首页> 外文期刊>SAGE Open >Taking Experiential Givenism Seriously:
【24h】

Taking Experiential Givenism Seriously:

机译:认真对待体验纪律主义:

获取原文
       

摘要

In the past few years, a small but intense debate has transpired on the margins of mainstream scholarship in the discipline of Philosophy, particularly within the subfield of American pragmatism. While most philosophical pragmatists dedicate their attention to questions concerning how ideas improve experience (or the theorya??practice continuum), those participating in this exchange have shown greater concern for an issue that is, at its core, a theoretical matter: Does the theory of experience espoused by the classic American philosopher John Dewey succumb to what contemporary analytic philosophersa??for instance, Wilfred Sellars, Donald Davidson, and John McDowella??call the Myth of the Given? One commentator, Scott Aikin, claims that Dewey relied on noninferential and nonconceptual content or givens as perceptual inputs for cognitive experience. The upshot of Aikina??s objection is that these experiential givens constitute a proxy epistemological foundation for the beliefs that flow from inquirya??a position clearly in conflict with Deweya??s commitment to antifoundationalism. The objection assumes a slightly different form in the hands of another scholar of American pragmatism, Colin Koopman. Gregory Pappas and David Hildebrand respond to Koopmana??s version of the objection. The goals of this article are to clarify the objection, highlight the stakes in the debate, identify misunderstandings of Deweya??s experiential metaphysics on both sides, and determine why the experiential givenism objection merits serious philosophical scrutiny in the future.
机译:在过去的几年中,关于哲学学科的主流学术研究的边缘出现了一场规模很小但激烈的辩论,特别是在美国实用主义的子领域。虽然大多数哲学实用主义者将注意力集中在有关思想如何改善经验(或理论上的实践连续体)的问题上,但参与这种交流的人们对这个问题的核心表现是理论上的问题表示了更大的关注:理论是否存在?经典的美国哲学家约翰·杜威(John Dewey)拥护的经验被当代分析哲学家-例如威尔弗雷德·塞拉斯(Wilfred Sellars),唐纳德·戴维森(Donald Davidson)和约翰·麦克杜韦拉(John McDowella)-称为“给定神话”?一位评论员斯科特·艾肯(Scott Aikin)声称,杜威依赖非推论性和非概念性内容或给定作为认知体验的感知性输入。 Aikina提出反对的结果是,这些经验性假设构成了从探究产生的信念的替代认识论基础,而这种信念显然与杜威对反基础主义的承诺相冲突。在另一位美国实用主义学者科林·库普曼(Colin Koopman)的手中,反对意见的形式略有不同。格雷戈里·帕帕斯(Gregory Pappas)和戴维·希尔德布兰德(David Hildebrand)回应了库普马纳的异议。本文的目的是澄清反对意见,突出辩论的重点,在双方都认识杜威的经验形而上学上的误解,并确定为什么经验主义的纪律主义异议在将来值得进行认真的哲学审查。

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