Should metaphysics be (re)conceived as metalinguistic negotiation?

IF 0.7 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
METAPHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2025-06-23 DOI:10.1111/meta.70003
Jonathan Knowles
{"title":"Should metaphysics be (re)conceived as metalinguistic negotiation?","authors":"Jonathan Knowles","doi":"10.1111/meta.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>According to many so-called <i>anti-representationalists</i>, once one gives up on the idea that language functions by standing in genuine semantic relations to bits of the world, many of the traditional projects of metaphysics lapse (see, e.g., Price 2004). Amie Thomasson also subscribes to anti-representationalism but has her own take on metaphysics. Traditional metaphysics is certainly suspect, but many questions of ontology can be resolved by what Thomasson calls the “easy” approach, which sees questions about existence as following from the understanding of our own language plus relevant empirical input. Thomasson argues further that we should construe what appear to remain contentious metaphysical issues not as concerning inquiries into hidden truths but as instead veiled “metalinguistic negotiations” (Plunkett and Sundell 2013) with pragmatic aims in mind. The present paper takes the view that this line threatens to render philosophy largely irrelevant to culture: to reduce the philosopher to a kind of political activist. But nor, it argues, is Thomasson's way of holding open the door for contentious metaphysical debate the only one for anti-representationalists.</p>","PeriodicalId":46874,"journal":{"name":"METAPHILOSOPHY","volume":"56 3-4","pages":"356-372"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"METAPHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.70003","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to many so-called anti-representationalists, once one gives up on the idea that language functions by standing in genuine semantic relations to bits of the world, many of the traditional projects of metaphysics lapse (see, e.g., Price 2004). Amie Thomasson also subscribes to anti-representationalism but has her own take on metaphysics. Traditional metaphysics is certainly suspect, but many questions of ontology can be resolved by what Thomasson calls the “easy” approach, which sees questions about existence as following from the understanding of our own language plus relevant empirical input. Thomasson argues further that we should construe what appear to remain contentious metaphysical issues not as concerning inquiries into hidden truths but as instead veiled “metalinguistic negotiations” (Plunkett and Sundell 2013) with pragmatic aims in mind. The present paper takes the view that this line threatens to render philosophy largely irrelevant to culture: to reduce the philosopher to a kind of political activist. But nor, it argues, is Thomasson's way of holding open the door for contentious metaphysical debate the only one for anti-representationalists.

形而上学应该被(重新)视为元语言的协商吗?
根据许多所谓的反表征主义者的观点,一旦一个人放弃了语言的功能是通过与世界的部分建立真正的语义关系来实现的这一观点,许多传统的形而上学项目就会失效(例如,Price 2004)。艾米·托马森也赞同反表征主义,但她对形而上学有自己的看法。传统的形而上学当然是可疑的,但许多本体论的问题可以通过托马森所谓的“简单”方法来解决,这种方法认为,关于存在的问题是通过对我们自己的语言的理解加上相关的经验输入来解决的。托马森进一步认为,我们应该将那些似乎仍然存在争议的形而上学问题解释为不涉及对隐藏真理的调查,而是隐藏的“元语言谈判”(Plunkett and Sundell 2013),并考虑到实用主义目标。本文认为,这条路线有可能使哲学在很大程度上与文化无关:将哲学家降低为一种政治活动家。但它认为,托马森为有争议的形而上学辩论打开大门的方式并不是反表征主义者的唯一方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
METAPHILOSOPHY
METAPHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Metaphilosophy publishes articles and reviews books stressing considerations about philosophy and particular schools, methods, or fields of philosophy. The intended scope is very broad: no method, field, or school is excluded.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信