• PhilPapers
  • PhilPeople
  • PhilArchive
  • PhilEvents
  • PhilJobs
  • Sign in
PhilPeople
 
  • Sign in
  • News Feed
  • Find Philosophers
  • Departments
  • Radar
  • Help
 
profile-cover
Drag to reposition
profile picture

Joseph Almog

University of TurkuUniversity of California, Los Angeles
  •  Home
  •  Publications
    66
    • Most Recent
    • Most Downloaded
    • Topics
  •  Events
    3
  •  News and Updates
    22

 More details
  • University of Turku
    Department of Philosophy
    Regular Faculty
  • University of California, Los Angeles
    Department of Philosophy
    Retired faculty
  • All publications (66)
  •  188
    The subject verb object class I
    Philosophical Perspectives 12 39-76. 1998.
    Logical Form
  •  111
    Referential Mechanics: Direct Reference and the Foundations of Semantics
    Oxford University Press. 2014.
    This volume is focused on understanding a key idea in modern semantics-direct reference-and its integration into a general semantics for natural language.
    Reference
  •  283
    Nothing, something, infinity
    Journal of Philosophy 96 (9): 462-478. 1999.
    The Infinite
  •  154
    Semantical Anthropology
    Midwest Studies in Philosophy 9 (1): 478-489. 1984.
    Philosophy of Anthropology
  •  120
    Everything in its Right Place: Spinoza and Life by the Light of Nature
    Oup Usa. 2014.
    In Everything in Its Right Place, Joseph Almog develops the unitarian and universalist metaphysics of Spinoza.
    Spinoza: Miscellaneous
  •  766
    What Am I?: Descartes and the Mind-Body Problem
    Oxford University Press. 2001.
    In his Meditations, Rene Descartes asks, "what am I?" His initial answer is "a man." But he soon discards it: "But what is a man? Shall I say 'a rational animal'? No: for then I should inquire what an animal is, what rationality is, and in this way one question would lead down the slope to harder ones." Instead of understanding what a man is, Descartes shifts to two new questions: "What is Mind?" and "What is Body?" These questions develop into Descartes's main philosophical preoccupation: the M…Read more
    In his Meditations, Rene Descartes asks, "what am I?" His initial answer is "a man." But he soon discards it: "But what is a man? Shall I say 'a rational animal'? No: for then I should inquire what an animal is, what rationality is, and in this way one question would lead down the slope to harder ones." Instead of understanding what a man is, Descartes shifts to two new questions: "What is Mind?" and "What is Body?" These questions develop into Descartes's main philosophical preoccupation: the Mind-Body distinction. How can Mind and Body be independent entities, yet joined--essentially so--within a single human being? If Mind and Body are really distinct, are human beings merely a "construction"? On the other hand, if we respect the integrity of humans, are Mind and Body merely aspects of a human being and not subjects in and of themselves? For centuries, philosophers have considered this classic philosophical puzzle. Now, in this compact, engaging, and long-awaited work UCLA philosopher Joseph Almog closely decodes the French philosopher's argument for distinguishing between the human mind and body while maintaining simultaneously their essential integration in a human being. He argues that Descartes constructed a solution whereby the trio of Human Mind, Body, and Being are essentially interdependent yet remain each a genuine individual subject. Almog's reading not only steers away from the most popular interpretations of Descartes, but also represents a scholar coming to grips directly with Descartes himself. In doing so, Almog creates a work that Cartesian scholars will value, and that will also prove indispensable to philosophers of language, ontology, and the metaphysics of mind.
    Dualism, MiscRené DescartesModal Epistemology, Misc
  •  140
    The subject-predicate class II
    Noûs 25 (5): 621-638. 1991.
    Russellian and Direct Reference Theories, MiscStructured Propositions
  •  24
    Perhaps (?), New logical foundations are needed for quantum mechanics
    Logique Et Analyse 21 (82): 251. 1978.
  •  174
    Is a Unified Description of Language-and-Thought Possible?
    Journal of Philosophy 102 (10): 493-531. 2005.
    Propositional Attitudes
  • Descartes's Method of Doubt
    with Janet Broughton
    Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212): 437-445. 2003.
  •  207
    Dthis and dthat: Indexicality goes beyond that
    Philosophical Studies 39 (4): 347-381. 1981.
    MeaningSemantics
  •  1
    The Vernacular and the Omniscient Observer of History
    In Marga Reimer & Anne Bezuidenhout (eds.), Descriptions and beyond, Oxford University Press. 2004.
  •  129
    The complexity of marketplace logic
    Linguistics and Philosophy 20 (5): 549-569. 1997.
    Semantics
  •  320
    Nature without Essence
    Journal of Philosophy 107 (7): 360-383. 2010.
    Essence and Essentialism, Misc
  •  80
    The Subject Verb Object Class II
    Noûs 32 (S12). 1998.
    Logical Form
  •  136
    Form and content
    Noûs 19 (4): 603-616. 1985.
    Aspects of Consciousness
  • What Am I? Descartes and the Mind-Body Problem
    Filosoficky Casopis 51 881-883. 2003.
  •  91
    A Gaussian revolution in logic?
    Erkenntnis 17 (1): 47-84. 1982.
  •  194
    The subject-predicate class I
    Noûs 25 (5): 591-619. 1991.
    Russellian and Direct Reference Theories, MiscStructured Propositions
  •  232
    Précis of what am I? (review)
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (3): 696-8211. 2005.
    What Am I? is so-called because of its focus on Descartes’ primal question in the mind-body realm and his primal answer, viz. “a man”. The question and answer are primal in both senses of the adjective: they come first, early in meditation II, when the topic is broached for the first time; and, in my view of Descartes, they are also the most fundamental question and answer. There are other questions—many many other questions—Descartes raises about the mind-body problem. Some came to substitute f…Read more
    What Am I? is so-called because of its focus on Descartes’ primal question in the mind-body realm and his primal answer, viz. “a man”. The question and answer are primal in both senses of the adjective: they come first, early in meditation II, when the topic is broached for the first time; and, in my view of Descartes, they are also the most fundamental question and answer. There are other questions—many many other questions—Descartes raises about the mind-body problem. Some came to substitute for the primal question, e.g., What is Mind? What is Body? How are mind and body connected? What is the union of mind and body like? I have elected the primal question and answer partly because I understand them better and partly because I see this as Descartes’ ur-concern. Ultimately, he was after an account of what each of us is.
    René Descartes
  • Indexicals, demonstratives and the modality dynamics
    Logique Et Analyse 24 (95): 331. 1981.
    Indexicals and Demonstratives
  •  104
    Semantical considerations on modal counterfactual logic with corollaries on decidability, completeness, and consistency questions
    Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 21 (2): 467-479. 1980.
    Logical Semantics and Logical Truth
  •  50
    David Kaplan: the man at work
    In Joseph Almog & Paolo Leonardi (eds.), The philosophy of David Kaplan, Oxford University Press. pp. 1. 2009.
    This chapter presents an introduction to David Kaplan. Topics covered include the influence of Church, Carnap, and Montague, from whom Kaplan got the eye for elegant formal codifications; Kaplan's admiration and adoption of the work of the German logician Gottlob Frege as the ground philosophical framework; his most influential work, _Demonstratives_, which presented his pioneering account of “direct reference” and what is essentially a two‐stage theory of meaning; and his separation of semantic…Read more
    This chapter presents an introduction to David Kaplan. Topics covered include the influence of Church, Carnap, and Montague, from whom Kaplan got the eye for elegant formal codifications; Kaplan's admiration and adoption of the work of the German logician Gottlob Frege as the ground philosophical framework; his most influential work, _Demonstratives_, which presented his pioneering account of “direct reference” and what is essentially a two‐stage theory of meaning; and his separation of semantics and modal metaphysics.
    Semantics
  •  219
    The what and the how II: Reals and mights
    Noûs 30 (4): 413-433. 1996.
    Epistemic ModalsAreas of Mathematics
  •  235
    The philosophy of David Kaplan (edited book)
    with Paolo Leonardi
    Oxford University Press. 2009.
    This volume collects new, previously unpublished articles on Kaplan, analyzing a broad spectrum of topics ranging from cutting edge linguistics and the...
    De Re BeliefAmerican Philosophy, Misc
  •  401
    Naming without necessity
    Journal of Philosophy 83 (4): 210-242. 1986.
    Metaphysical NecessityVarieties of Modality, Misc
  •  51
    Preface
    Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (3). 1995.
  •  305
    Frege puzzles?
    Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (6): 549-574. 2008.
    The first page of Frege’s classic “Uber Sinn und Bedeutung” sets for more than a hundred years now the agenda for much of semantics and the philosophy of mind. It presents a purported puzzle whose solution is said to call upon the “entities” of semantics (meanings) and psychological explanation (Psychological states, beliefs, concepts). The paper separates three separate alleged puzzles that can be read into Frege’s data. It then argues that none are genuine puzzles. In turn, much of the Frege-d…Read more
    The first page of Frege’s classic “Uber Sinn und Bedeutung” sets for more than a hundred years now the agenda for much of semantics and the philosophy of mind. It presents a purported puzzle whose solution is said to call upon the “entities” of semantics (meanings) and psychological explanation (Psychological states, beliefs, concepts). The paper separates three separate alleged puzzles that can be read into Frege’s data. It then argues that none are genuine puzzles. In turn, much of the Frege-driven theoretical development, motivated as an inevitable “solution”, is thrown into doubt.
    Logical Semantics and Logical TruthFrege: Sinn and Bedeutung
  •  19
    Whither Formal Semantics?
    . 1983.
    Semantics
  •  132
    Believe it or not: It is a puzzle. Rejoinder to Suppes
    Synthese 58 (1): 51-61. 1984.
  • Prev.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next
PhilPeople logo

On this site

  • Find a philosopher
  • Find a department
  • The Radar
  • Index of professional philosophers
  • Index of departments
  • Help
  • Acknowledgments
  • Careers
  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions

Brought to you by

  • The PhilPapers Foundation
  • The American Philosophical Association
  • Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University
PhilPeople is currently in Beta Sponsored by the PhilPapers Foundation and the American Philosophical Association
Feedback