Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
V 137
Qualia/Russell: Russell was a realist in terms of both qualia and universals. Moreover, he understood qualia as paradigmatic universals: the way in which things can be similar.
V 138
Universals/vagueness: universals are considered completely well-defined by the traditional realist. Words may be vague, universals themselves cannot be vague! For Russell, qualia were universals par excellence.
Qualia/Putnam: so if they are well defined as universals, it must also be well defined whether any given thing or event has a certain quale or not.
Qualia/term/Putnam: qualia are not well-defined, but that does not exclude the existence of these entities. That houses are not well defined does not exclude that they exist anyway. >Meaning is not the same as >reference.
---
I (d) 118
Qualia/tradition: qualia are objects of perception in the traditionalist view. New: in the new view, qualia are states of the subject (already in Reichenbach).
Sensations/qualia/Putnam: qualia may not be the objects of perception as one thought before (it is become more and more fashionable to regard them as states or sensitivities of the subject, as Reichenbach had demanded a long time ago).
They may be poorly defined entities rather than the perfectly sharp individuals they were once thought to be. We probably have no uncorrectable knowledge about them.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.