Advertisement

Quine II: The Evolutionary-Perceptual Account

Chapter
  • 87 Downloads

Abstract

In this chapter, I reconstruct Quine’s attempts to accommodate the privacy of stimulus meaning in his naturalized epistemology. These attempts span three decades and equally many monographs as well as a number of articles. Furthermore, I delineate his final proposal to solve it, which relies on natural selection to guarantee a preestablished harmony of innate perceptual similarity standards, and I discuss the extent to which this final solution still agrees with the basic doctrines that Quine defended in the 1960s (and never explicitly retracted). Finally, I develop an internal critique of two central aspects of Quine’s mature account, one focused on his use of natural selection, the other on his conception of pleasure through approval.

Keywords

Privacy of stimulus meaning Naturalized epistemology Natural selection Quine Empiricism Preestablished harmony 

References

  1. Brandon, Robert N. 1990. Adaptation and Environment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burge, Tyler. 2010. Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Føllesdal, Dagfinn. 2014. Developments in Quine’s Behaviorism. In A Companion to W.V.O. Quine, ed. Gilbert Harman and Ernie Lepore, 263–278. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Glock, Hans-Johann. 2003. Quine and Davidson on Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kornblith, Hilary. 1993. Inductive Inference and Its Natural Ground. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2002. Knowledge and Its Place in Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2014. Knowledge in Humans and Other Animals. In A Naturalistic Epistemology: Selected Papers, 119–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Maddy, Penelope. 2017. What Do Philosophers Do? Skepticism and the Practice of Philosophy. The Romanell Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Plantinga, Alvin. 2002. The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. In Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism, ed. James Beilby, 1–12. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1969. Natural Kinds. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, 114–138. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 1974. The Roots of Reference. LaSalle: Open Court Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  13. ———. (1980 [1948]). On What There Is. In From a Logical Point of View, 1–19. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 1992. Pursuit of Truth, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1995. From Stimulus to Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2016 [1995]. Response to Gary Ebbs. In Quine and His Place in History, ed. Frederique Janssen-Lauret and Gary Kemp, 33–36. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Richardson, Robert C. 2007. Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations