a vigorous and challenging defence of direct realism in which one gets not only a clear overview of what precisely the problems are, but also a forceful and ...

SummaryThe paper undertakes to disentangle the problem facing Kant's Third Antinomy from the problems confronting the transcendental reality of time and the distinction between things–in–themselves and appearances. Three different resolutions of the Third Antinomy are distinguished. It is shown that neither the appeal to the transcendental ideality of time nor to the distinction between things‐in‐themselves and appearances in the first Kritik resolution succeeds in resolving the antinomy as Kant states it. The appeal in the Groundwork to the distinction between heteronomy (...) and autonomy shifts the problem. And the reliance in the second Kritik on our ability to know a priori that there are necessary connections in our experience fails in yet another way to forestall the antinomy. The common core of all of these difficulties lies in what is called here the Duplication Problem: The tendency of the distinctions introduced to resolve the problem to duplicate the very antinomy they are supposed to resolve. Finally, it is shown how isolating these issues helps to strengthen Kant's argument for transcendental ideality and to clarify the conditions under which the antinomy can he resolved. (shrink)

The Kant-Hegel theory of the self allegedly prevents us from explaining how we can attribute passitivity and activity to one and the same self without either destroying the distinction or covertly assimilating one part of it to the other. Kant's theory of the self inaugurates Hoffman's problem. Kantian synthesis is the work of the Understanding. But the awareness that a series of representations belongs to a single object is not another element in the synthesized manifold. It is supplied by the (...) pure ego and we are passive when we intuit objects; active when we synthesize them. The form of an object in general is supplied by the pure self. Thus the ostensible facts of passive intuition turn out to be covert facts of conceptual transcendental activity. In the Transcendental Aesthetic, moments are parts of one time. In the Transcendental Analytic, the unity of time is a product of the pure ego. The unity of time is not itself another moment in time. Thus, the unity of temporal succession is not just a concept of such a unity but a fact about the activity of the pure ego. We are not merely unable to know time independently of an act of the pure ego. Time itself cannot exist apart from such an act. (shrink)

The author tries to read ontology out of existence by means of a series of linguistic recommendations. His presiding assumption is that all ontological disagreements are matters of linguistic reference. His dominant claim is that quantification has wrongly been thought to imply existence. His strategy rests on the success of his claim that Kant's reasons for holding that "exist" is a logical and not a real predicate is the precursor of Frege's account of existence as a second rather than a (...) first order predicate. His conclusion is that all of the traditional problems which have dominated ontological inquiry can be dissolved once it has been shown, first, that the vehicles of reference which have historically been associated with ontological claims are linguistically dispensable and secondly, that what have been taken to be names or definite descriptions are really second order predicates. Both names and definite descriptions can be translated without remainder into second order predicates. Predicates do not denote because they are not names. The problems of ontology are not really problems at all because their traditional formulations are ill formed. Ontology is a linguistic repugnancy. (shrink)

The author claims that "'true' is not a real predicate". She argues to this conclusion by first dividing the received accounts of truth into the correspondence, redundancy, and prosentential theories, continues by attempting to refute them all, and ends by replacing them with what she calls the "resentential theory." The author correctly identifies the problems facing any theory of truth only to offer a theory which itself succumbs to those very problems.

The author states and tries to defend what he calls the Theory of Direct Reference against descriptionalist theories of referential expressions. Both kinds of theory are applied to proper nouns and indexicals as well as to general terms. The author also attempts to defend the claim that there are, contrary to the philosophical tradition, necessary a posteriori propositions that are not only self-consistent but true. And, finally, the author holds that the Theory of Direct Reference has certain potential consequences for (...) Essentialism. (shrink)

In the First Antinomy of The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant drew two conclusions from the argument he gives. First, Kant took his argument to show that the referent of the concept of ‘world’ does not exist as a thing in itself. For at B532 he says.

In the First Antinomy of The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant drew two conclusions from the argument he gives. First, Kant took his argument to show that the referent of the concept of ‘world’ does not exist as a thing in itself. For at B532 he says.

The paper constitutes a reply to a recent attack (gull, "bradley's argument against relations," "new scholasticism", xlv) on the conclusions of my earlier article, "the reality of relations" ("new scholasticism", xlv). the main issues are (1) whether russell's solution to the bradleyan argument is question-begging; (2) whether the distinction between the representation and the analysis of a fact can solve bradley's problem; and (3) whether the answer i give to bradley's argument rests on a confusion of three very different issues. (...) i argue, first, that the exegesis of russell which gull proposes in place of mine merely provides a more elaborate statement of the original mistake; secondly, that the distinction between representation and analysis is powerless to answer what i call bradley's argument from scarcity; and thirdly, that the answer i offer to that argument, so far from confounding three very different issues, is clearly addressed to only one of them. (shrink)

Direct Realism as a theory of perception has traditionally been thought to collapse on the existence of hallucinations. The cause of that collapse is what is familiar to philosophers as the Argument from Illusion. And what sustains that argument is the equally familiar No-Intrinsic-Difference Claim. The argument and the claim conspire to undermine Direct Realism as follows. We are first given cases in which we are acquainted with perceptual states of affairs that can be neither material bodies nor parts of (...) such bodies. We are told that what we see in such cases is phenomenally indistinguishable from what we see in cases of veridical perception: There is, so the argument goes, no characteristic of either kind of state of affairs available to inspection which enables us to distinguish one from the other. And since there is no phenomenal difference between them, there is also no intrinsic difference; hence, we are never directly aware of material bodies or their parts in perception—from which it is generally inferred that Direct Realism is false. (shrink)