Is Quine a "good enough" naturalist? He seemed to have talked about "neurons",but why did he only use behaviorist resources?Although Quine is a naturalist,but he seems not see "meaning" as patterns of neurons in the brain and things like that. In what sense is Quine a "physicalist" (giving that he recognized the existence of abstract entities like "class" mathematics)?

  • 1
    It is hard to say what "good enough" means, he was a naturalist in the sense that he took natural science to be the ultimate judge of ontology. Abstracta are indispensable there, so they are in. On his physicalism see IEP:"When Quine’s general ontological viewpoint is characterized as physicalist, we must note its endorsement of physical objects, and abstract objects. This use of “physicalism” is nonstandard, as the term is sometimes equated with materialism (only physical things exist), and as explicitly rejecting the existence of abstract objects". – Conifold May 1 at 23:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.