Displaying: 201-220 of 223 documents

0.221 sec

201. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 5 > Issue: 1
Richardl Rorty, Michael O’Shea Richard Rorty: Toward a Post-Metaphysical Culture
202. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 5 > Issue: 1
Luciano Berio Text of Texts
203. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 5 > Issue: 1
Charles H. Kahn A New Interpretation of Plato’s Socratic Dialogues
204. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 5 > Issue: 1
Jonathan Baron A Psychological View of Moral Intuition
205. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 5 > Issue: 1
Stanley H. Rosen The Metaphysics of Ordinary Experience
206. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 6 > Issue: 1
Jedediah S. Purdy Poststructualism and the Inescapability of Ethics
207. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 6 > Issue: 1
Leif Wenar, Chong-Min Hong On Republicanism and Liberalism
208. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 6 > Issue: 1
George Boolos The Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever
209. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 6 > Issue: 1
John S. W. Park Undocumented Persons and the Liberal State
210. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 6 > Issue: 1
Catherine Elgin The Relativity of Fact and the Objectivity of Value
211. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 6 > Issue: 1
François Rivenc, Elizabeth Davis Husserl, With and Against Frege
212. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 6 > Issue: 1
Stephen A. Erickson On (and Beyond) Love Gone Wrong
213. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 6 > Issue: 1
Henry Allison, Steven A. Gross Henry Allison: Personal and Professional
214. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 27
Nicholas Brown, Tadhg Larabee Editors' Introduction
215. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 27
Justin Wong, Woojin Lim, Michelle Lara, Benjamin Simon, David Chalmers An Interview with David Chalmers
216. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 27
Romy Aran, Nathan Beaucage, Melissa Kwan, Peter Carruthers An Interview with Peter Carruthers
217. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 27
Eli Alshanetsky Making Our Thoughts Clear
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
We often get clear on our thoughts in the process of putting them into words. I investigate the nature of this process by posing the question, “Do you know which thought you are trying to articulate, before successfully articulating it?” and rejecting two answers to the dilemma it yields. The first is that the answer is yes, and that articulation is either the recollection of prior knowledge or the mere acquisition of a skill or ability rather than of propositional knowledge. The second is that the answer is no, and that your thought is unknown in that it is not yet fully realized. Clarity, according to this response, is a metaphysical property of the thought rather than the thinker’s epistemic relation to it. I offer a third solution: you start out with implicit knowledge of your thought but lack explicit knowledge of it. The process of articulation moves you from implicit to explicit knowledge.
218. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 27
Hans-Johann Glock Determinacy of Content: The Hard Problem about Animal Intentionality
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Few arguments against intentional states in animals have stood the test of time. But one objection by Stich and Davidson has never been rebutted. In my reconstruction it runs: Ascribing beliefs to animals is vacuous, unless something counts as an animal believing one specific “content” rather than another; Nothing counts as an animal believing one specific content rather than another, because of their lack of language; Ergo: Ascribing beliefs to animals is vacuous. Several attempts to block the argument challenge the first premise, notably the appeals to “naked” belief ascriptions and alternative representational formats. This essay defends the first premise and instead challenges the second premise. There are non-linguistic “modes of presentation”; these can be determined by attributing to animals specific needs and capacities—a “ hermeneutic ethology” based on lessons from the debate about radical translation/interpretation in the human case. On that basis we can narrow down content by exclusion. What remains is an “imponderability of the mental” which does not rule out attributions of intentional states to animals.
219. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 27
Michael Tye Filling In and the Nature of Visual Experience
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This essay begins with a discussion of the phenomenon of filling in. It is argued that filling in is naturally accounted for by taking visual experiences to be importantly like drawn pictures of the world outside. An alternative proposal is then considered, one that models visual experiences on incomplete descriptions. It is shown that introspection does not favor the pictorial view. It is also shown that the phenomenon of blurriness in visual experience does not provide a good reason for favoring the pictorial view either. Why, then, be a pictorialist? It is argued that visual experiences conform to what have been called “the laws of appearance” and that their conformity to these laws gives us an excellent reason for preferring the pictorial account.
220. The Harvard Review of Philosophy: Volume > 27
Felipe De Brigard The Explanatory Indispensability of Memory Traces
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
During the first half of the twentieth century, many philosophers of memory opposed the postulation of memory traces based on the claim that a satisfactory account of remembering need not include references to causal processes involved in recollection. However, in 1966, an influential paper by Martin and Deutscher showed that causal claims are indeed necessary for a proper account of remembering. This, however, did not settle the issue, as in 1977 Malcolm argued that even if one were to buy Martin and Deutscher’s argument for causal claims, we still don’t need to postulate the existence of memory traces. This paper reconstructs the dialectic between realists and anti-realists about memory traces, suggesting that ultimately realists’ arguments amount to inferences to the best explanation. I then argue that Malcolm’s anti-realist strategy consists in the suggestion that causal explanations that do not invoke memory traces are at least as good as those that do. But then, Malcolm, I argue that there are a large number of memory phenomena for which explanations that do not postulate the existence of memory traces are definitively worse than explanations that do postulate them. Next, I offer a causal model based on an interventionist framework to illustrate when memory traces can help to explain memory phenomena and proceed to substantiate the model with details coming from extant findings in the neuroscience of memory.