VERBAL DISPUTES AND DEEP CONCEPTUAL DISAGREEMENTS

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Daniel Cohnitz
{"title":"VERBAL DISPUTES AND DEEP CONCEPTUAL DISAGREEMENTS","authors":"Daniel Cohnitz","doi":"10.3176/tr.2020.3.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":". To say that a philosophical dispute is ‘merely verbal’ seems to be an important diagnosis. If that diagnosis is correct for a particular dispute, then the right thing to do would be to declare that dispute to be over. The topic of what the disputing parties were fighting over was just a pseudo-problem (thus not really a problem), or at least – if there is a sense in which also merely verbal disputes indicate some problem, for example, insufficient clarity of terminology – this problem is not substantial, or not as substantial as the disputing parties believed their problem initially to be. In this paper I will try to clarify what it means if we diagnose that two arguing parties are having a merely verbal dispute.","PeriodicalId":44498,"journal":{"name":"Trames-Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trames-Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3176/tr.2020.3.02","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

. To say that a philosophical dispute is ‘merely verbal’ seems to be an important diagnosis. If that diagnosis is correct for a particular dispute, then the right thing to do would be to declare that dispute to be over. The topic of what the disputing parties were fighting over was just a pseudo-problem (thus not really a problem), or at least – if there is a sense in which also merely verbal disputes indicate some problem, for example, insufficient clarity of terminology – this problem is not substantial, or not as substantial as the disputing parties believed their problem initially to be. In this paper I will try to clarify what it means if we diagnose that two arguing parties are having a merely verbal dispute.
口头上的争论和深刻的概念分歧
.说哲学争论“仅仅是口头的”,似乎是一种重要的诊断。如果这种诊断对某一特定争端是正确的,那么正确的做法就是宣布该争端结束。争论双方争论的话题只是一个伪问题(因此不是真正的问题),或者至少——如果从某种意义上说,仅仅是口头上的争论也表明了一些问题,例如,术语不够清晰——这个问题不是实质性的,或者不像争论双方最初认为的那样实质性。在本文中,我将试图澄清这意味着什么,如果我们诊断,争论双方只是有一个口头纠纷。
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
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
×
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