of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Relative Significance Controversies in Evolutionary Biology.Katherine Deaven - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
    Several prominent debates in biology, such as those surrounding adaptationism, group selection, and punctuated equilibrium, have focused on disagreements about the relative importance of a cause in producing a phenomenon of interest. Some philosophers, such as John Beatty have expressed scepticism about the scientific value of engaging in these controversies, and Karen Kovaka has suggested that their value might be limited. In this paper, I challenge that scepticism by giving a novel analysis of relative significance controversies, showing that there (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. Position‐relative consequentialism, agent‐centered options, and supererogation.Douglas Portmore - 2003 - Ethics 113 (2):303-332.
    In this paper, I argue that maximizing act-consequentialism (MAC)—the theory that holds that agents ought always to act so as to produce the best available state of affairs—can accommodate both agent-centered options and supererogatory acts. Thus I will show that MAC can accommodate the view that agents often have the moral option of either pursuing their own personal interests or sacrificing those interests for the sake of the impersonal good. And I will show that MAC can accommodate the idea that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   47 citations  
  44. Why Practical Rationality Is Not Interestingly Belief-Relative.Kurt Sylvan - manuscript
  45.  48
    Observer‐relative chances and the doomsday argument.John Leslie - 1997 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 40 (4):427 – 436.
    Suppose various observers are divided randomly into two groups, a large and a small. Not knowing into which group anyone has been sent, each can have strong grounds for believing in being in the large group, although recognizing that every observer in the other group has equally powerful reasons for thinking of this other group as the large one. Justified belief can therefore be observer-relative in a rather paradoxical way. Appreciating this allows one to reject an intriguing new objection against (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  46. Relative Identity and Cardinality.Patricia Blanchette - 1999 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29 (2):205 - 223.
    Peter Geach famously holds that there is no such thing as absolute identity. There are rather, as Geach sees it, a variety of relative identity relations, each essentially connected with a particular monadic predicate. Though we can strictly and meaningfully say that an individual a is the same man as the individual b, or that a is the same statue as b, we cannot, on this view, strictly and meaningfully say that the individual a simply is b. It is difficult (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  47. Observer-relative chances in anthropic reasoning?Nick Bostrom - 2000 - Erkenntnis 52 (1):93-108.
    John Leslie presents a thought experiment to show that chances are sometimes observer-relative in a paradoxical way. The pivotal assumption in his argument – a version of the weak anthropic principle – is the same as the one used to get the disturbing Doomsday argument off the ground. I show that Leslie's thought experiment trades on the sense/reference ambiguity and is fallacious. I then describe a related case where chances are observer-relative in an interesting way. But not in a paradoxical (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  48.  91
    Relative Values: Perspectives on a Neuroimaging Technology From Above and Within the Ethical Landscape.Gabrielle Samuel, Alan Cribb, John Owens & Clare Williams - 2016 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13 (3):407-418.
    In this paper we contribute to “sociology in bioethics” and help clarify the range of ways sociological work can contribute to ethics scholarship. We do this using a case study of an innovative neurotechnology, functional magnetic resonance imaging, and its use to attempt to diagnose and communicate with severely brain-injured patients. We compare empirical data from interviews with relatives of patients who have a severe brain injury with perspectives from mainstream bioethics scholars. We use the notion of an “ethical landscape” (...)
    Direct download (14 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  49.  60
    The Relativity of Interpretation.Jeffrey Stout - 1986 - The Monist 69 (1):103-118.
    What makes an interpretation good? This question defines an area where the concerns of philosophers and literary theorists coincide. One sort of response, which stresses the relativity of interpretation to the interests, purposes, and background beliefs of interpreters, increasingly commands the attention of both groups, though it is hard to get past one’s initial reaction, favorable or not, to the accompanying displays of rhetorical plumage. In this essay I shall try to do just that, in the hope of seeing (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  50.  36
    Philosophical Relativity.John Koethe - 1986 - Philosophical Review 95 (1):141.
1 — 50 / 1000