Out of the Ordinary: An Evaluation of Geach's Argument for Immaterialism

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY HEYTHROP JOURNAL Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1111/heyj.14344
Peter S. Dillard
{"title":"Out of the Ordinary: An Evaluation of Geach's Argument for Immaterialism","authors":"Peter S. Dillard","doi":"10.1111/heyj.14344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Peter Geach offers a novel argument for the immaterialist conclusion that thinking is not a physical activity performed. Two crucial premises of Geach's argument are that thinking is a basic activity and that thinking is a non-clockable activity. It is argued that since Geach does not clarify in exactly what sense thinking is supposed to be a basic activity, the first premise of his argument has not been justified. It is then argued that the same Wittgensteinian considerations Geach takes to show that there are no interior acts of meaning also show that there are no interior acts of thinking and hence no non-clockable interior acts of thinking. Thus the second premise of Geach's argument also has not been justified. Therefore, Geach's argument is unconvincing as it stands.</p>","PeriodicalId":54105,"journal":{"name":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","volume":"65 6","pages":"711-720"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HEYTHROP JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.14344","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Peter Geach offers a novel argument for the immaterialist conclusion that thinking is not a physical activity performed. Two crucial premises of Geach's argument are that thinking is a basic activity and that thinking is a non-clockable activity. It is argued that since Geach does not clarify in exactly what sense thinking is supposed to be a basic activity, the first premise of his argument has not been justified. It is then argued that the same Wittgensteinian considerations Geach takes to show that there are no interior acts of meaning also show that there are no interior acts of thinking and hence no non-clockable interior acts of thinking. Thus the second premise of Geach's argument also has not been justified. Therefore, Geach's argument is unconvincing as it stands.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超凡脱俗:评估盖奇的非物质主义论证
彼得-盖奇(Peter Geach)提出了一个新颖的论点,论证了 "思维不是一种物理活动 "这一非物质主义结论。盖奇论证的两个关键前提是:思维是一种基本活动,思维是一种不可计时的活动。有观点认为,由于 Geach 没有明确说明思维在何种意义上应该是一种基本活动,因此其论证的第一个前提并不成立。有学者接着指出,盖奇从维特根斯坦的角度来证明不存在意义的内部行为,同样也证明不存在思维的内部行为,因而也就不存在不可计时的思维的内部行为。因此,盖赫论证的第二个前提也不成立。因此,Geach 的论证是不能令人信服的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
HEYTHROP JOURNAL
HEYTHROP JOURNAL Multiple-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Founded on the conviction that the disciplines of theology and philosophy have much to gain from their mutual interaction, The Heythrop Journal provides a medium of publication for scholars in each of these fields and encourages interdisciplinary comment and debate. The Heythrop Journal embraces all the disciplines which contribute to theological and philosophical research, notably hermeneutics, exegesis, linguistics, history, religious studies, philosophy of religion, sociology, psychology, ethics and pastoral theology. The Heythrop Journal is invaluable for scholars, teachers, students and general readers.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Issue Information On the Manifold Meanings of Aesthetic Experience: Lonergan and Chrétien on Art On the Manifold Meanings of Aesthetic Experience: Lonergan and Chrétien on Art Love at Arms’ Length: Reconciliationism and its Tentative Future
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1