首页> 外文期刊>Open Journal of Philosophy >Rainbows, Time Zones, and Other Mind-Dependent Objects: Making Sense of the Relevant Notions of “Mind-Dependence” in the Debate between Metaphysical Realists and Antirealists
【24h】

Rainbows, Time Zones, and Other Mind-Dependent Objects: Making Sense of the Relevant Notions of “Mind-Dependence” in the Debate between Metaphysical Realists and Antirealists

机译:彩虹,时区和其他依赖于心灵的物体:在形而上的现实主义者与反现实主义者之间的辩论中理解“心灵依赖”的相关概念

获取原文
       

摘要

In a recent article, Sam Page distinguishes four kinds of mind-(in)dependence: ontological, causal, structural, and individuative. He argues that, despite the fact that the metaphysical realism/antirealism debate has been frequently characterized as a debate between those who accept and those who deny that the world is causally and/or structurally dependent on minds, many antirealists are primarily interested in defending the claim that the world is individuatively mind-dependent. In this article, I critically examine these differing senses of “mind-dependence” highlighting ways in which they remain ambiguous and identifying various entailment relations between them. I argue that there is reason to believe that ontological dependence, structural dependence, and the only sort of individuative dependence that is relevant to the metaphysical debate are coextensive notions. As such, any argument that succeeds in establishing that it is incoherent to suppose that everything is ontologically and/or structurally dependent thereby establishes the incoherence of metaphysical antirealism.
机译:在最近的一篇文章中,萨姆·佩奇(Sam Page)区分了四种思维(依存)依赖性:本体,因果,结构和个体。他辩称,尽管形而上的现实主义/反现实主义辩论经常被描述为那些接受者与那些否认世界是因果和/或在结构上依赖于思想的人之间的辩论,但许多反现实主义者主要是对捍卫这种思想感兴趣。声称世界是个人依赖心灵的。在本文中,我将批判性地研究这些“心灵依赖”的不同含义,以突出它们保持模棱两可的方式并确定它们之间的各种蕴含关系。我认为有理由相信,与形而上学辩论有关的本体论依赖,结构依赖和唯一种类的个性化依赖是共延概念。这样,任何成功地证明假设一切都在本体论和/或结构上都是不相干的论据,从而建立了形而上学反现实主义的不连贯性。

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