Skip to main content Accessibility help

Before the Mereological Fallacy: A Rejoinder to Rom Harré

  • P. M. S. Hacker (a1)


  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.


Corresponding author


Hide All

1 Harré, ‘Behind the Mereological Fallacy’, Philosophy 85 (2012), 352.

2 Bennett, M. R. and Hacker, P. M. S., Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (Blackwell, Oxford, 2003), 73.

3 Searle, J. R., ‘Putting Consciousness back in the Brain: Reply to Bennett and Hacker’, in Bennett, M., Dennett, D., Hacker, P. and Searle, J., Neuroscience and Philosophy: Mind, Brain, and Language (Columbia University Press, New York, 2007), 107.

4 We replied in Neuroscience and Philosophy, 133–5.

5 The Physical Basis of Mind, 441.

6 I have elaborated this distinction, which is crucial for the resolution of the mind/body problem, in Human Nature: the Categorial Framework (Blackwell, Oxford, 2007), ch. 9.

7 ‘Behind the Mereological Fallacy’, 338.

8 ‘Behind the Mereological Fallacy’, 350.

9 Rather surprisingly, Harré says that organs are substances (337). But this is mistaken. A functional part of a living substance is not itself a substance. For elaboration, see Human Nature: the Categorial Framework, 42–5.

10 See von Wright, G. H., The Varieties of Goodness (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963), III – 8.

Before the Mereological Fallacy: A Rejoinder to Rom Harré

  • P. M. S. Hacker (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.