全实用主义侵占与信念-欲望心理

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Simon Langford
{"title":"全实用主义侵占与信念-欲望心理","authors":"Simon Langford","doi":"10.1111/phib.12325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Pragmatic encroachment in epistemology is the idea that whether one knows some proposition depends on whether one can rely on it practically. Total pragmatic encroachment affirms that practical considerations of this sort encroach not just on knowledge but on all interesting normative epistemic statuses a belief might have. Ichikawa, Jarvis, and Rubin (2012) have argued that this stronger thesis conflicts with mainstream belief‐desire psychology. Worse still, they argue that attempting to defend the thesis gets one caught in vicious circularities. The aim of this paper is to show that, if we are careful in how we understand the key idea of being sensitive to practical considerations , we can defend total pragmatic encroachment and avoid the circularities. In fact, depending on how it is understood, we can even square mainstream belief‐desire psychology with total pragmatic encroachment as well.","PeriodicalId":45646,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Philosophy","volume":"66 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Total pragmatic encroachment and belief–desire psychology\",\"authors\":\"Simon Langford\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phib.12325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Pragmatic encroachment in epistemology is the idea that whether one knows some proposition depends on whether one can rely on it practically. Total pragmatic encroachment affirms that practical considerations of this sort encroach not just on knowledge but on all interesting normative epistemic statuses a belief might have. Ichikawa, Jarvis, and Rubin (2012) have argued that this stronger thesis conflicts with mainstream belief‐desire psychology. Worse still, they argue that attempting to defend the thesis gets one caught in vicious circularities. The aim of this paper is to show that, if we are careful in how we understand the key idea of being sensitive to practical considerations , we can defend total pragmatic encroachment and avoid the circularities. In fact, depending on how it is understood, we can even square mainstream belief‐desire psychology with total pragmatic encroachment as well.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"66 8\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12325\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12325","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在认识论中,语用侵占是指一个人是否知道一个命题,取决于他是否能在实践中依赖这个命题。完全实用主义侵占肯定了这类实践考虑不仅侵占了知识还侵占了信仰可能拥有的所有有趣的规范性认知状态。Ichikawa、Jarvis和Rubin(2012)认为,这一论点与主流的信念-欲望心理学相冲突。更糟糕的是,他们认为,试图捍卫这一论点会使人陷入恶性循环。本文的目的是表明,如果我们仔细理解对实际考虑敏感的关键思想,我们可以捍卫完全的实用主义侵犯并避免循环。事实上,取决于如何理解它,我们甚至可以将主流的信念-欲望心理学与完全的实用主义侵蚀结合起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Total pragmatic encroachment and belief–desire psychology
Abstract Pragmatic encroachment in epistemology is the idea that whether one knows some proposition depends on whether one can rely on it practically. Total pragmatic encroachment affirms that practical considerations of this sort encroach not just on knowledge but on all interesting normative epistemic statuses a belief might have. Ichikawa, Jarvis, and Rubin (2012) have argued that this stronger thesis conflicts with mainstream belief‐desire psychology. Worse still, they argue that attempting to defend the thesis gets one caught in vicious circularities. The aim of this paper is to show that, if we are careful in how we understand the key idea of being sensitive to practical considerations , we can defend total pragmatic encroachment and avoid the circularities. In fact, depending on how it is understood, we can even square mainstream belief‐desire psychology with total pragmatic encroachment as well.
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
Analytic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
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