{"title":"ACCEPTANCE AS CONDITIONAL DISPOSITION","authors":"F. Paglieri","doi":"10.1515/9783110328851.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The notion of acceptance has a checkered history in philosophy. This paper discusses what version of acceptance, if any, should qualify for inclusion in epistemology. The inquiry is motivated by van Fraassen’s invitation to be more liberal in determining basic epistemological categories (section 1). Reasons are given to avoid extending this liberal attitude to include van Fraassen’s acceptance of scientific theories (section 2) and Bratman’s pragmatic acceptance (section 3): both notions are showed to be reducible to combinations of simpler constitutive elements, and thus useful only as a shorthand. Other cases of divergence between action and belief, due to automatic sub-personal routines, are also not liable of being interpreted as acceptances (section 4). Only acceptance of conditional statements is argued to have something solid to offer for epistemological purposes: in particular, discussion on accepting conditional statements serves as a springboard to develop a new understanding of acceptance in general (section 5). It is proposed to consider acceptance as a conditional disposition: the consequences of this view for epistemology are discussed (section 6).","PeriodicalId":317292,"journal":{"name":"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"From ontos verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110328851.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The notion of acceptance has a checkered history in philosophy. This paper discusses what version of acceptance, if any, should qualify for inclusion in epistemology. The inquiry is motivated by van Fraassen’s invitation to be more liberal in determining basic epistemological categories (section 1). Reasons are given to avoid extending this liberal attitude to include van Fraassen’s acceptance of scientific theories (section 2) and Bratman’s pragmatic acceptance (section 3): both notions are showed to be reducible to combinations of simpler constitutive elements, and thus useful only as a shorthand. Other cases of divergence between action and belief, due to automatic sub-personal routines, are also not liable of being interpreted as acceptances (section 4). Only acceptance of conditional statements is argued to have something solid to offer for epistemological purposes: in particular, discussion on accepting conditional statements serves as a springboard to develop a new understanding of acceptance in general (section 5). It is proposed to consider acceptance as a conditional disposition: the consequences of this view for epistemology are discussed (section 6).
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
作为条件处置接受
接受的概念在哲学上有着曲折的历史。本文讨论了什么版本的接受,如果有的话,应该有资格纳入认识论。探究的动机是van Fraassen邀请在确定基本认识论范畴时更加自由(第1节)。给出了避免将这种自由态度扩展到包括van Fraassen对科学理论的接受(第2节)和Bratman的实用主义接受(第3节)的理由:这两个概念都被证明可以简化为更简单的构成要素的组合,因此仅作为一种简写有用。由于自动的次个人惯例,行为和信念之间的分歧的其他情况也不容易被解释为接受(第4节)。只有接受条件陈述才被认为具有为认识论目的提供的坚实的东西:特别是,关于接受条件陈述的讨论可以作为发展对一般接受的新理解的跳板(第5节)。建议将接受视为一种条件处置:本文将讨论这一认识论观点的结果(第6节)。
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
'The Mind's Eye': Visualizing the Non-visual and the 'Epistemology of the Line' Substantial Motion and Perpetual Creation Anlass, Begriff und Aufgabe interkultureller Philosophie Intercultural Polylogues in Philosophy Substances, Attributes, and Modes – Substantial Structures in Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz
×
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