More in Pain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


In his reply to my article 'In Pain', Michael Tye takes me to reject Representationalism. In this response, I correct that impression. More crucially, Tye suggests that he may deal with the invalidity of the inferences I discussed in the original article by distinguishing two spatial senses of 'in'. I provide other cases which suggest that he will have to proliferate spatial senses of 'in' to explain the invalidity of a whole host of other inferences. I suggest that this speaks in favour of the claim that there is a sense of 'in' which is used in ascribing a certain state to an object.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)153-154
Number of pages2
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2002

Cite this