What is a philosophical analysis?

Philosophical Studies

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 155-179

  King, Jeffrey C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039680675     PISSN: 00318116     EISSN: 15730883     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1004254128428     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Ackerman, D.F. (1981): 'The Informativeness of Philosophical Analysis', Midwest Studies in Philosophy VI, 313-320.
2. Ackerman, D.F. (1986): 'Essential Properties and Philosophical Analysis', Mid-west Studies in Philosophy XI, 305-313.
3. Bealer, G. (1982): Quality and Concept. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Chisholm, R.M. and Potter, R.C. (1981): 'The Paradox of Analysis: A Solution', Metaphilosophy 12(1), 1-6.
5. Jubien, M. (1993): Ontology, Modality and the Fallacy of Reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. King, Jeffrey C. (1994): 'Can Propositions be Naturalistically Acceptable?', Mid-west Studies in Philosophy XIX, 53-75.
7. King, Jeffrey C. (1995): 'Structured Propositions and Complex Predicates', NOUS 29(4), 516-535.
8. King, Jeffrey C. (1996): 'Structured Propositions and Sentence Structure', forth-coming in Journal of Philosophical Logic.
9. May, R. (1985): Logical Form: Its Structure and Derivation, Cambridge, Mass.
10. Putnam, H. (1975): Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2, pp. 215-271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Rieber, S.D. (1994): 'The Paradoxes of Analysis and Synonymy', Erkenntnis 41, 103-116.
12. Sosa, E. (1983): 'Classical Analysis', The Journal of Philosophy 80( 11 ), 695-710.
13. Thomason, N. (1992): 'Some Problems with Chisholm and Potter's Solution to the Paradox of Analysis', Metaphilosophy 23(1-2), 132-138.