Abstract

Abstract In a recent paper, Manuel Perez Otero attempted to turn the tables on Paul Boghossian's claim that content externalism is incompatible with the 'a priority of our logical abilities'. In reply, Boghossian argued that Perez Otero's criticism misses the main point of his argument through concentrating on the semantics of singular (as opposed to general) terms. I elaborate on Boghossian's reply by showing that even taken on its own terms Perez Otero's paper fails to engage with internalism through systematically misrepresenting what a truly internalistic account of the semantics of singular terms should be.

Highlights

  • I think that even on his own terms - concentrating on the semantics of singular terms - Pérez Otero fails to keep the promise of a reversal of Boghossian’s original argument

  • The aim of Pérez Otero’s paper is to turn the tables on Boghossian’s claim that content externalism is incompatible with the ‘a priority of our logical abilities’

  • It is Pérez Otero’s contention that ‘to the extent that the problem bears on the externalism ⁄ internalism debate, it is the externalist side that comes out on top.’ (Ibid.)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The aim of Pérez Otero’s paper is to turn the tables on Boghossian’s claim (as argued for in Boghossian 1992 and 1994) that content externalism is incompatible with the ‘a priority of our logical abilities’.

Results
Conclusion

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 call

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.