Constitution, Causation, and the Final Opinion

Q3 Arts and Humanities History of Philosophy Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.5406/21521026.40.3.04
Griffin Klemick
{"title":"Constitution, Causation, and the Final Opinion","authors":"Griffin Klemick","doi":"10.5406/21521026.40.3.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In “The Fixation of Belief,” Peirce apparently accepts the causal claim that real physical objects cause us to reach an indefeasible “final opinion” concerning them. In “How to Make Our Ideas Clear,” he apparently accepts the constitutive claim that for physical objects to be real just is for them to be represented in that opinion. These claims initially seem inconsistent, since causal claims are explanatory and since equivalent claims cannot explain one another. Contrary to prominent suggestions that Peirce rejected the constitutive claim, however, he actually accepted both, reconciling them via a Humean denial that causal claims are genuinely explanatory.","PeriodicalId":53558,"journal":{"name":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Philosophy Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/21521026.40.3.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In “The Fixation of Belief,” Peirce apparently accepts the causal claim that real physical objects cause us to reach an indefeasible “final opinion” concerning them. In “How to Make Our Ideas Clear,” he apparently accepts the constitutive claim that for physical objects to be real just is for them to be represented in that opinion. These claims initially seem inconsistent, since causal claims are explanatory and since equivalent claims cannot explain one another. Contrary to prominent suggestions that Peirce rejected the constitutive claim, however, he actually accepted both, reconciling them via a Humean denial that causal claims are genuinely explanatory.
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
构成、因果关系及最终意见
在《信念的固定》一书中,皮尔斯显然接受了这样一种因果关系,即真实的物理对象会使我们对它们产生不可推翻的“最终意见”。在《如何使我们的思想清晰》一书中,他显然接受了一个建构性的主张,即物理对象要成为真实的,就必须以这种观点来表现它们。这些主张最初似乎不一致,因为因果主张是解释性的,而等价的主张不能相互解释。然而,与Peirce拒绝构成性主张的突出建议相反,他实际上接受了两者,通过休谟否认因果性主张是真正解释性的来调和它们。
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
History of Philosophy Quarterly
History of Philosophy Quarterly Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Good in Boethius’ De hebdomadibus Against Passionate Epistemology On Splitting the Atom Deriving Positive Duties from Kant's Formula of Universal Law Constitution, Causation, and the Final Opinion
×
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