Analytic Philosophy

Papers
(The TQCC of Analytic Philosophy is 1. The table below lists those papers that are above that threshold based on CrossRef citation counts [max. 250 papers]. The publications cover those that have been published in the past four years, i.e., from 2021-02-01 to 2025-02-01.)
ArticleCitations
20
Certainties and the Bedrock of Moral Reasoning: Three Ways the Spade Turns6
The Tracking Theory of Claim‐Rights5
5
Contextual analyticity4
‘Emotions’ in Gopal Sreenivasan's Emotion and Virtue3
3
Against the inside out argument2
Towards a Fregean psycholinguistics2
What can preemption do?2
2
Glad to be alive: How we can compare a person's existence and her non‐existence in terms of what is better or worse for this person2
Issue Information2
Way and Whiting on Elusive Reasons2
Issue Information2
Who are “we”?: Animalism and conjoined twins2
The null hypothesis for fiction and logical indiscipline2
Issue Information2
Curry, dialectic and the modal ontological argument2
Lacking, needing, and wanting2
Naked statistical evidence and verdictive justice2
Presentism, truthmaking, and the nature of truth1
Personal‐identity non‐cognitivism*1
Truth and imprecision1
On the Quality of Relational Justice1
Freedom and its unavoidable trade‐off1
Can we combine practical and epistemic reason?1
Knowledge as a collective status1
Perceptual constancy and perceptual representation1
Issue Information1
Against normativism about mental attitudes1
Cross‐temporal grounding1
An instrumentalist explanation of pragmatic encroachment1
Against the very idea of a perceptual belief1
Evans on intellectual attention and memory demonstratives1
Perceiving properties versus perceiving objects1
Fine‐tuning, weird sorts of atheism and evidential favouring1
All About Carnap's Babylon1
Lessons from the void: What Boltzmann brains teach1
Agent‐switching, plight inescapability and corporate agency1
Non‐cognitivism about Metaphysical explanation1
Slurs, neutral counterparts, and what you could have said1
Regret for the Defeated Directive1
Deceiving versus manipulating: An evidence‐based definition of deception1
0.1013240814209