{"title":"Some Additional Metaphysical Questions","authors":"P. Ludlow","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198823797.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The book has been making the case that perspectival content is necessary for the explanation of much of human activity, and that the best approach to tense is to think in terms of interperspectival contents. It has already covered a number of metaphysical worries about tense and perspectival contents (McTaggart’s argument, for example) but there are two additional worries that need to be addressed. The first has to do with the problem of truth-makers. The second has to do with the kinds of contents that are metaphysically admissible. It is argued that metaphysical concerns about truth-makers and Humean supervenience do not undermine the positing of interperspectival contents. Such contents are part and parcel of basic low-level descriptions and they do not thwart attempts at naturalization of our accounts of action, emotion, etc.","PeriodicalId":187590,"journal":{"name":"Interperspectival Content","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interperspectival Content","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198823797.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The book has been making the case that perspectival content is necessary for the explanation of much of human activity, and that the best approach to tense is to think in terms of interperspectival contents. It has already covered a number of metaphysical worries about tense and perspectival contents (McTaggart’s argument, for example) but there are two additional worries that need to be addressed. The first has to do with the problem of truth-makers. The second has to do with the kinds of contents that are metaphysically admissible. It is argued that metaphysical concerns about truth-makers and Humean supervenience do not undermine the positing of interperspectival contents. Such contents are part and parcel of basic low-level descriptions and they do not thwart attempts at naturalization of our accounts of action, emotion, etc.