对因果排斥问题的兼容回应

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Jan Rostek
{"title":"对因果排斥问题的兼容回应","authors":"Jan Rostek","doi":"10.14394/FILNAU.2019.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The causal exclusion problem, as presented by Jaegwon Kim, is aimed to show that non-reductive physicalism is self-contradictory, as it is impossible for effects already having a sufficient physical cause to have a distinct mental cause. One possible reply to Kim’s argument is compatibilism — a view within non-reductive physicalism that states that psychophysical supervenience is able to sustain the coexistence of efficacious mental and physical causes. The aim of this paper is to describe the currently most popular compatibilist strategy, as well as to present and evaluate some objections to it. First, I sketch the causal exclusion problem and show how compatibilists could undermine the causal exclusion principle using counterfactual analysis. Then I point out why this is a troublesome and insufficient tool and what challenges await compatibilism in its current form.","PeriodicalId":41424,"journal":{"name":"Filozofia Nauki","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kompatybilistyczna odpowiedź na problem wykluczenia przyczynowego\",\"authors\":\"Jan Rostek\",\"doi\":\"10.14394/FILNAU.2019.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The causal exclusion problem, as presented by Jaegwon Kim, is aimed to show that non-reductive physicalism is self-contradictory, as it is impossible for effects already having a sufficient physical cause to have a distinct mental cause. One possible reply to Kim’s argument is compatibilism — a view within non-reductive physicalism that states that psychophysical supervenience is able to sustain the coexistence of efficacious mental and physical causes. The aim of this paper is to describe the currently most popular compatibilist strategy, as well as to present and evaluate some objections to it. First, I sketch the causal exclusion problem and show how compatibilists could undermine the causal exclusion principle using counterfactual analysis. Then I point out why this is a troublesome and insufficient tool and what challenges await compatibilism in its current form.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41424,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Filozofia Nauki\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Filozofia Nauki\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14394/FILNAU.2019.0004\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"Filozofia Nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14394/FILNAU.2019.0004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

金在原(Jaegwon Kim)提出的因果排除问题旨在表明,非还原物理主义是自相矛盾的,因为已经有充分物理原因的结果不可能有明显的精神原因。对Kim的论点的一个可能的回答是相容论——一种非还原物理主义的观点,它认为心理物理的监督能够维持有效的精神和物理原因的共存。本文的目的是描述目前最流行的兼容策略,以及提出和评估一些反对意见。首先,我概述了因果排斥问题,并展示了相容论者如何使用反事实分析来破坏因果排斥原则。然后,我指出为什么这是一个麻烦和不充分的工具,以及当前形式的兼容性面临着什么样的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kompatybilistyczna odpowiedź na problem wykluczenia przyczynowego
The causal exclusion problem, as presented by Jaegwon Kim, is aimed to show that non-reductive physicalism is self-contradictory, as it is impossible for effects already having a sufficient physical cause to have a distinct mental cause. One possible reply to Kim’s argument is compatibilism — a view within non-reductive physicalism that states that psychophysical supervenience is able to sustain the coexistence of efficacious mental and physical causes. The aim of this paper is to describe the currently most popular compatibilist strategy, as well as to present and evaluate some objections to it. First, I sketch the causal exclusion problem and show how compatibilists could undermine the causal exclusion principle using counterfactual analysis. Then I point out why this is a troublesome and insufficient tool and what challenges await compatibilism in its current form.
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
Filozofia Nauki
Filozofia Nauki PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Filozofia Nauki (The Philosophy of Science) is a double-blind peer-reviewed academic quarterly published by the Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw. It publishes articles, notes, and reviews covering the whole range of analytic philosophy, including among others: epistemology, ontology, general philosophy of science, philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophical logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of action, philosophy of mind, cognitive sciences, experimental philosophy. We invite papers not only from professional philosophers but also from specialists in different areas, interested in generalizing their scientific experiences towards more foundational issues.
×
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