Disagreement, Certainties, Relativism.

IF 1.3 2区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY TOPOI-AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-06-22 DOI:10.1007/s11245-018-9567-z

Martin Kusch

引用次数: 16

Abstract

This paper seeks to widen the dialogue between the "epistemology of peer disagreement" and the epistemology informed by Wittgenstein's last notebooks, later edited as On Certainty. The paper defends the following theses: (i) not all certainties are groundless; many of them are beliefs; and they do not have a common essence. (ii) An epistemic peer need not share all of my certainties. (iii) Which response (steadfast, conciliationist etc.) to a disagreement over a certainty is called for, depends on the type of certainty in question. Sometimes a form of relativism is the right response. (iv) Reasonable, mutually recognized peer disagreement over a certainty is possible.-The paper thus addresses both interpretative and systematic issues. It uses Wittgenstein as a resource for thinking about peer disagreement over certainties.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

分歧，确定性，相对主义。

本文试图扩大“同行分歧的认识论”与维特根斯坦最后的笔记(后来被编辑为《论确定性》)所告知的认识论之间的对话。本文为以下论点进行了辩护:(1)并非所有的确定性都是毫无根据的;其中很多是信仰;它们没有共同的本质。(ii)认知上的同侪不必分享我所有的确信。(三)对于在确定性问题上的分歧应作出何种反应(坚定的、和解的等)，视所涉确定性的类型而定。有时候，某种形式的相对主义是正确的回应。(四)在确定的问题上可能存在合理的、相互承认的同侪分歧。-因此，本文解决了解释性和系统性问题。它以维特根斯坦为参考，思考同伴之间对确定性的分歧。

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

TOPOI-AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

7.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Topoi''s main assumption is that philosophy is a lively, provocative, delightful activity, which constantly challenges our received views, relentlessly questions our inherited habits, painstakingly elaborates on how things could be different, in other stories, in counterfactual situations, in alternative possible worlds. Whatever its ideology, whether with the intent of uncovering a truer structure of reality or of soothing our anxiety, of exposing myths or of following them through, the outcome of philosophical activity is always the destabilizing, unsettling generation of doubts, of objections, of criticisms. It follows that this activity is intrinsically a ''dialogue'', that philosophy is first and foremost philosophical discussion, that it requires bringing out conflicting points of view, paying careful, sympathetic attention to their structure, and using this dialectic to articulate one''s approach, to make it richer, more thoughtful, more open to variation and play. And it follows that the spirit which one brings to this activity must be one of tolerance, of always suspecting one''s own blindness and consequently looking with unbiased eye in every corner, without fearing to pass a (fallible) judgment on what is there but also without failing to show interest and respect. Topoi''s structure is a direct expression of this view. To maximize discussion, we devote most or all of this issue to a single topic. And, since discussion is only interesting when it is conducted seriously and responsibly, we usually request the collaboration of a guest-editor, an expert who will identify contributors and interact with them in a constructive way. Because we do not feel tied to any definite philosophical theme (or set of them), we choose the topic with absolute freedom, looking for what is blossoming and thriving, occasionally betting on what might - partly through our attention - ''begin'' to blossom and thrive. And because we do not want our structur e to become our own straightjacket, we are open to contributions not fitting the ''topos'', and do not rule out in principle the possibility of topic-less issues.

期刊最新文献

Virtuous Collective Attention. Being a Direct Realist – Searle, McDowell, and Travis on ‘seeing things as they are’ More on Williams on Ethical Knowledge and Reflection Virtue Ethics and the Morality System Having a Cake and Eating It Too? Direct Realism and Objective Identity in Descartes