How Not to Argue against Materialism: On Oderberg's Storage Problem Argument

The storage problem is the problem of explaining how concepts could be stored in the mind if the mind is something material. David Oderberg has defended the immateriality of the human intellect on the basis of the storage problem. he general idea of the argument is that concepts possess features tha...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ramos Díaz, Antonio (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Philosophy Documentation Center [2016]
In: American catholic philosophical quarterly
Year: 2016, Volume: 90, Issue: 3, Pages: 455-476
Further subjects:B Thomism
B ODERBERG, David
Online Access: Volltext (doi)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1588247589
003 DE-627
005 20190301100548.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 190301s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.5840/acpq20166993  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1588247589 
035 |a (DE-576)518247589 
035 |a (DE-599)BSZ518247589 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Ramos Díaz, Antonio  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a How Not to Argue against Materialism  |b On Oderberg's Storage Problem Argument  |c Antonio Ramos Díaz 
264 1 |c [2016] 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a The storage problem is the problem of explaining how concepts could be stored in the mind if the mind is something material. David Oderberg has defended the immateriality of the human intellect on the basis of the storage problem. he general idea of the argument is that concepts possess features that make them categorially incapable of being stored in any material locus. Yet, they are stored in the mind. Hence, the mind is immaterial. In this paper I propose that Oderberg's argument cannot be accepted. First, I argue that on one reading the argument leads to absurdity and is inconsistent with Oderberg's Thomism. Secondly, I argue that even on another, weaker reading of the argument, Oderberg has no plausible and adequate grounds for accepting it, and the grounds he does provide in favor of the argument seem in tension with Thomism. 
601 |a Problem 
601 |a Argumentation 
650 4 |a ODERBERG, David 
650 4 |a Thomism 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t American catholic philosophical quarterly  |d Charlottesville, Va. : Philosophy Documentation Center, 1990  |g 90(2016), 3, Seite 455-476  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)372353592  |w (DE-600)2122401-8  |w (DE-576)47637314X  |x 2153-8441  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:90  |g year:2016  |g number:3  |g pages:455-476 
856 |u https://doi.org/10.5840/acpq20166993  |x doi  |3 Volltext 
936 u w |d 90  |j 2016  |e 3  |h 455-476 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 3057063519 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1588247589 
LOK |0 005 20190301100549 
LOK |0 008 190301||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixzo 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw