What question did this study set out to answer?

This paper aims to assess the validity of Liu's critique of Russellian monism, particularly concerning epistemic inaccessibility.

Russellian monism and neutral monism: scrutinizing inscrutables

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Critical examination of Liu’s critique of Russellian monism, addressing quiddities and epistemic accessibility.

This paper aims to assess the validity of Liu's critique of Russellian monism, particularly concerning epistemic inaccessibility.
Critically analyze Liu's arguments against Russellian monism.
Draw on existing work by Torin Alter and Derk Pereboom.
Situate Russellian monism within the neutral monist tradition.
Liu's critique does not fully capture the potential accessibility of quiddities in Russellian monism.
Connections between Russellian monism and historical neutral monism indicate an accessible framework for understanding consciousness.
Russell's own neutral monism was framed more as a theoretical orientation than an empirical program.

Donovan Wishon (2026) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Critical examination of Liu’s critique of Russellian monism, addressing quiddities and epistemic accessibility.

This paper aims to assess the validity of Liu's critique of Russellian monism, particularly concerning epistemic inaccessibility.
Critically analyze Liu's arguments against Russellian monism.
Draw on existing work by Torin Alter and Derk Pereboom.
Situate Russellian monism within the neutral monist tradition.
Liu's critique does not fully capture the potential accessibility of quiddities in Russellian monism.
Connections between Russellian monism and historical neutral monism indicate an accessible framework for understanding consciousness.
Russell's own neutral monism was framed more as a theoretical orientation than an empirical program.

Donovan Wishon (2026) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark