天仙与自我的可塑性

Pub Date : 2024-04-30 DOI:10.1163/22105700-bja10082
Brian Ribeiro
{"title":"天仙与自我的可塑性","authors":"Brian Ribeiro","doi":"10.1163/22105700-bja10082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>I review the dispute between Ribeiro (2011) and Brown (2021) over whether the radical transformation which a human self would need to undergo in order to be heaven-admissible would be such that it leads to a <em>loss of self</em>. Ribeiro thinks it would; Brown thinks it wouldn’t. My primary intention here is to advance the debate by trying to better understand <em>what’s in dispute</em> between these disputants. From this better understanding of what’s in dispute, we can see what would be needed to <em>substantively</em> advance the debate, and one claim I defend here is that in order to substantively advance this debate, a disputant would need to have a compelling defense of his side’s view on (at least) one of the two main issues that my analysis herein identifies.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Heavenly Immortality and the Plasticity of the Self\",\"authors\":\"Brian Ribeiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22105700-bja10082\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>I review the dispute between Ribeiro (2011) and Brown (2021) over whether the radical transformation which a human self would need to undergo in order to be heaven-admissible would be such that it leads to a <em>loss of self</em>. Ribeiro thinks it would; Brown thinks it wouldn’t. My primary intention here is to advance the debate by trying to better understand <em>what’s in dispute</em> between these disputants. From this better understanding of what’s in dispute, we can see what would be needed to <em>substantively</em> advance the debate, and one claim I defend here is that in order to substantively advance this debate, a disputant would need to have a compelling defense of his side’s view on (at least) one of the two main issues that my analysis herein identifies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22105700-bja10082\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22105700-bja10082","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

我回顾了里贝罗(Ribeiro,2011 年)和布朗(Brown,2021 年)之间的争论,他们争论的焦点是:人类的自我需要经历彻底的转变才能被天堂接纳,而这种转变是否会导致自我的丧失。里贝罗认为会,布朗则认为不会。我在这里的主要意图是通过试图更好地理解这些争论者之间的争议点来推动辩论。我在此提出的一个主张是,为了实质性地推进这场辩论,争论者需要就我的分析所指出的两个主要问题(至少)中的一个问题为己方的观点进行令人信服的辩护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
Heavenly Immortality and the Plasticity of the Self

I review the dispute between Ribeiro (2011) and Brown (2021) over whether the radical transformation which a human self would need to undergo in order to be heaven-admissible would be such that it leads to a loss of self. Ribeiro thinks it would; Brown thinks it wouldn’t. My primary intention here is to advance the debate by trying to better understand what’s in dispute between these disputants. From this better understanding of what’s in dispute, we can see what would be needed to substantively advance the debate, and one claim I defend here is that in order to substantively advance this debate, a disputant would need to have a compelling defense of his side’s view on (at least) one of the two main issues that my analysis herein identifies.

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
×
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