On the Alleged Inconsistency in Van Inwagen’s Rebuttal of Evans’ Argument

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY

Studia Neoaristotelica Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.5840/studneoar20211811

P. Dvořák

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper attempts to interpret P. van Inwagen’s refutation of Evans’ argument that there cannot be vague objects and defend it against the charge of inconsistency raised by Radim Bělohrad. However, such an interpretation is not without a cost. Therefore another interpretation of van Inwagen’s example of the Cabinet is offered which evades Evans’ charge of inconsistency against indeterminate identity as it does not need the notion at all.

查看原文本刊更多论文

论范·因瓦根反驳埃文斯论点中所谓的前后矛盾

本文试图解释范·因瓦根对埃文斯“不可能有模糊对象”这一论点的反驳，并针对拉姆·布伦洛拉德提出的不一致的指责为其辩护。然而，这样的解释并非没有代价。因此，对van Inwagen的内阁例子的另一种解释被提出，这种解释回避了Evans对不确定同一性的不一致性的指控，因为它根本不需要这个概念。

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

Studia Neoaristotelica Arts and Humanities-Philosophy

CiteScore

0.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Studia Neoaristotelica is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal devoted to the promotion of Aristotelian philosophy broadly conceived, drawing on the rich legacy of the scholastic tradition and contemporary analytical metaphysics. Special emphasis is placed on the most advanced forms of scholastic thought that emerged during the Renaissance and Baroque periods. Our vision is to work toward a philosophical synthesis of analytic and scholastic methods and ideas, providing a contribution to Christian philosophy as well as wider secular thought. The journal is published by Editiones Scholasticae and the University of South Bohemia Faculty of Theology.