Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:55:01.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Before the Mereological Fallacy: A Rejoinder to Rom Harré

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2013

P. M. S. Hacker*
Affiliation:
St John's College, Oxford

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Harré, ‘Behind the Mereological Fallacy’, Philosophy 85 (2012), 352.

2 Bennett, M. R. and Hacker, P. M. S., Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (Blackwell, Oxford, 2003)Google Scholar, 73.

3 Searle, J. R., ‘Putting Consciousness back in the Brain: Reply to Bennett and Hacker’, in Bennett, M., Dennett, D., Hacker, P. and Searle, J., Neuroscience and Philosophy: Mind, Brain, and Language (Columbia University Press, New York, 2007)Google Scholar, 107.

4 We replied in Neuroscience and Philosophy, 133–5.

5 The Physical Basis of Mind, 441.

6 I have elaborated this distinction, which is crucial for the resolution of the mind/body problem, in Human Nature: the Categorial Framework (Blackwell, Oxford, 2007)Google Scholar, ch. 9.

7 ‘Behind the Mereological Fallacy’, 338.

8 ‘Behind the Mereological Fallacy’, 350.

9 Rather surprisingly, Harré says that organs are substances (337). But this is mistaken. A functional part of a living substance is not itself a substance. For elaboration, see Human Nature: the Categorial Framework, 42–5.

10 See von Wright, G. H., The Varieties of Goodness (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963)Google Scholar, III – 8.