A Trilemma for Voparil

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Raff Donelson
{"title":"A Trilemma for Voparil","authors":"Raff Donelson","doi":"10.1163/18758185-bja10056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This short review raises a trilemma for Chris Voparil’s reading of Richard Rorty. Voparil must deny one of three things. He must deny that Rorty affirmed a Jamesian approach to metaethics; he must deny that Rorty affirmed a version of Peircean realism; or, he must deny that Rorty treated all domains of discourse roughly the same. Because Rorty is quite clear in his commitment to the first and third theses and far less clear in affirming Peircean realism, I argue that Voparil is forced to give up attributing realism to Rorty or must simply concede that his version of Rorty is incoherent.","PeriodicalId":42794,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Pragmatism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Pragmatism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-bja10056","RegionNum":4,"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

This short review raises a trilemma for Chris Voparil’s reading of Richard Rorty. Voparil must deny one of three things. He must deny that Rorty affirmed a Jamesian approach to metaethics; he must deny that Rorty affirmed a version of Peircean realism; or, he must deny that Rorty treated all domains of discourse roughly the same. Because Rorty is quite clear in his commitment to the first and third theses and far less clear in affirming Peircean realism, I argue that Voparil is forced to give up attributing realism to Rorty or must simply concede that his version of Rorty is incoherent.
Voparil的三重困境
这篇简短的评论为克里斯·沃帕里尔对理查德·罗蒂的解读提出了一个三难选择。巴黎必须否认以下三件事中的一件。他必须否认罗蒂肯定了詹姆斯式的元伦理学方法;他必须否认罗蒂肯定了一个版本的皮尔斯现实主义;或者,他必须否认罗蒂对待所有话语领域大致相同。因为罗蒂在他对第一和第三个论点的承诺上非常清楚,而在肯定皮尔式的现实主义方面就不那么清楚了,我认为沃佩尔被迫放弃将现实主义归因于罗蒂,或者必须简单地承认他对罗蒂的看法是不连贯的。
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信