晚期分析哲学史访谈

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY
G. Bonino, P. Tripodi
{"title":"晚期分析哲学史访谈","authors":"G. Bonino, P. Tripodi","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V6I1.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As editors of this special issue, we thought it useful to ask the same three questions on the history of late analytic philosophy to some philosophers. (1) What are the main philosophical and metaphilosophical similarities and differences between early analytic philosophy and late analytic philosophy? (2) Is it possible to identify a mainstream in late analytic philosophy? If so, what are its main (cultural, ideological, philosophical, methodological, metaphilosophical) features? (3) What are, in your view, the main critical and controversial aspects of late analytic philosophy? We warmly thank all the interviewees for their collaboration and their interesting answers: Thomas R. Baldwin (University of York) Michael Beaney (Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin and King’s College, London) Cora Diamond (University of Virginia) Hans-Johann Glock (Universitat Zurich) Matthew Haug (The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg) Cheryl Misak (University of Toronto) Philip Pettit (Princeton University) Nicholas Rescher (University of Pittsburgh) John Skorupski (University of St. Andrews) Brian Weatherson (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) Timothy Williamson (University of Oxford) Jonathan Wolff (University of Oxford)","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interviews on the history of late analytic philosophy\",\"authors\":\"G. Bonino, P. Tripodi\",\"doi\":\"10.4454/PHILINQ.V6I1.207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As editors of this special issue, we thought it useful to ask the same three questions on the history of late analytic philosophy to some philosophers. (1) What are the main philosophical and metaphilosophical similarities and differences between early analytic philosophy and late analytic philosophy? (2) Is it possible to identify a mainstream in late analytic philosophy? If so, what are its main (cultural, ideological, philosophical, methodological, metaphilosophical) features? (3) What are, in your view, the main critical and controversial aspects of late analytic philosophy? We warmly thank all the interviewees for their collaboration and their interesting answers: Thomas R. Baldwin (University of York) Michael Beaney (Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin and King’s College, London) Cora Diamond (University of Virginia) Hans-Johann Glock (Universitat Zurich) Matthew Haug (The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg) Cheryl Misak (University of Toronto) Philip Pettit (Princeton University) Nicholas Rescher (University of Pittsburgh) John Skorupski (University of St. Andrews) Brian Weatherson (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) Timothy Williamson (University of Oxford) Jonathan Wolff (University of Oxford)\",\"PeriodicalId\":41386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V6I1.207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Inquiries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V6I1.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作为本期特刊的编辑,我们认为向一些哲学家提出关于晚期分析哲学历史的同样三个问题是有用的。(1)早期分析哲学和晚期分析哲学在哲学和元哲学上的主要异同是什么?(2)是否有可能确定晚期分析哲学的主流?如果有,它的主要(文化的、意识形态的、哲学的、方法论的、形而上学的)特征是什么?(3)在您看来,晚期分析哲学的主要批判和争议方面是什么?我们衷心感谢所有受访者的合作和他们有趣的回答:Thomas R. Baldwin(约克大学)Michael Beaney(柏林洪堡大学和伦敦国王学院)Cora Diamond(弗吉尼亚大学)Hans-Johann Glock(苏黎世大学)Matthew Haug(威廉玛丽学院,威廉斯堡)Cheryl Misak(多伦多大学)Philip Pettit(普林斯顿大学)Nicholas Rescher(匹兹堡大学)John Skorupski(圣安德鲁斯大学)Brian Weatherson(密歇根大学)Timothy Williamson(牛津大学)Jonathan Wolff(牛津大学)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interviews on the history of late analytic philosophy
As editors of this special issue, we thought it useful to ask the same three questions on the history of late analytic philosophy to some philosophers. (1) What are the main philosophical and metaphilosophical similarities and differences between early analytic philosophy and late analytic philosophy? (2) Is it possible to identify a mainstream in late analytic philosophy? If so, what are its main (cultural, ideological, philosophical, methodological, metaphilosophical) features? (3) What are, in your view, the main critical and controversial aspects of late analytic philosophy? We warmly thank all the interviewees for their collaboration and their interesting answers: Thomas R. Baldwin (University of York) Michael Beaney (Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin and King’s College, London) Cora Diamond (University of Virginia) Hans-Johann Glock (Universitat Zurich) Matthew Haug (The College of William & Mary, Williamsburg) Cheryl Misak (University of Toronto) Philip Pettit (Princeton University) Nicholas Rescher (University of Pittsburgh) John Skorupski (University of St. Andrews) Brian Weatherson (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) Timothy Williamson (University of Oxford) Jonathan Wolff (University of Oxford)
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
CiteScore
0.60
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信