The origins and development of the problem of mental causation are outlined. The underlying presuppositions which give rise to the problem are identified. Possible strategies for solving, or dissolving the problem are examined.

The first sections of the paper deal with the notion of a dialogue and some basic dialogic modalities. The critical or rational modality is highlighted as typical of philosophical argumentation. The following sections deal with a widespread phenomenon in current philosophical controversies: to charge the dialogic counterpart with the commission of a philosophical fallacy. The Naturalistic Fallacy is taken as the most famous example of that sort of strategy. Its structure and aims are analized, and it is concluded that, leaving (...) aside other sorts of critical points, the accusation violates the canons of the rational dialogue. (shrink)

This paper is intended as a set of notes on the philosophical use of metaphors, similes, analogies, and the like (Part I), the analysis of Neurath-Quine’s famous nautical metaphor (Part II), and a discussion of Quine’s views concerning the revisability of beliefs, common sense convictions, and the Continuity Thesis (Part III).