Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:35:05.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ectoplasm Earth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Justin Tiehen
Justin Tiehen*
Affiliation:
University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

What does it mean to say that the mental is nothing over and above the physical? In other words, what exactly is the thesis of physicalism about the mental? The question has not received the philosophical attention it deserves. If that sounds woefully uninformed, it's probably because you are mistaking my restricted thesis of physicalism about the mental for the unrestricted thesis of physicalism simpliciter. Physicalism simpliciter is the doctrine that everything is physical; equivalently, that there is nothing over and above the physical. Physicalism simpliciter has been the subject of intense philosophical scrutiny. There are ongoing debates over how ‘the physical’ should be defi ned for the purpose of formulating the thesis, over how the ‘nothing over and above’ clause should be understood, and over various other matters yet.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 42 , Issue 3-4 , December 2012 , pp. 167 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clark, A. and Chalmers, D.J.. 1998. ‘The Extended Mind.’ Analysis 58: 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1987. ‘Knowing One's Own Mind.’ Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association. 441-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowell, J. 2006. ‘The Physical: Empirical, Not Metaphysical.’ Philosophical Studies 131: 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
C., Gillett and Witmer, G.. 2001. ‘A Physical Need: Physicalism and the Via Negativa.’ Analysis 61: 302–8.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. 1970. ‘Reduction: Ontological and Linguistic Facets.’ In Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel, Morgenbesser, Sidney Suppes, Patrick and White, Morton eds. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Horgan, T. 1983. ‘Supervenience and Microphysics.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 63: 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horgan, T. 1993. ‘From Supervenience to Superdupervenience.’ Mind 102: 555–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. 2007. ‘Is Belief an Internal State?’ Philosophical Studies 132: 571–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. (Online). ‘Comments on Melnyk's A Physicalist Manifesto.’ Presented at the 2007 Pacific APA; at http://www.umass.edu/philosophy/faculty/levine.htm.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983. ‘New Work for a Theory of Universals.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61: 343–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. 1998. Mind in a Physical World. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. 2006. Philosophy of Mind, 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Westview Press.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1989. Mental Content. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Melnyk, A. 2003. A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montero, B. 1999. ‘The Body Problem.’ Noûs 33: 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papineau, D. 2002. Thinking About Consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlands, M. 1999. The Body in Mind: Understanding Cognitive Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupert, R.D. 2004. ‘Challenges to the Hypothesis of Extended Cognition,’ Journal of Philosophy 101: 389–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoljar, D. 2001. ‘Physicalism.’ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, online at http://plato. stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/Google Scholar
Wilson, J. 1999. ‘How Superduper does a Physicalist Supervenience Need to Be?’ Philosophical Quarterly 49: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. 2005. ‘Supervenience-Based Formulations of Physicalism.’ Noûs 29: 426–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. 2006. ‘On Characterizing the Physical.’ Philosophical Studies 131: 61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmer, G. 2004. ‘Review of Andrew Melnyk, A Physicalist Manifesto: Thoroughly Modern Materialism.’ Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, online at http://ndpr.nd.edu/ review.cfm?id=1442Google Scholar
Worley, S. 2006. ‘Physicalism and the Via Negativa.’ Philosophical Studies 131: 101–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar