The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Physicalism, or Something Near Enough
Abstract
Contemporary discussions in philosophy of mind have largely been shaped by physicalism, the doctrine that all phenomena are ultimately physical. Here, Jaegwon Kim presents the most comprehensive and systematic presentation yet of his influential ideas on the mind-body problem. He seeks to determine, after half a century of debate: What kind of (or "how much") physicalism can we lay claim to? He begins by laying out mental causation and consciousness as the two principal challenges to contemporary physicalism. How can minds exercise their causal powers in a physical world? Is a physicalist account of consciousness possible? The book's starting point is the "supervenience" argument (sometimes called the "exclusion" argument), which Kim reformulates in an extended defense. This argument shows that the contemporary physicalist faces a stark choice between reductionism (the idea that mental phenomena are physically reducible) and epiphenomenalism (the view that mental phenomena are causally impotent). Along the way, Kim presents a novel argument showing that Cartesian substance dualism offers no help with mental causation. Mind-body reduction, therefore, is required to save mental causation. But are minds physically reducible? Kim argues that all but one type of mental phenomena are reducible, including intentional mental phenomena, such as beliefs and desires. The apparent exceptions are the intrinsic, felt qualities of conscious experiences ("qualia"). Kim argues, however, that certain relational properties of qualia, in particular their similarities and differences, are behaviorally manifest and hence in principle reducible, and that it is these relational properties of qualia that are central to their cognitive roles. The causal efficacy of qualia, therefore, is not entirely lost. According to Kim, then, while physicalism is not the whole truth, it is the truth near enough.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Nonreductive Physicalism and the Limits of the Exclusion Principle
List, C., Menzies, P., & Journal of Philosophy, I. (2009) · Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.5840/jphil2009106936 · Cited by 340
Construction area (no hard hat required)
Bennett, K. (2011) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9703-8 · Cited by 252
Physical Causation and Difference-Making
Ney, A. (2009) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/axp037 · Cited by 85
Facts, Conventions, and the Levels of Selection
Bourrat, P. (2021) · doi:10.1017/9781108885812 · Cited by 46
Causal reductionism and causal structures
Grasso, M., Albantakis, L., Lang, J. P., & Tononi, G. (2021) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-021-00911-8 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Kim, J.
- Venue
- Princeton University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2007-12-31
- OpenAlex
- W1536350954
- Cited by
- 773
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.30
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physicalism, or Something Near Enough. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/9781400840847
- The paper
- Kim, J. (2007). Physicalism, or Something Near Enough. Princeton University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400840847
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.