爱泼斯坦在锚和地面上

Q2 Arts and Humanities

Journal of Social Ontology Pub Date : 2016-03-23 DOI:10.1515/jso-2016-0003

F. Guala

{"title":"爱泼斯坦在锚和地面上","authors":"F. Guala","doi":"10.1515/jso-2016-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The distinction between anchors and grounds is one of the most innovative contributions of The Ant Trap. In this commentary I will argue that the distinction suffers from an ambiguity between tokens and types. This leads Epstein to endorse pluralism about anchors and grounds, a position that is not justified in the book and to which there are plausible alternatives.","PeriodicalId":37042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Ontology","volume":"25 1","pages":"135 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jso-2016-0003","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epstein on Anchors and Grounds\",\"authors\":\"F. Guala\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jso-2016-0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The distinction between anchors and grounds is one of the most innovative contributions of The Ant Trap. In this commentary I will argue that the distinction suffers from an ambiguity between tokens and types. This leads Epstein to endorse pluralism about anchors and grounds, a position that is not justified in the book and to which there are plausible alternatives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Ontology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"135 - 147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jso-2016-0003\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Ontology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2016-0003\",\"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":"Journal of Social Ontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2016-0003","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: 5

摘要

锚与地的区分是《蚂蚁陷阱》最具创新性的贡献之一。在这篇评论中，我将论证记号和类型之间存在歧义的区别。这导致爱泼斯坦支持关于锚和基础的多元主义，这一立场在书中没有得到证实，但也有其他合理的替代方案。

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

Epstein on Anchors and Grounds

Abstract The distinction between anchors and grounds is one of the most innovative contributions of The Ant Trap. In this commentary I will argue that the distinction suffers from an ambiguity between tokens and types. This leads Epstein to endorse pluralism about anchors and grounds, a position that is not justified in the book and to which there are plausible alternatives.

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

Journal of Social Ontology Arts and Humanities-Philosophy

CiteScore

1.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

16 weeks