Abstract

To turn first then to his account of Bergmann's distinction between dependent and independent presentation, Baker observes that if Bergmann's dependent presentation turns out to be a form of knowledge and not a form of experience, then Bergmann is being inconsistent in holding that entities like universality and exemplification are dependently presented to us while simultaneously advocating a basic empiricism. For the empiricist demands that all claims as to the existence of an object be grounded in experience. But, Baker argues, since we are not acquainted with entities like exemplification, universality or essentiality, the concept of dependent presentation in Bergmann's later philosophy does indeed turn out to be a form of knowledge and not a form of experience. Attempting a definition of dependent presentation, Baker writes