绝对主义和相对主义

J. Studd
{"title":"绝对主义和相对主义","authors":"J. Studd","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198719649.003.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Absolutism about quantifiers maintains, with a good deal of prima facie plausibility, that quantifiers like ‘everything’ sometimes range over an absolutely comprehensive domain. This view has been challenged on various grounds: some deny the availability of a universal nominal like ‘thing’ on the grounds that it lacks a non-trivial criterion of identity; others contend that absolutism is committed to objectionable views in metaontology. But the most compelling reason to support relativism about quantifiers as opposed to absolutism is bound up with the set-theoretic paradoxes. This introductory chapter offers an overview of the absolute generality debate, and sets the scene for the defence of relativism that follows in the rest of the book.","PeriodicalId":272038,"journal":{"name":"Everything, more or less","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Absolutism and Relativism\",\"authors\":\"J. Studd\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780198719649.003.0001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Absolutism about quantifiers maintains, with a good deal of prima facie plausibility, that quantifiers like ‘everything’ sometimes range over an absolutely comprehensive domain. This view has been challenged on various grounds: some deny the availability of a universal nominal like ‘thing’ on the grounds that it lacks a non-trivial criterion of identity; others contend that absolutism is committed to objectionable views in metaontology. But the most compelling reason to support relativism about quantifiers as opposed to absolutism is bound up with the set-theoretic paradoxes. This introductory chapter offers an overview of the absolute generality debate, and sets the scene for the defence of relativism that follows in the rest of the book.\",\"PeriodicalId\":272038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Everything, more or less\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Everything, more or less\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198719649.003.0001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Everything, more or less","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198719649.003.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

关于量词的绝对主义坚持认为,有大量的表面上的合理性,量词如“一切”有时涵盖了一个绝对全面的领域。这种观点受到了各种理由的挑战:一些人否认像"物"这样的普遍名义的存在,理由是它缺乏一个非平凡的同一性标准;另一些人则认为,绝对主义在元论中产生了令人反感的观点。但是,支持量词相对于绝对主义的最令人信服的理由是与集合论悖论相联系的。这一引言章节概述了关于绝对普遍性的争论,并为本书其余部分的相对主义辩护奠定了基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Absolutism and Relativism
Absolutism about quantifiers maintains, with a good deal of prima facie plausibility, that quantifiers like ‘everything’ sometimes range over an absolutely comprehensive domain. This view has been challenged on various grounds: some deny the availability of a universal nominal like ‘thing’ on the grounds that it lacks a non-trivial criterion of identity; others contend that absolutism is committed to objectionable views in metaontology. But the most compelling reason to support relativism about quantifiers as opposed to absolutism is bound up with the set-theoretic paradoxes. This introductory chapter offers an overview of the absolute generality debate, and sets the scene for the defence of relativism that follows in the rest of the book.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信