You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Epistemic/Ontic Divide
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Vol. 66, No. 2 (Mar., 2003), pp. 404-418
Published by: International Phenomenological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20140543
Page Count: 15
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Physicalism, Physics, Dualism, Causation, Consciousness, Mind body dichotomy, Energy, Pessimism, Panpsychism, Metaphysics
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
A number of philosophers think that, while we cannot explain how the mind is physical, we can know that it is physical, nonetheless. That is, they accept both the explanatory gap between the mental and the physical and ontological physicalism. I argue that this position is unstable. Among other things, I argue that once one accepts the explanatory gap, the main argument for ontological physicalism, the argument from causation, looses its force. For if one takes physical/nonphysical causation and ontological physicalism to be equally mysterious, as physicalists who accept the explanatory gap are inclined to do, there is little justification for accepting ontological physicalism rather than rejecting the causal closure of the physical.
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research © 2003 International Phenomenological Society