Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Mental anomalism is explained by the general thesis about... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Rationality speaks to the question of mental realism but does not account for mental anomalism

    Mental anomalism is explained by the general thesis about causally defined properties, not by rationality

    CausationConsciousness & Mind
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindCausation

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consciousness & Mind
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Rationality speaks to the question of mental realism but does not account for me...The normative character of mental concepts — their responsiveness to the princip...

    Similar

    Mental anomalism is the thesis that mental properties do not figure in...87%Mental anomalism follows from the causal definition of mental concepts...86%Uncodifiability of rationality is a red herring in McDowell's argument...80%Mental anomalism rules out strict psychophysical laws.80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: anomalous-monism
    View source passageHide passage
    With regard to the first issue, there is some evidence that Davidson is confusing two distinct questions: why mental concepts cannot stand in lawlike relation to physical concepts, and why mental concepts cannot be eliminated in favor of physical concepts in the explanation of human behavior. Given the general thesis about causally defined properties, we have an understanding of why mental concepts are anomic. But this leaves open the question whether we ought to continue to traffic in anomic co

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective