解释柏拉图、欧里庇得斯和塞内加的恶

Rachana Kamtekar
{"title":"解释柏拉图、欧里庇得斯和塞内加的恶","authors":"Rachana Kamtekar","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780199915453.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Plato distinguishes two kinds of explanation: rational explanation of an agent’s practical reasoning leading to the selection of an action as a reasonable means to a good end, and dispositional explanation, given in terms of the agency that is such as to bring about an action of a given sort. Rational explanation seeks completion in the explainer’s recognition of the agent’s end as a good and the agent’s means as reasonable, which confers intelligibility on the action; dispositional explanation is a fallback when the explainer cannot see the agent’s end as good or means as reasonable—as is the case with evil. This claim is illustrated in Euripides’s and Seneca’s Medea plays.","PeriodicalId":318625,"journal":{"name":"Evil","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining Evil in Plato, Euripides, and Seneca\",\"authors\":\"Rachana Kamtekar\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780199915453.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Plato distinguishes two kinds of explanation: rational explanation of an agent’s practical reasoning leading to the selection of an action as a reasonable means to a good end, and dispositional explanation, given in terms of the agency that is such as to bring about an action of a given sort. Rational explanation seeks completion in the explainer’s recognition of the agent’s end as a good and the agent’s means as reasonable, which confers intelligibility on the action; dispositional explanation is a fallback when the explainer cannot see the agent’s end as good or means as reasonable—as is the case with evil. This claim is illustrated in Euripides’s and Seneca’s Medea plays.\",\"PeriodicalId\":318625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evil\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evil\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199915453.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evil","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780199915453.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

柏拉图区分了两种解释:一种是对行为主体实践推理的理性解释,这种实践推理导致了行为的选择,作为达到良好目的的合理手段;另一种是对行为主体的性格解释,这种解释导致了某种特定行为的发生。理性解释寻求在解释者承认行为人的目的是好的,行为人的手段是合理的,这赋予了行为的可理解性;当解释者看不到行为者的目的是好的或手段是合理的——就像邪恶的情况一样,性格解释是一种退路。欧里庇得斯和塞内加的美狄亚剧作就说明了这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Explaining Evil in Plato, Euripides, and Seneca
Plato distinguishes two kinds of explanation: rational explanation of an agent’s practical reasoning leading to the selection of an action as a reasonable means to a good end, and dispositional explanation, given in terms of the agency that is such as to bring about an action of a given sort. Rational explanation seeks completion in the explainer’s recognition of the agent’s end as a good and the agent’s means as reasonable, which confers intelligibility on the action; dispositional explanation is a fallback when the explainer cannot see the agent’s end as good or means as reasonable—as is the case with evil. This claim is illustrated in Euripides’s and Seneca’s Medea plays.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信