原因、削弱因素和美德:对语用侵犯的新阐释

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Eva Schmidt
{"title":"原因、削弱因素和美德:对语用侵犯的新阐释","authors":"Eva Schmidt","doi":"10.1111/phib.12314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I explicate pragmatic encroachment by appealing to pragmatic considerations attenuating, or weakening, epistemic reasons to believe. I call this the ‘Attenuators View’. I will show that this proposal is better than spelling out pragmatic encroachment in terms of reasons against believing – what I call the ‘Reasons View’. While both views do equally well when it comes to providing a plausible mechanism of how pragmatic encroachment works, the Attenuators View does a better job distinguishing practical and epistemic reasons to believe. First, this view does not appeal to the costs of believing falsely as reasons against believing; second, because of this, it does not run the risk of tearing down the wall between practical and epistemic reasons bearing on belief. I underpin the Attenuators View with a virtue‐theoretic account of how pragmatic encroachment attenuates epistemic reasons and close my discussion by considering some objections against such a view.","PeriodicalId":45646,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasons, attenuators, and virtue: A novel account of pragmatic encroachment\",\"authors\":\"Eva Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phib.12314\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I explicate pragmatic encroachment by appealing to pragmatic considerations attenuating, or weakening, epistemic reasons to believe. I call this the ‘Attenuators View’. I will show that this proposal is better than spelling out pragmatic encroachment in terms of reasons against believing – what I call the ‘Reasons View’. While both views do equally well when it comes to providing a plausible mechanism of how pragmatic encroachment works, the Attenuators View does a better job distinguishing practical and epistemic reasons to believe. First, this view does not appeal to the costs of believing falsely as reasons against believing; second, because of this, it does not run the risk of tearing down the wall between practical and epistemic reasons bearing on belief. I underpin the Attenuators View with a virtue‐theoretic account of how pragmatic encroachment attenuates epistemic reasons and close my discussion by considering some objections against such a view.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12314\",\"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.12314","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: 4

摘要

在本文中,我通过呼吁语用考虑削弱或削弱相信的认知理由来解释语用侵蚀。我称之为衰减器视图。我将表明,这个建议比从反对信仰的理由(我称之为“理由观点”)的角度阐述务实的侵犯要好。虽然两种观点在提供实用主义侵蚀如何运作的合理机制方面都做得很好,但衰减者观点在区分实践理由和认知理由方面做得更好。首先,这种观点并没有将错误信仰的代价作为反对信仰的理由;其次,正因为如此,它不会冒着推倒与信仰有关的实践理由和认识论理由之间的墙的风险。我用一种美德理论来解释语用侵蚀是如何削弱认知原因的,以此来支持衰减者观点,并通过考虑对这种观点的一些反对意见来结束我的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reasons, attenuators, and virtue: A novel account of pragmatic encroachment
In this paper, I explicate pragmatic encroachment by appealing to pragmatic considerations attenuating, or weakening, epistemic reasons to believe. I call this the ‘Attenuators View’. I will show that this proposal is better than spelling out pragmatic encroachment in terms of reasons against believing – what I call the ‘Reasons View’. While both views do equally well when it comes to providing a plausible mechanism of how pragmatic encroachment works, the Attenuators View does a better job distinguishing practical and epistemic reasons to believe. First, this view does not appeal to the costs of believing falsely as reasons against believing; second, because of this, it does not run the risk of tearing down the wall between practical and epistemic reasons bearing on belief. I underpin the Attenuators View with a virtue‐theoretic account of how pragmatic encroachment attenuates epistemic reasons and close my discussion by considering some objections against such a view.
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