Non-conceptualism and the Myth of the Given

Q2 Arts and Humanities DIALECTICA Pub Date : 2019-01-22 DOI:10.1111/1746-8361.12234
Daniel E. Kalpokas
{"title":"Non-conceptualism and the Myth of the Given","authors":"Daniel E. Kalpokas","doi":"10.1111/1746-8361.12234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Defenders of non-conceptualism have been accused of falling into the Myth of the Given. This is John McDowell's main objection to non-conceptualism. In this article I evaluate some well-known non-conceptualist responses to that objection. My analysis shows that non-conceptualists have not provided plausible explanations for the epistemic role of experience. As a consequence, McDowell's objection seems to be correct. The structure of the article is as follows: first, taking into account the debate between conceptualists and non-conceptualists, I shed light on what the Myth of the Given is. Second, I critically examine Richard Heck's, Christopher Peacocke's and Robert Hanna's proposals on how experiences justify beliefs. I end the article by clarifying the scope of McDowell's criticism.</p>","PeriodicalId":46676,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICA","volume":"72 3","pages":"331-363"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1746-8361.12234","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Defenders of non-conceptualism have been accused of falling into the Myth of the Given. This is John McDowell's main objection to non-conceptualism. In this article I evaluate some well-known non-conceptualist responses to that objection. My analysis shows that non-conceptualists have not provided plausible explanations for the epistemic role of experience. As a consequence, McDowell's objection seems to be correct. The structure of the article is as follows: first, taking into account the debate between conceptualists and non-conceptualists, I shed light on what the Myth of the Given is. Second, I critically examine Richard Heck's, Christopher Peacocke's and Robert Hanna's proposals on how experiences justify beliefs. I end the article by clarifying the scope of McDowell's criticism.

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
非概念论与给予的神话
非概念主义的捍卫者被指责陷入了既定的神话。这是约翰·麦克道尔对非概念论的主要反对。在这篇文章中,我评价了一些著名的非概念主义者对这一反对意见的回应。我的分析表明,非概念主义者并没有为经验的认知作用提供可信的解释。因此,麦克道尔的反对意见似乎是正确的。本文的结构如下:首先,考虑到概念主义者和非概念主义者之间的争论,我阐明了什么是“给定的神话”。其次,我批判性地考察了理查德·赫克、克里斯托弗·皮科克和罗伯特·汉纳关于经验如何证明信念的建议。在文章的最后,我澄清了麦克道尔批评的范围。
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
DIALECTICA
DIALECTICA PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding.
期刊最新文献
Biosafety Considerations for Viral Vector Gene Therapy: An Explanation and Guide for the Average Everyday-Hero Pharmacist. Robinson's Regress Argument from Vagueness to Dualism David Armstrong on the Metaphysics of Mathematics Are There Occurrent Continuants? Review of Willaschek (2018)
×
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