TRAVIS-LIKE CASES AND ADEQUATE IDEAS: A CRITICAL NOTICE OF BOZICKOVIC’S THE INDEXICAL POINT OF VIEW

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Ludovic Soutif, Carlos Mario Márquez Sosa
{"title":"TRAVIS-LIKE CASES AND ADEQUATE IDEAS: A CRITICAL NOTICE OF BOZICKOVIC’S THE INDEXICAL POINT OF VIEW","authors":"Ludovic Soutif, Carlos Mario Márquez Sosa","doi":"10.1590/0100-6045.2022.v45n3.lc","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": In this critical notice we review Bozickovic's recent proposal to settle two interrelated issues: (i) the issue of the cognitive significance of indexical thoughts expressed at a time in the face of difficulties posed by cases in which the subject either mistakes two objects for one or one for two different objects; (ii) that of the cognitive dynamics of temporal indexical thoughts in the face of difficulties posed by cases in which the belief seems to be retained while the proper adjustments fail to be made (that is, in cases such as Rip Van Winkle's). We argue that, despite its elegance and merits, the proposal falls short of accounting for the problematic cases in their full complexity. For one thing, the intended non-modal construal of Frege's Criterion of Difference promoted by Bozickovic does not block, in our view, the “proliferation” of senses brought about by the occasion-sensitivity of the individuation of demonstrative thoughts. For another, the proposal fails to appreciate the need for the subject to have an adequate conception of the object of her thought when it comes to orienting herself in space and time. That being so, we take it to be unfit to settle (ii).","PeriodicalId":42903,"journal":{"name":"Manuscrito","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manuscrito","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2022.v45n3.lc","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

: In this critical notice we review Bozickovic's recent proposal to settle two interrelated issues: (i) the issue of the cognitive significance of indexical thoughts expressed at a time in the face of difficulties posed by cases in which the subject either mistakes two objects for one or one for two different objects; (ii) that of the cognitive dynamics of temporal indexical thoughts in the face of difficulties posed by cases in which the belief seems to be retained while the proper adjustments fail to be made (that is, in cases such as Rip Van Winkle's). We argue that, despite its elegance and merits, the proposal falls short of accounting for the problematic cases in their full complexity. For one thing, the intended non-modal construal of Frege's Criterion of Difference promoted by Bozickovic does not block, in our view, the “proliferation” of senses brought about by the occasion-sensitivity of the individuation of demonstrative thoughts. For another, the proposal fails to appreciate the need for the subject to have an adequate conception of the object of her thought when it comes to orienting herself in space and time. That being so, we take it to be unfit to settle (ii).
悲剧般的案例与充足的思想&对博齐科维奇指数观的批判
:在这篇批评性的通知中,我们回顾了博齐科维奇最近提出的解决两个相互关联的问题的建议:(i)面对主体将两个对象误认为一个或将一个对象误以为两个不同对象所带来的困难时,一次表达的指数思想的认知意义问题;(ii)在面对信念似乎被保留而未能做出适当调整的情况下(即在里普·范·温克尔的情况下)所带来的困难时,时间指数思维的认知动力学。我们认为,尽管该提案优雅而有优点,但它并没有充分考虑到问题案件的复杂性。首先,在我们看来,博齐科维奇对弗雷格差异标准的有意非模态解释并没有阻止指示思想个性化的场合敏感性所带来的感官的“增殖”。另一方面,当涉及到在空间和时间中定位自己时,该提案没有意识到主体对其思想对象有充分概念的必要性。既然如此,我们认为不适合解决(ii)。
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
Manuscrito
Manuscrito PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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