Do You Have to Reply to This Paper?
AbstractI explore the question of whether one has to reply to a paper such as this, and consider what a positive answer (in any respect) would teach us. I argue for a qualified Yes. By “reply” I refer to an attempt to write a paper responding to the original one, which addresses (some of) the major claims made in it. I first ask what philosophical papers are for, and note the important role played by replies to them. I consider special obligations to reply to philosophical papers; and the weaker pro tanto obligations that might exist for most professional philosophers. Finally, I consider objections to my claims; and the broader implications if my case is plausible.
1966 ◽
Vol 24
◽
pp. 118-119
1988 ◽
Vol 46
◽
pp. 394-395
Keyword(s):
1984 ◽
Vol 42
◽
pp. 408-409