PhilArchive
open access
Still Particular: A Reply to Ganson and Mehta
We are grateful to Ganson and Mehta (forthcoming) for their reply to our defence of phenomenal particularism against the objections raised by Mehta in his (2014). Their reply clarifies the nature of their objections to phenomenal particularism and helps identify the locus of our disagreements. In what follows we aim to defend phenomenal particularism against the objections raised in their reply.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- What is time?#71302
- Understanding Naturalism With Quine From Within Science and History#78683
- Desire-based Reasons, Naturalism, and Tolerable Revisionism: Lessons from Moore and Parfit#772243
- The Excluded Medium: A Meta-Problem Account of the Hard-Problem Intuition#689711
- On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism#710186
Record · ID 737029
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive