首页> 外文期刊>Australasian Journal of Philosophy >Reasons and Causes: The Philosophical Battle and The Meta-philosophical War
【24h】

Reasons and Causes: The Philosophical Battle and The Meta-philosophical War

机译:原因和原因:哲学之战和元哲学之战

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

‘Are the reasons for acting also the causes of action?’ When this question was asked in the early 1960s it received by and large a negative reply: ‘No, reasons are not causes’. Yet, when the same question ‘Are the reasons for acting the causes of action?’ is posed some twenty years later, the predominant answer is ‘Yes, reasons are causes’. How could one and the same question receive such diverging answers in the space of only a couple of decades? This paper argues that the shift from an anti-causalist to a causalist consensus is not fully accounted for by the results of first-order debates in the philosophy of action and is owing instead to a change in second-order meta-philosophical assumptions concerning the role and character of philosophical analysis.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2011.583930
机译:“行动的原因也是行动的原因吗?” 1960年代初问这个问题时,它得到了普遍的否定回答:“不,原因不是原因”。然而,大约二十年后,当提出相同的问题“行动原因是什么原因?”时,主要的回答是“是,原因是原因”。在短短几十年的时间里,一个问题和同一个问题怎么会得到如此不同的答案?本文认为,行动哲学中一阶辩论的结果并不能完全说明从反causalist到causlist共识的转变,而是由于对二战元哲学的二阶元哲学假设的改变。哲学分析的作用和特征。 ,pubid:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2011.583930

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号