In defence of Churchland-style eliminative materialism: Objections and replies

IF 0.2 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-10-02 DOI:10.1080/02580136.2023.2199607
Serdal Tümkaya
{"title":"In defence of Churchland-style eliminative materialism: Objections and replies","authors":"Serdal Tümkaya","doi":"10.1080/02580136.2023.2199607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Churchlands are notorious for their theory of eliminative materialism (EM). This theory has become associated with scientism and a possible death of philosophy. In this article, I will closely examine the most common accusations made against EM and try to give an overall assessment of them. The conclusion is that EM survives most of the criticisms levelled against it. For sure, there are many things to do to improve on the current form of the theory, but none of them seems to be unsurpassable. The charges of blind enthusiasm, reductionism, neuroscience exceptionalism and scientism originate from widespread misconceptions about the nature of actual science. Furthermore, the objection that EM is self-defeating is answered.","PeriodicalId":44834,"journal":{"name":"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"41 1","pages":"347 - 359"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2023.2199607","RegionNum":3,"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

The Churchlands are notorious for their theory of eliminative materialism (EM). This theory has become associated with scientism and a possible death of philosophy. In this article, I will closely examine the most common accusations made against EM and try to give an overall assessment of them. The conclusion is that EM survives most of the criticisms levelled against it. For sure, there are many things to do to improve on the current form of the theory, but none of them seems to be unsurpassable. The charges of blind enthusiasm, reductionism, neuroscience exceptionalism and scientism originate from widespread misconceptions about the nature of actual science. Furthermore, the objection that EM is self-defeating is answered.
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
为教会式的消灭唯物主义辩护:反对和回应
教会以其消灭唯物主义理论而臭名昭著。这一理论已经与科学主义和哲学可能的死亡联系在一起。在这篇文章中,我将仔细研究对EM最常见的指控,并试图对其进行全面评估。结论是,EM在大多数针对它的批评中幸存了下来。当然,在当前的理论形式上,有很多事情需要改进,但似乎没有一件是不可抗拒的。盲目热情论、还原论、神经科学例外论和科学主义的指控源于对实际科学本质的广泛误解。此外,EM弄巧成拙的反对意见得到了回应。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The South African Journal of Philosophy (SAJP) is the official publication of the Philosophical Society of South Africa. The aim of the journal is to publish original scholarly contributions in all areas of philosophy at an international standard. Contributions are double-blind peer-reviewed and include articles, discussions of articles previously published, review articles and book reviews. The wide scope of the South African Journal of Philosophy makes it the continent''s central vehicle for the publication of general philosophical work. The journal is accredited with the South African Department of Higher Education and Training.
期刊最新文献
Two faces of control for moral responsibility African Metaphysics, Epistemology, and a New Logic: A Decolonial Approach to Philosophy The idea of rights in the African thought scheme The good Dogs are still in the Portico: Making sense of the cynic-stoic moral and sociopolitical continuities Violence as a technological concept
×
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:481959085
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