In contrast to monistic realism (as represented by Peirce) and pluralistic irrealism (as represented by Goodman) I argue for what I call plurealism, a view which is both pluralistic and realist, recognizing different worlds that are not only independent of one another, but also independent of us.

Hilary Putnam, one of America’s most distinguished philosophers, surveys an astonishingly wide range of issues and proposes a new, clear-cut approach to philosophical questions—a renewal of philosophy. He contests the view that only science offers an appropriate model for philosophical inquiry. His discussion of topics from artificial intelligence to natural selection, and of reductive philosophical views derived from these models, identifies the insuperable problems encountered when philosophy ignores the normative or attempts to reduce it to something else.

Symbolic Worlds contains fifteen chapters, with all but the first published between 1972 and 1996. The unifying theme concerns aspects of the symbolic function in language, science, art, ritual, and play. The approach is nominalist and heavily influenced by the work of Nelson Goodman.

Anyone familiar with Nelson Goodman’s philosophical career knows that to have quarreled with him was a hazardous enterprise. For aside from his creative brilliance and analytical subtlety, he was also one of the foremost dialecticians of the age. Seeing through the flaws of rival views and rebutting putative counterarguments to his own came as easily to him as breathing. To recall his rejoinders to a long list of would-be rebuttals of his paper, “On Likeness of Meaning”, or the acute series (...) of counterexamples to received views of scientific law in his pioneering paper, “The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals”, or his replies to criticisms of his nominalism in “A World of Individuals”, or again, his replies to confident attacks on his theory of projection is to find ample evidence of an intimidating intellectual presence. To take issue with him was in fact to take one’s philosophical life in one’s hands and many are those over the course of his career who rued the venture. (shrink)

Nelson Goodman’s work is universally regarded as pioneering and fundamental, and his attempts to clarify the nature of induction, symbol systems, art, theorizing and understanding have received and continue to receive great attention. Central to that work is a view Goodman describes as “radically relativist.” Goodman’s unusual brand of relativism, however, while basic to the entire Goodman corpus, has yet to be carefully delineated and studied. I hope in this paper to begin such a study. I will first briefly review (...) the development of Goodmanian relativism through his earlier books and articles. Then I will develop a more detailed and elaborate account of the relativist position Goodman develops in his most recent book, Ways of Worldmaking. Because Goodman’s relativism is significantly different from more traditional accounts of relativism, I will attempt to shed light on Goodmanian relativism by contrasting it with those more traditional accounts. Finally, I will argue that there is a crucial ambiguity in Goodman’s portrayal and defense of relativism, having to do with the role of “criteria of rightness” in Goodman’s system, and that this ambiguity licenses two quite distinct versions of Goodmanian relativism. I will argue that the weak version of relativism is defensible, and important, but that the strong, or “radical,” relativist position suffers from a fatal flaw. My hope is that the paper will serve to clarify not only Goodman’s position, but epistemological relativism more generally. (shrink)

Anyone familiar with Nelson Goodman’s philosophical career knows that to have quarreled with him was a hazardous enterprise. For aside from his creative brilliance and analytical subtlety, he was also one of the foremost dialecticians of the age. Seeing through the flaws of rival views and rebutting putative counterarguments to his own came as easily to him as breathing. To recall his rejoinders to a long list of would-be rebuttals of his paper, “On Likeness of Meaning”, or the acute series (...) of counterexamples to received views of scientific law in his pioneering paper, “The Problem of Counterfactual Conditionals”, or his replies to criticisms of his nominalism in “A World of Individuals”, or again, his replies to confident attacks on his theory of projection is to find ample evidence of an intimidating intellectual presence. To take issue with him was in fact to take one’s philosophical life in one’s hands and many are those over the course of his career who rued the venture. (shrink)