为什么声明必须是断言

IF 0.4 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Ning Fan
{"title":"为什么声明必须是断言","authors":"Ning Fan","doi":"10.1111/phin.12369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Philosophical Investigations §244, Wittgenstein suggests that we understand avowals (first-person psychological utterances) as manifestations or expressions of the speaker’s mental states. An interesting philosophical theory, called e xpressivism , then develops from this Wittgensteinian idea. However, neo-expressivists disagree with simple expressivists on whether avowals are at the same time assertions, which are truth-evaluable. In this paper, I pursue the expressivist debate about whether avowals must also be viewed as assertions. I consider and reject three neo-expressivist objections against simple expressivism. Then, I offer my own account of why we should understand avowals as assertions.","PeriodicalId":47112,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why avowals must be assertions\",\"authors\":\"Ning Fan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phin.12369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Philosophical Investigations §244, Wittgenstein suggests that we understand avowals (first-person psychological utterances) as manifestations or expressions of the speaker’s mental states. An interesting philosophical theory, called e xpressivism , then develops from this Wittgensteinian idea. However, neo-expressivists disagree with simple expressivists on whether avowals are at the same time assertions, which are truth-evaluable. In this paper, I pursue the expressivist debate about whether avowals must also be viewed as assertions. I consider and reject three neo-expressivist objections against simple expressivism. Then, I offer my own account of why we should understand avowals as assertions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/phin.12369\",\"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":"PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phin.12369","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

在《哲学研究》第244节中,维特根斯坦建议我们将自白(第一人称心理话语)理解为说话人精神状态的表现或表达。一种有趣的哲学理论,称为表现主义,从维特根斯坦的观点发展而来。然而,新表现主义者与简单表现主义者在声明是否同时是可真值断言的问题上存在分歧。在这篇论文中,我将继续探讨表现主义的争论,即断言是否也必须被视为断言。我考虑并拒绝新表现主义对简单表现主义的三种反对意见。然后,我给出了我自己的解释,为什么我们应该把誓言理解为断言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why avowals must be assertions
In Philosophical Investigations §244, Wittgenstein suggests that we understand avowals (first-person psychological utterances) as manifestations or expressions of the speaker’s mental states. An interesting philosophical theory, called e xpressivism , then develops from this Wittgensteinian idea. However, neo-expressivists disagree with simple expressivists on whether avowals are at the same time assertions, which are truth-evaluable. In this paper, I pursue the expressivist debate about whether avowals must also be viewed as assertions. I consider and reject three neo-expressivist objections against simple expressivism. Then, I offer my own account of why we should understand avowals as assertions.
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
0.70
自引率
66.70%
发文量
46
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophical Investigations features articles in every branch of philosophy. Whether focusing on traditional or on new aspects of the subject, it offers thought-provoking articles and maintains a lively readership with an acclaimed discussion section and wide-ranging book reviews. Special issues are published on topics of current philosophical interest.
×
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