拉尔夫·卡德沃斯的神性概念论与自举式反对

Zachary Adam Akin
{"title":"拉尔夫·卡德沃斯的神性概念论与自举式反对","authors":"Zachary Adam Akin","doi":"10.5840/pc202123230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I defend divine conceptualism against one prominent critique from William Lane Craig in his book God and Abstract Objects. Craig argues that the divine conceptualist’s only way out of the “bootstrapping objection” results in an unpalatable concession of defeat to the metaphysical anti-realist. Craig’s argument depends on an analysis whereby God is causally or logically prior to the divine concepts. As such, the conceptualist may resist it by adopting—following Ralph Cudworth—a version of divine conceptualism which does not construe the relationship between God and His thoughts as one of either causal or logical priority.","PeriodicalId":434758,"journal":{"name":"Philosophia Christi","volume":"452 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ralph Cudworth’s Divine Conceptualism and the Bootstrapping Objection\",\"authors\":\"Zachary Adam Akin\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/pc202123230\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I defend divine conceptualism against one prominent critique from William Lane Craig in his book God and Abstract Objects. Craig argues that the divine conceptualist’s only way out of the “bootstrapping objection” results in an unpalatable concession of defeat to the metaphysical anti-realist. Craig’s argument depends on an analysis whereby God is causally or logically prior to the divine concepts. As such, the conceptualist may resist it by adopting—following Ralph Cudworth—a version of divine conceptualism which does not construe the relationship between God and His thoughts as one of either causal or logical priority.\",\"PeriodicalId\":434758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophia Christi\",\"volume\":\"452 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophia Christi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/pc202123230\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophia Christi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/pc202123230","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

在本文中,我为神圣概念主义辩护,反对威廉·莱恩·克雷格在他的著作《上帝与抽象对象》中提出的一个重要批评。克雷格认为,神性概念主义者摆脱“自举式反对”的唯一途径是向形而上学的反现实主义做出令人不快的让步。克雷格的论证依赖于一种分析,即上帝在因果或逻辑上先于神圣的概念。因此,概念主义者可能会通过采纳拉尔夫·卡德沃斯(Ralph cudworth)的一种神圣概念主义来抵制它,这种概念主义不把上帝和他的思想之间的关系解释为因果关系或逻辑优先关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ralph Cudworth’s Divine Conceptualism and the Bootstrapping Objection
In this paper, I defend divine conceptualism against one prominent critique from William Lane Craig in his book God and Abstract Objects. Craig argues that the divine conceptualist’s only way out of the “bootstrapping objection” results in an unpalatable concession of defeat to the metaphysical anti-realist. Craig’s argument depends on an analysis whereby God is causally or logically prior to the divine concepts. As such, the conceptualist may resist it by adopting—following Ralph Cudworth—a version of divine conceptualism which does not construe the relationship between God and His thoughts as one of either causal or logical priority.
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
CiteScore
0.50
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