论幻觉主义和现实主义在认识论和本体论上的转变

Maxim Gorbachev
{"title":"论幻觉主义和现实主义在认识论和本体论上的转变","authors":"Maxim Gorbachev","doi":"10.17323/2587-8719-2023-4-199-214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is about the discussion between realists and illusionists on phenomenal consciousness, phenomenal properties or qualia. The author considers what he calls the epistemological-ontological transition — the transition from epistemologically significant statements to ontologically significant ones. The option to avoid such a transition is tested in order to overcome some obstacles that it can bring to the discussion. The paper provides examples of the transition made by both camps as well as some advantages and disadvantages of rejecting it. The author comes to the conclusion that there are meaningful arguments for both options. On one hand, rejection of the transition to ontology may be beneficial for the following reasons. First, it tends to puzzle the opponents and to slow the discussion. Second, the very reason for the transition is poorly justified. Third, the core of the discussion between illusionists and realists — or at least its argumentative part — is rather epistemological, hence, moving to ontology might blur key arguments. On the other hand, one might aspire to save the transition due to the ontological roots of the discussion which must lead its argumentative part. The author then points out that eliminating the transition does not assume denying the ontological significance of the present discussion and that the problem of the nature of consciousness is definitely worth considering — but, perhaps, after the epistemological part of the problem is carefully analyzed.","PeriodicalId":346906,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics","volume":"37 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Epistemological-Ontological Transition Made by Illusionism and Realism\",\"authors\":\"Maxim Gorbachev\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/2587-8719-2023-4-199-214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article is about the discussion between realists and illusionists on phenomenal consciousness, phenomenal properties or qualia. The author considers what he calls the epistemological-ontological transition — the transition from epistemologically significant statements to ontologically significant ones. The option to avoid such a transition is tested in order to overcome some obstacles that it can bring to the discussion. The paper provides examples of the transition made by both camps as well as some advantages and disadvantages of rejecting it. The author comes to the conclusion that there are meaningful arguments for both options. On one hand, rejection of the transition to ontology may be beneficial for the following reasons. First, it tends to puzzle the opponents and to slow the discussion. Second, the very reason for the transition is poorly justified. Third, the core of the discussion between illusionists and realists — or at least its argumentative part — is rather epistemological, hence, moving to ontology might blur key arguments. On the other hand, one might aspire to save the transition due to the ontological roots of the discussion which must lead its argumentative part. The author then points out that eliminating the transition does not assume denying the ontological significance of the present discussion and that the problem of the nature of consciousness is definitely worth considering — but, perhaps, after the epistemological part of the problem is carefully analyzed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":346906,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics\",\"volume\":\"37 17\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/2587-8719-2023-4-199-214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/2587-8719-2023-4-199-214","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

本文讲述的是现实主义者和幻觉主义者关于现象意识、现象属性或质点的讨论。作者考虑了他所谓的认识论-本体论过渡--从认识论意义上的陈述到本体论意义上的陈述的过渡。为了克服这种过渡可能给讨论带来的一些障碍,作者对避免这种过渡的选择进行了检验。本文举例说明了两个阵营所做的过渡,以及拒绝这种过渡的一些利弊。作者得出的结论是,两种方案都有有意义的论据。一方面,拒绝向本体过渡可能是有益的,原因如下。首先,它往往会让反对者感到困惑,并减缓讨论的速度。其次,过渡的理由不充分。第三,幻觉论者与现实论者之间讨论的核心--或至少其论证部分--是认识论,因此,转向本体论可能会模糊关键论点。另一方面,由于讨论的本体论根源必须引领其论证部分,人们可能希望省去这一过渡。作者随后指出,取消过渡并不意味着否认当前讨论的本体论意义,意识的本质问题绝对值得思考--但也许要在仔细分析了该问题的认识论部分之后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Epistemological-Ontological Transition Made by Illusionism and Realism
This article is about the discussion between realists and illusionists on phenomenal consciousness, phenomenal properties or qualia. The author considers what he calls the epistemological-ontological transition — the transition from epistemologically significant statements to ontologically significant ones. The option to avoid such a transition is tested in order to overcome some obstacles that it can bring to the discussion. The paper provides examples of the transition made by both camps as well as some advantages and disadvantages of rejecting it. The author comes to the conclusion that there are meaningful arguments for both options. On one hand, rejection of the transition to ontology may be beneficial for the following reasons. First, it tends to puzzle the opponents and to slow the discussion. Second, the very reason for the transition is poorly justified. Third, the core of the discussion between illusionists and realists — or at least its argumentative part — is rather epistemological, hence, moving to ontology might blur key arguments. On the other hand, one might aspire to save the transition due to the ontological roots of the discussion which must lead its argumentative part. The author then points out that eliminating the transition does not assume denying the ontological significance of the present discussion and that the problem of the nature of consciousness is definitely worth considering — but, perhaps, after the epistemological part of the problem is carefully analyzed.
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