为什么哲学需要一个进步的概念

IF 0.4 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

METAPHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2023-01-19 DOI:10.1111/meta.12603

James Norton

{"title":"为什么哲学需要一个进步的概念","authors":"James Norton","doi":"10.1111/meta.12603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper defends the usefulness of the concept of philosophical progress and the common assumption that philosophy and science aim to make the same, or a comparable, kind of progress. It does so by responding to Yafeng Shan's (2022) arguments that the wealth of research on scientific progress is not applicable or useful to philosophy, and that philosophy doesn't need a concept of progress at all. It is ultimately argued that while Shan's arguments are not successful, they reveal the way forward in developing accounts of philosophical progress.</p>","PeriodicalId":46874,"journal":{"name":"METAPHILOSOPHY","volume":"54 1","pages":"3-16"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/meta.12603","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why philosophy needs a concept of progress\",\"authors\":\"James Norton\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/meta.12603\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This paper defends the usefulness of the concept of philosophical progress and the common assumption that philosophy and science aim to make the same, or a comparable, kind of progress. It does so by responding to Yafeng Shan's (2022) arguments that the wealth of research on scientific progress is not applicable or useful to philosophy, and that philosophy doesn't need a concept of progress at all. It is ultimately argued that while Shan's arguments are not successful, they reveal the way forward in developing accounts of philosophical progress.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"METAPHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"3-16\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/meta.12603\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"METAPHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.12603\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"METAPHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.12603","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

本文为哲学进步概念的有用性以及哲学和科学旨在取得相同或可比较的进步的普遍假设进行了辩护。它通过回应亚峰山(2022)的论点来做到这一点，即科学进步研究的财富不适用于哲学，也没有用，哲学根本不需要进步的概念。作者最终认为，虽然单霁翔的论点并不成功，但它们揭示了发展哲学进步的道路。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Why philosophy needs a concept of progress

This paper defends the usefulness of the concept of philosophical progress and the common assumption that philosophy and science aim to make the same, or a comparable, kind of progress. It does so by responding to Yafeng Shan's (2022) arguments that the wealth of research on scientific progress is not applicable or useful to philosophy, and that philosophy doesn't need a concept of progress at all. It is ultimately argued that while Shan's arguments are not successful, they reveal the way forward in developing accounts of philosophical progress.

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

METAPHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

0.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Metaphilosophy publishes articles and reviews books stressing considerations about philosophy and particular schools, methods, or fields of philosophy. The intended scope is very broad: no method, field, or school is excluded.