Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume最新文献_第8页

II—Lost Memory and Contested Recollection: A Response to Professor Adamson 失去的记忆和有争议的回忆:对亚当森教授的回应

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKZ005

G. Boys-Stones

引用次数: 0

I—The Virtues of Relativism 1、相对主义的优点

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKZ013

M. Baghramian

引用次数: 14

I—What Is Impostor Syndrome? 什么是冒名顶替综合症?

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKZ003

K. Hawley

引用次数: 9

II—What Should ‘Impostor Syndrome’ Be? “骗子综合症”应该是什么?

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKZ006

S. Paul

引用次数: 6

II—Deception and the Desires That Speak against It 欺骗和反对欺骗的欲望

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKZ012

Christoph Fehige, U. Wessels

引用次数: 0

II—Waking, Knowing, and Being Conscious 二、觉醒、认知和意识

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKZ009

J. Stazicker

引用次数: 0

I—Waking Up and Being Conscious 1 .醒来并保持意识

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2019-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKZ002

Matthew Soteriou

引用次数: 3

I—Prospects for a Naturalistic Explanation of the Good 一、对善的自然主义解释的展望

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKY001

Christine M. Korsgaard

{"title":"I—Prospects for a Naturalistic Explanation of the Good","authors":"Christine M. Korsgaard","doi":"10.1093/ARISUP/AKY001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ARISUP/AKY001","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I explore the possibility of explaining why there is such a thing as the good in naturalistic terms. More specifically, I seek an explanation of the fact that some things are good-for human beings and the other animals in the final sense of good: worth aiming at. I trace the existence of the final good to the existence of conscious agents. I propose that the final good for an animal is her own well-functioning as the kind of creature she is, taken as an end of action, and that having this as her final good makes her better at the activity she is necessarily engaged in, namely living. I. The Problem Lately I have been working on a theory of the good which aspires to be, in a certain sense, naturalistic (Korsgaard, 2013; 2014/2015; 2018, chapter 2). The sense of ‘naturalistic’ that I have in mind is explanatory rather than reductive. What I mean is that I am looking for a way to explain why there is such a thing as the good — why some things are good and some are bad, some things are better and some are worse. I seek an explanation that does not appeal to any irreducibly normative facts, and is consistent with a scientific conception of the world, but does not aspire to reduce the good to something else like pleasure or the satisfaction of desire. I accept the sort of argument, associated with G. E. Moore Prospects for a Naturalistic Explanation of the Good Christine M. Korsgaard p. 2 2 (1903) but originally advanced by Richard Price (1758) that says that although such things could turn out in fact to be good, or could even turn out to be ‘The Good,’ we cannot simply identify the concept of the good with any natural property or condition. The concept of the good might apply to pleasure or satisfaction, but it is not the concept of pleasure or satisfaction. For reasons I will explain, the sense of ‘good’ that I take to be most fundamental is what I call the ‘final’ sense of good, in contrast with what I call the ‘evaluative’ or ‘functional’ sense of the good. Speaking roughly, something is evaluatively or functionally good when it has the properties that enable it to serve its function or to serve it well. Something is finally good when it is the sort of thing that is worth having, or aiming at, for its own sake. In this paper, what I have to say will be limited in one important way. Elsewhere I have argued that the notion of something’s being good for someone — that is for some person, animal, or group — is prior to the notion of something’s being good simply or absolutely (Korsgaard, 2013, 2014/2015, section 2). It is prior in the sense that you can construct a conception of what is good absolutely out of a conception of what is good for someone, but not the reverse. If you start with a conception of what is good absolutely, it is impossible to arrive at an intelligible conception of something’s being good for someone, a notion that identifies the ‘forness’ relation in the right way. For purposes of this paper I take that as a given,","PeriodicalId":100121,"journal":{"name":"Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume","volume":"98 1","pages":"111-131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74252205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

II—‘This Is the Bad Case’: What Brains in Vats Can Know “这是一个糟糕的情况”:缸里的大脑能知道什么

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKY011

Aidan McGlynn

引用次数: 2

I—Plato’s Philebus and Some ‘Value of Knowledge’ Problems 柏拉图的《菲利伯斯》与“知识的价值”问题

Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume Pub Date : 2018-06-01 DOI: 10.1093/ARISUP/AKY013

V. Harte

引用次数: 0