Chisholm关于必要的后验

Q3 Arts and Humanities
M. Wreen
{"title":"Chisholm关于必要的后验","authors":"M. Wreen","doi":"10.5406/21521026.39.3.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Roderick Chisholm addressed the issue of the necessary a posteriori on at least three occasions and, characteristically, modified his views over time. He first advanced a three-stage argument that concluded that no necessary truths are known a posteriori. Without abandoning that argument, he later weakened its conclusion, claiming only that not all knowledge of necessary truths is a posteriori. In the main, this paper is a detailed critical exposition of Chisholm's arguments. However, it also picks up on some suggestive remarks of Chisholm's, draws them out, and explores them.","PeriodicalId":53558,"journal":{"name":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chisholm on the Necessary A Posteriori\",\"authors\":\"M. Wreen\",\"doi\":\"10.5406/21521026.39.3.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Roderick Chisholm addressed the issue of the necessary a posteriori on at least three occasions and, characteristically, modified his views over time. He first advanced a three-stage argument that concluded that no necessary truths are known a posteriori. Without abandoning that argument, he later weakened its conclusion, claiming only that not all knowledge of necessary truths is a posteriori. In the main, this paper is a detailed critical exposition of Chisholm's arguments. However, it also picks up on some suggestive remarks of Chisholm's, draws them out, and explores them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of Philosophy Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of Philosophy Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5406/21521026.39.3.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/21521026.39.3.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

罗德里克·奇泽姆至少三次谈到了必要的后验问题,并随着时间的推移改变了他的观点。他首先提出了一个分为三个阶段的论点,得出的结论是,没有必要的真理是事后已知的。在没有放弃这一论点的情况下,他后来削弱了其结论,只声称并非所有必要真理的知识都是后验的。本文主要对奇泽姆的论点进行了详细的批评性论述。然而,它也吸收了奇泽姆的一些暗示性言论,将其提炼出来,并对其进行了探索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chisholm on the Necessary A Posteriori
Roderick Chisholm addressed the issue of the necessary a posteriori on at least three occasions and, characteristically, modified his views over time. He first advanced a three-stage argument that concluded that no necessary truths are known a posteriori. Without abandoning that argument, he later weakened its conclusion, claiming only that not all knowledge of necessary truths is a posteriori. In the main, this paper is a detailed critical exposition of Chisholm's arguments. However, it also picks up on some suggestive remarks of Chisholm's, draws them out, and explores them.
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
History of Philosophy Quarterly
History of Philosophy Quarterly Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信