Samuel Guttenplan

This flexible introductory textbook explores several key themes in philosophy, and helps the reader learn to engage with the key arguments by introducing and analysing a selection of classic readings. Fully integrated introductory text with readings for beginning students of philosophy. Each chapter focusses on a core philosophical topic, and contains an introduction to the topic, 2 classic readings and interactive commentaries on the readings. An introductory book which doesn't merely _tell_ the reader about the subject, but requires them to engage philosophically with the text. A pedagogical resource developed in the classroom by the authors at the University of London

The philosophy of mind is one of the fastest-growing areas in philosophy, not least because of its connections with related areas of psychology, linguistics and computation. This _Companion_ is an alphabetically arranged reference guide to the subject, firmly rooted in the philosophy of mind, but with a number of entries that survey adjacent fields of interest. The book is introduced by the editor's substantial _Essay on the Philosophy of Mind_ which serves as an overview of the subject, and is closely referenced to the entries in the Companion. Among the entries themselves are several "self-profiles" by leading philosophers in the field, including Chomsky, Davidson, Dennett, Dretske, Fodor, Lewis, Searle and Stalnaker, in which their own positions within the subject are articulated. In some more complex areas, more than one author has been invited to write on the same topic, giving a polarity of viewpoints within the book's overall coverage. All main entries have a full bibliography, and the book is indexed to the high standards set by other volumes in the Blackwell Companions to Philosophy series

Ontology is the branch of metaphysics centrally concerned with determining what there is. (The name comes from the present participle of the Greek verb corresponding to the English verb ‘to be’.) Thus, if one asks whether there are numbers and other abstract objects, or whether there are PROPERTIES, one is asking ontological questions. Given the fundamental nature of these questions, ontology plays a part in virtually all areas of philosophical investigation, but it has a specific importance to certain debates within the philosophy of mind. For example, suppose one agrees that, besides particular things such as books and tables, there are also properties of these things (such as being made of wood or paper) and relations among them (such as the book's lying on the table). Allowing properties and relations the same sort of reality or existence as particular things is by no means uncontroversial. Many philosophers think that one should keep one's ontological commitments to the minimum, and these philosophers – known as ‘nominalists’‐ would count only particular physical objects as ontologically suitable. But even if you are willing to accept properties and relations into your ontology, it is still a further question whether you would count, e.g. beliefs as properties of persons and/or as relations between persons and belief contents. This sort of question about belief is ontological, and such questions figure widely in most areas of philosophy of mind. Discussions of consciousness and action are often cast as debates about the ontological status of such things as pains, sensations of colour, qualia and particular instances of action. (See An Essay on Mind section 2.1; DENNETT; FODOR; LEWIS.)

Though not meant as a practical procedure, it can help our thinking about language and the mind if we ask what would be involved in interpreting someone's words and actions. Moreover, if we imagine ourselves beginning this interpretative process without any prior knowledge of what the person means by her words or what propositional attitudes she has, then we are engaged in what is called ‘radical interpretation’, quine originally discussed the idea of radical translation in respect of another's language and Davidson, generalizing on this so that interpretation and not merely translation is at issue, has made this notion central to his account of the mind. (See also rationality.)

The notion of weakness of will or ‘akrasia’(to use its Greek name) figures importantly in moral philosophy. Agents are said to be weak‐willed when they have reached conclusions about their moral duties, but then fail to act on these conclusions. Since it is often difficult to be moral – to live up to one's moral principles – there would seem to be nothing particularly surprising or troubling about this notion, and certainly nothing especially pressing for the philosophy of mind. But this appearance is wrong on both counts.

Descartes (1596–1650) insisted that the mind was as a special kind of substance, one which contrasts sharply with material substance (see history). Hence, the label ‘Cartesian’ tends to be applied to any view that is DUALIST in thinking of the mind as fundamentally different from matter. Accompanying this Cartesian dualism of substances is a dualism of ways of knowing about minds and about matter. The Cartesian conception has it that we have access to the contents of our own minds in a way denied us in respect of matter. That is, we can know what we think, feel and want, and know this with a special kind of certainty that contrasts with our knowledge of the physical world. Indeed, Descartes thought that we could be mistaken about even the existence of our own bodies, whilst we could not be in error about what passes in our minds.