A Naïve Realist Rumination on the Roth-and-Dewulf versus Currie-and-Swaim Exchange

IF 0.4 3区历史学 Q1 HISTORY

Journal of the Philosophy of History Pub Date : 2022-12-28 DOI:10.1163/18722636-12341482

B. Mitrović

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper presents a realist perspective on the recent exchange in the Journal of the Philosophy of History between Adrian Currie and Daniel Swaim on the one side and Paul Roth and Fons Dewulf on the other. The first part presents a critique of Currie and Swaim’s view that the past is not determinate and can be changed. The second part states a series of arguments against Roth’s view that events exist only under description. The third part discusses the ontological problems that Roth’s irrealism about the past fails to address.

查看原文本刊更多论文

Naïve现实主义对罗斯-德沃夫与柯里-斯瓦姆交换的反思

本文从现实主义的角度来看待最近在《历史哲学杂志》上阿德里安·柯里和丹尼尔·斯威姆与保罗·罗斯和方斯·德武夫之间的交流。第一部分批判了柯里和斯维姆的观点，即过去是不确定的，可以改变。第二部分阐述了一系列反对罗斯观点的论点，即事件只存在于描述之下。第三部分论述了罗斯关于过去的非现实主义未能解决的本体论问题。

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

Journal of the Philosophy of History Multiple-

CiteScore

1.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Philosophy of history is a rapidly expanding area. There is growing interest today in: what constitutes knowledge of the past, the ontology of past events, the relationship of language to the past, and the nature of representations of the past. These interests are distinct from – although connected with – contemporary epistemology, philosophy of science, metaphysics, philosophy of language, and aesthetics. Hence we need a distinct venue in which philosophers can explore these issues. Journal of the Philosophy of History provides such a venue. Ever since neo-Kantianism, philosophy of history has been central to all of philosophy, whether or not particular philosophers recognized its potential significance.