首页> 外文期刊>Journal for general philosophy of science >Commentary on Rosefeldt: Should Metaphysics Care About Ontological Commitment from Casual Utterances?
【24h】

Commentary on Rosefeldt: Should Metaphysics Care About Ontological Commitment from Casual Utterances?

机译:罗斯菲尔德评论:形而上学应该关注偶然言语的本体论承诺吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Tobias Rosefeldt argues that in order to reconcile a physics-based fundamental ontology with the ontological implications of our everyday utterances, philosophers should pursue a ‘linguistics-based conciliatory’ strategy: They should refer to the results of linguistic research in order to avoid ontological commitment to problematic entities. Whereas Rosefeldt is not an advocate of radical forms of naturalized metaphysics, his argument is driven by the motivation behind pleas for a naturalization of the discipline. I claim that although there is a need for reconciliation, Rosefeldt’s favored account falls short of this goal. More generally, I argue that so-called ‘conciliatory accounts’ fail to do justice to the motivation that necessitated them in the first place, as the role they assign to analyses of everyday speech in search of ontological commitments is at odds with said motivation. ‘Conciliatory accounts’, hence, sit uneasily between radically naturalistic and traditional armchair approaches to metaphysics.
机译:托比亚斯·罗斯费尔特(Tobias Rosefeldt)认为,为了使基于物理学的基本本体与我们日常话语的本体论含义相协调,哲学家应该奉行“基于语言学的和解”策略:他们应该参考语言学研究的结果,以避免本体论的承诺。到有问题的实体。尽管罗斯费尔特不主张自然化的形而上学的激进形式,但他的论点是由求助于该学科自然化的动机所驱使的。我声称,尽管有必要进行和解,但罗斯菲尔德所偏爱的帐户未能达到该目标。更笼统地说,我认为所谓的“和解性账目”并不能公正地说明他们最初需要的动机,因为他们赋予日常言语分析以寻找本体论承诺的角色与上述动机不符。因此,“和解帐户”在自然主义和传统扶手椅形而上学的方法之间不安。

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