Critique of Rene Descartes’ Conceivability Argument

Chenghao Li
{"title":"Critique of Rene Descartes’ Conceivability Argument","authors":"Chenghao Li","doi":"10.56734/ijahss.v4n6a2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper first explains the difference between conceivability and metaphysical possibility from the perspective of possible worlds. Then, it introduces Saul Kripke’s view on the metaphysical necessity of identity, contributing to a premise in Descartes’ Conceivability Argument. Next, this paper interprets the Conceivability Argument. Then, this paper argues that even if “two things are distinct” is conceivable, we cannot conclude that their distinction is metaphysically possible, so conceivability does not entail metaphysical possibility. Thus, the Conceivability Argument is problematic. This paper also responds to a potential objection that, given humans have clear and distinct ideas, conceivability will entail metaphysical possibility.","PeriodicalId":339909,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Arts, Humanities & Social Science","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Arts, Humanities & Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56734/ijahss.v4n6a2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper first explains the difference between conceivability and metaphysical possibility from the perspective of possible worlds. Then, it introduces Saul Kripke’s view on the metaphysical necessity of identity, contributing to a premise in Descartes’ Conceivability Argument. Next, this paper interprets the Conceivability Argument. Then, this paper argues that even if “two things are distinct” is conceivable, we cannot conclude that their distinction is metaphysically possible, so conceivability does not entail metaphysical possibility. Thus, the Conceivability Argument is problematic. This paper also responds to a potential objection that, given humans have clear and distinct ideas, conceivability will entail metaphysical possibility.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
勒内·笛卡尔可想象性论证批判
本文首先从可能世界的角度阐释了可想象性与形而上学可能性的区别。然后,介绍了索尔·克里普克关于同一性的形而上学必然性的观点,为笛卡儿的可想象论证提供了一个前提。其次,本文对可想象性论证进行了解释。然后,本文认为,即使“两物不同”是可以想象的,我们也不能得出它们的区别在形而上学上是可能的结论,因此,可想象性并不意味着形而上学的可能性。因此,可想象论证是有问题的。本文还回应了一种潜在的反对意见,即鉴于人类有清晰而独特的思想,可想象性将导致形而上学的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Qualitative Approach to Children Ideas About Dreams and Mind German Art of the 19th Century through the Lens of The Greek Literary Magazine Kleiō (Clio): Academic Formalism Versus Modernism Online Dating in The U.S. During This Politically Divided Time: Association Among Political Affiliation, Gender Role Beliefs, And Partner Preferences Poetics of Intracellular and Extracellular Water: A Biophysical Consideration of Black Feminist Thought From Tradition to Innovation: The Incorporation of Trumpet in Bɔbɔɔbɔ (Borborbor) Dance of The Ewe People
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1