Does twin earth rest on a mistake?

Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (8):155-169 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I argue against Twin-Earth externalism. The mistake that Twin Earth arguments rest on is the failure to appreciate the force of the following dilemma. Some features of things around us do matter for the purposes of conceptual classification, and others do not. The most plausible way to draw this distinction is to see whether a certain feature enters the cognitive perspective of the experiencing subject in relation to the kind in question or not. If it does, we can trace conceptual differences to internal differences. If it doesn’t, we do not have a case of conceptual difference. Neither case supports Twin Earth externalism

Links

PhilArchive

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

Semantic internalism and externalism.Katalin Farkas - 2006 - In Ernest Lepore & Barry C. Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press. pp. 323.
Twin-earth externalism and concept possession.Derek Ball - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):457-472.
Moral Realism and Twin Earth.Stephen Laurence, Eric Margolis & Angus Dawson - 1999 - Facta Philosophica 1 (1):135-165.
Empty natural kind terms and dry earth.Corine Besson - 2012 - Erkenntnis 76 (3):403-425.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
407 (#46,903)

6 months
72 (#60,683)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Katalin Farkas
Central European University

Citations of this work

Consciousness.Tony Cheng - 2019 - In Heather Salazar (ed.), Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Mind. Quebec: Rebus Foundation Publishing. pp. 41-48.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Individualism and psychology.Tyler Burge - 1986 - Philosophical Review 95 (January):3-45.
Intentionality.John Searle - 1983 - Philosophy 59 (229):417-418.
Is semantics possible?Hilary Putnam - 1970 - Metaphilosophy 1 (3):187–201.

View all 14 references / Add more references