心理小说主义与表现象夸利亚

Q2 Arts and Humanities
DIALECTICA Pub Date : 2018-08-24 DOI:10.1111/1746-8361.12229
Gábor Bács
{"title":"心理小说主义与表现象夸利亚","authors":"Gábor Bács","doi":"10.1111/1746-8361.12229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the paper I discuss and defuse Miklós Márton and János Tőzsér's phenomenological objection to mental fictionalism. The phenomenological objection states that mental fictionalism is phenomenologically undermotivated, because mental fictionalism is motivated by doubt in the existence of the subject matter of folk psychology but there undoubtedly exist conscious experiences which are subject matters of folk psychology. While one could argue, in the spirit of realist fictionalism, that mental fictionalism is not necessarily motivated by doubt in the existence of the subject matter of folk psychology, I choose a more direct approach. I defuse the phenomenological objection on the grounds that its premises cannot both be true, because conscious experiences which indubitably exist and conscious experiences which are subject matter of folk psychology are <i>different</i> things. In other words, their argument is either not sound or is invalid, because it commits an equivocation. So I defend mental fictionalism, but I am no mental fictionalist myself. I defend mental fictionalism, because I am against the idea of phenomenologically undermotivated theory of mind as such. The general point I want to make is that no theory of mind is phenomenologically undermotivated, that the metaphysics of mind is not on a short phenomenological leash.</p>","PeriodicalId":46676,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICA","volume":"72 2","pages":"297-308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1746-8361.12229","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mental Fictionalism and Epiphenomenal Qualia\",\"authors\":\"Gábor Bács\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1746-8361.12229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In the paper I discuss and defuse Miklós Márton and János Tőzsér's phenomenological objection to mental fictionalism. The phenomenological objection states that mental fictionalism is phenomenologically undermotivated, because mental fictionalism is motivated by doubt in the existence of the subject matter of folk psychology but there undoubtedly exist conscious experiences which are subject matters of folk psychology. While one could argue, in the spirit of realist fictionalism, that mental fictionalism is not necessarily motivated by doubt in the existence of the subject matter of folk psychology, I choose a more direct approach. I defuse the phenomenological objection on the grounds that its premises cannot both be true, because conscious experiences which indubitably exist and conscious experiences which are subject matter of folk psychology are <i>different</i> things. In other words, their argument is either not sound or is invalid, because it commits an equivocation. So I defend mental fictionalism, but I am no mental fictionalist myself. I defend mental fictionalism, because I am against the idea of phenomenologically undermotivated theory of mind as such. The general point I want to make is that no theory of mind is phenomenologically undermotivated, that the metaphysics of mind is not on a short phenomenological leash.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"volume\":\"72 2\",\"pages\":\"297-308\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1746-8361.12229\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文讨论并化解了Miklós Márton和János Tőzsér对心理虚构主义的现象学异议。现象学上的反对意见认为,心理虚构主义在现象学上是动机不足的,因为心理虚构主义的动机是对民间心理学主体是否存在的怀疑,但毫无疑问,民间心理学主体确实存在意识体验。虽然有人可能会说,在现实主义虚构主义的精神下,心理虚构主义并不一定是因为怀疑民间心理学主题的存在而产生的,但我选择了一种更直接的方法。我驳斥现象学上的反对理由是它的前提不可能都是真的,因为意识经验无疑是存在的而意识经验是民间心理学的主题是不同的东西。换句话说,他们的论证要么不可靠,要么无效,因为它含糊其辞。所以我为心理虚构主义辩护,但我自己并不是心理虚构主义者。我为心理虚构主义辩护,因为我反对现象学上动机不足的心理理论。我想说的一般观点是,没有任何一种精神理论在现象学上是缺乏动机的,精神形而上学并没有受到现象学的束缚。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mental Fictionalism and Epiphenomenal Qualia

In the paper I discuss and defuse Miklós Márton and János Tőzsér's phenomenological objection to mental fictionalism. The phenomenological objection states that mental fictionalism is phenomenologically undermotivated, because mental fictionalism is motivated by doubt in the existence of the subject matter of folk psychology but there undoubtedly exist conscious experiences which are subject matters of folk psychology. While one could argue, in the spirit of realist fictionalism, that mental fictionalism is not necessarily motivated by doubt in the existence of the subject matter of folk psychology, I choose a more direct approach. I defuse the phenomenological objection on the grounds that its premises cannot both be true, because conscious experiences which indubitably exist and conscious experiences which are subject matter of folk psychology are different things. In other words, their argument is either not sound or is invalid, because it commits an equivocation. So I defend mental fictionalism, but I am no mental fictionalist myself. I defend mental fictionalism, because I am against the idea of phenomenologically undermotivated theory of mind as such. The general point I want to make is that no theory of mind is phenomenologically undermotivated, that the metaphysics of mind is not on a short phenomenological leash.

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
DIALECTICA
DIALECTICA PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding.
×
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