Abstract
This paper responds to Colin Cheyne's new anti-platonist argument according to which knowledge of existential claims—claims of the form such- und-so exist—requires a causal connection with the given such-and-so. If his arguments succeed then nobody can know, or even justifiably believe, that acausal entities exist, in which case (standard) platonism is untenable. I argue that Cheyne's anti-platonist argument fails. 12 Cheyne relies entirely on Hart's argument quoted above, and Cheyne comments no further than his remarks which are quoted above. 13 For discussion or useful comments I am grateful to Mark Colyvan, Colin Cheyne, Ed Mares, Greg Restall, Fred Kroon, Chris Mortensen, two referees, and the late George Molnar. For support (and coffee) I'm grateful to Katrina Higgins.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
