This book is nominally about linguistic representation. But, since it is
we who do the representing, it is also about us. And, since it is the
universe which we represent, it is also about the universe. In the end,
then, this book is about everything, which, since it is a philosophy
book, is as it should be. I recognize that it is nowadays unfashionable
to write books about every- thing. Philosophers of language, it will be
said, ought to stick to writing about language; philosophers of science,
to writing about science; epis- temologists, to writing about knowing;
and so on. The real world, however, perversely refuses to carve itself
up so neatly, and, although I recognize that the real w, orld is
nowadays also unfashionable, in the end I judged that one might get
closer to the truth of various matters by going along with it. So I have
done so. lt was Wilfrid Sellars who initially convinced me of the
virtues of this way of proceeding. At this point one normally says
something like "The debt that this book owes him is immense". I would
say it too, were it not to understate the case, From Wilfrid, I learned
to think about things. If the upshot of my thinking tends, as it
obviously does, to show a general con- silience with the upshot of his,
it is primarily because he is so very good at it - and he had a head
start.