首页> 外文期刊>Philosophical Studies >Soames on the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Moore and Russell
【24h】

Soames on the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Moore and Russell

机译:摩尔和罗素的形而上学和认识论研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

A critical discussion of selected chapters of the first volume of Scott Soames’s Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. It is argued that this volume falls short of the minimal standards of scholarship appropriate to a work that advertises itself as a history, and, further, that Soames’s frequent heuristic simplifications and distortions, since they are only sporadically identified as such, are more likely confuse than to enlighten the student. These points are illustrated by reference to Soames’s discussions of Russell’s logical system and the place of the theory of descriptions in his ontological development. It is then argued that Soames’s interpretation of the point of G.E. Moore’s famous “proof” of an external world, while not straightforwardly undermined by the textual evidence, is nonetheless questionable, and plausibly overlooks what is novel in Moore’s discussion. This, it is argued, in his attempt to offer a common sense “refutation of idealism”, rather than (as is more commonly supposed) an anti-skeptical argument “from differential certainty”.
机译:对20世纪Scott Soames的《哲学分析》第一卷某些章节的批判性讨论。有人认为,这本书不符合宣传自己作为历史的作品所需要的最低学术标准,而且,Soames经常进行启发式的简化和歪曲,因为它们只是偶然地被识别出来,因此更容易造成混淆。而不是启发学生。通过参考Soames对Russell的逻辑系统的讨论以及描述论在其本体论发展中的地位,可以说明这些观点。然后有人争辩说,Soames对G.E.观点的解释。摩尔著名的外部世界“证明”虽然没有直接被文本证据所破坏,但仍是有问题的,并且有可能忽略了摩尔讨论中的新颖性。有人认为,这是他试图提供一种常识“对唯心主义的驳斥”,而不是(更通常地认为)“出于差异确定性”的一种反怀疑论点。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Philosophical Studies》 |2006年第3期|627-635|共9页
  • 作者

    Ian Proops;

  • 作者单位

    Dept. of philosophy, University of Michigan, 2215 Angell Hall, 435 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003, USA;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

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