Can We Get Our Materialism Back, Please?

Isis 98:138-142 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Technology is epistemology’s poor relative. It still carries the baggage of a definition of matter handed down to it by another odd definition of scientific activity. The consequence is that many descriptions of “things” have nothing “thingly” about them. They are simply “objects” mistaken for things. Hence the necessity of a new descriptive style that circumvents the limits of the materialist definition of material existence. This is what has been achieved in the group of essays on “Thick Things” for which this note serves as an afterword

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

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

Leibniz's Mill Arguments Against Materialism.Stewart Duncan - 2012 - Philosophical Quarterly 62 (247):250-72.
主观唯物主义哲学何以可能?Hee-Sung Kim - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 16:357-367.
Classification, Definition, and Interest.Geoffrey Scott Powers - 1984 - Dissertation, University of Waterloo (Canada)
What Things Still Don’t Do. [REVIEW]David M. Kaplan - 2009 - Human Studies 32 (2):229 - 240.
Alice—mutton: Mutton—alice.Miguel Tamen - 2010 - Common Knowledge 16 (2):346-350.
Eliminating mistakes about eliminative materialism.Robert K. Shope - 1979 - Philosophy of Science 46 (4):590-612.
Ostensive terms and materialism.Mark T. Thornton - 1972 - The Monist 56 (April):193-214.
Beyond materialism and back again.W. E. Cooper - 1977 - Dialogue 16 (2):191-206.
On Substance.Patrick Toner - 2010 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):25-48.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-01-31

Downloads
36 (#431,270)

6 months
10 (#257,583)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?