Low‐grade two‐dimensionalism [Book Review]

Philosophical Books 48 (1):1-16 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

As tends to be the way with philosophical positions, there are at least as many two-dimensionalisms as there are two-dimensionalists. But painting with a broad brush, there are core epistemological and metaphysical commitments which underlie the two-dimensionalist project, commitments for which I have no sympathies. A sketch of three signi?cant points of disagreement.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

In defence of three-dimensionalism.Kit Fine - 2006 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 62:1-16.
Primitive worlds.Takashi Yagisawa - 2002 - Acta Analytica 17 (1):19-37.
Do four-dimensionalists have to be counterpart theorists?George Djukic - 2004 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82 (2):292 – 311.
Soames’s argument 1 against strong two-dimensionalism.Robert Michels - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 161 (3):403-420.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
273 (#67,766)

6 months
3 (#445,838)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Josh Dever
University of Texas at Austin

References found in this work

Two-dimensional semantics.David J. Chalmers - 2006 - In E. Lepore & B. Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook to the Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.
Assertion.Robert Stalnaker - 1978 - Syntax and Semantics (New York Academic Press) 9:315-332.
Assertion.Robert Stalnaker - 1978 - In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Broadview Press. pp. 179.

View all 20 references / Add more references