Being in Touch with the World

IF 0.7 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Pub Date : 2022-10-20 DOI:10.1080/09672559.2022.2162312
Anke Breunig
{"title":"Being in Touch with the World","authors":"Anke Breunig","doi":"10.1080/09672559.2022.2162312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article discusses two claims from Seiberth's book Intentionality in Sellars: A Transcendental Account of Finite Knowledge, both of which bear on the question of what it takes to be in touch with the world. Seiberth claims, first, that the philosophical method known as transcendental analysis, which Sellars adopts from Kant, is more basic than Sellars's other methodological commitments, including the method of providing a conceptual analysis of the manifest and the scientific image of man-in-the-world. I ask whether the results of transcendental analysis should be applied to the manifest image. Does Sellars think that the manifest image fulfills the transcendental conditions for any conceptual system that is a) about the world of which it is a part and that b) allows those using it to gain knowledge of that world? On Seiberth's reading of Sellars, the answer seems to be negative. Second, Seiberth claims that there is only one kind of vertical relation between the conceptual and the real, the non-semantic relation Sellars calls picturing. I contest that claim, arguing that Seiberth gives too strong an interpretation of Sellars's denial that meaning statements are relational statements connecting a word with an independently existing object. This precludes Seiberth from seeing that Sellars, just like Kant, is an empirical realist in a robust sense. I also argue that picturing provides a meagre substitute for what in my reading of Sellars we might call vertical 'semantical' relations between words and things after all.","PeriodicalId":51828,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":"30 1","pages":"525 - 536"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2022.2162312","RegionNum":3,"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

Abstract

ABSTRACT The article discusses two claims from Seiberth's book Intentionality in Sellars: A Transcendental Account of Finite Knowledge, both of which bear on the question of what it takes to be in touch with the world. Seiberth claims, first, that the philosophical method known as transcendental analysis, which Sellars adopts from Kant, is more basic than Sellars's other methodological commitments, including the method of providing a conceptual analysis of the manifest and the scientific image of man-in-the-world. I ask whether the results of transcendental analysis should be applied to the manifest image. Does Sellars think that the manifest image fulfills the transcendental conditions for any conceptual system that is a) about the world of which it is a part and that b) allows those using it to gain knowledge of that world? On Seiberth's reading of Sellars, the answer seems to be negative. Second, Seiberth claims that there is only one kind of vertical relation between the conceptual and the real, the non-semantic relation Sellars calls picturing. I contest that claim, arguing that Seiberth gives too strong an interpretation of Sellars's denial that meaning statements are relational statements connecting a word with an independently existing object. This precludes Seiberth from seeing that Sellars, just like Kant, is an empirical realist in a robust sense. I also argue that picturing provides a meagre substitute for what in my reading of Sellars we might call vertical 'semantical' relations between words and things after all.
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
与世界保持联系
本文讨论了塞伯斯在《塞拉斯的意向性:有限知识的先验解释》一书中的两个观点,这两个观点都涉及到与世界接触需要什么问题。赛伯斯声称,首先,被称为先验分析的哲学方法,塞拉斯从康德那里采用,比塞拉斯的其他方法论承诺更基本,包括对显化和世界中人的科学形象提供概念分析的方法。我问,先验分析的结果是否应该应用于显象。Sellars是否认为显化图像满足了任何概念系统的先验条件a)关于它所处的世界b)允许那些使用它的人获得关于那个世界的知识?在塞伯斯对塞拉斯的解读中,答案似乎是否定的。其次,塞伯斯认为概念和现实之间只有一种垂直关系,即塞拉斯称之为“意象”的非语义关系。我反对这种说法,认为塞伯斯对塞拉斯否认意义陈述是将一个词与一个独立存在的对象联系起来的关系陈述的解释过于强烈。这使得塞伯斯无法看到塞拉斯,就像康德一样,是一个强有力的经验现实主义者。我还认为,在我阅读塞拉斯的作品时,图像提供了一个贫乏的替代,我们可能会称之为单词和事物之间的垂直“语义”关系。
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
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Philosophical Studies (IJPS) publishes academic articles of the highest quality from both analytic and continental traditions and provides a forum for publishing on a broader range of issues than is currently available in philosophical journals. IJPS also publishes annual special issues devoted to key thematic areas or to critical engagements with contemporary philosophers of note. Through its Discussion section, it provides a lively forum for exchange of ideas and encourages dialogue and mutual comprehension across all philosophical traditions. The journal also contains an extensive book review section, including occasional book symposia. It also provides Critical Notices which review major books or themes in depth.
期刊最新文献
Nietzsche and the Size of Future History as a Normative Criterion Becoming Foucault: The Poitiers Years Transgenerational Frontiers: The Capabilities Approach And the New Challenge of Justice Intuitional Content or Avoiding the Myth of the Given – A Dilemma for McDowell The Philosophy and Psychology of Delusions: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
×
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