限制主义和扩张主义

J. Studd
{"title":"限制主义和扩张主义","authors":"J. Studd","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198719649.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If her view is to diffuse charges of mystical censorship, the relativist needs a well-motivated account of what prevents our quantifying over an absolutely comprehensive domain. But relativists may seek to meet this challenge in different ways. One option is to draw on more familiar cases of quantifier domain restriction in order to motivate the thesis that a quantifier’s domain is always subject to restriction. An alternative is to permit unrestricted quantifiers but maintain that even these fail to attain absolute generality on the grounds that the universe of discourse is always open to expansion. This chapter outlines restrictionist and expansionist variants of relativism and argues that the importance of the distinction comes out in two influential objections that have been levelled against relativism.","PeriodicalId":272038,"journal":{"name":"Everything, more or less","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Restrictionism and Expansionism\",\"authors\":\"J. Studd\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780198719649.003.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"If her view is to diffuse charges of mystical censorship, the relativist needs a well-motivated account of what prevents our quantifying over an absolutely comprehensive domain. But relativists may seek to meet this challenge in different ways. One option is to draw on more familiar cases of quantifier domain restriction in order to motivate the thesis that a quantifier’s domain is always subject to restriction. An alternative is to permit unrestricted quantifiers but maintain that even these fail to attain absolute generality on the grounds that the universe of discourse is always open to expansion. This chapter outlines restrictionist and expansionist variants of relativism and argues that the importance of the distinction comes out in two influential objections that have been levelled against relativism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":272038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Everything, more or less\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Everything, more or less\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198719649.003.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Everything, more or less","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198719649.003.0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果她的观点是为了驱散对神秘审查制度的指责,相对主义者需要一个动机良好的解释,说明是什么阻碍了我们对一个绝对全面的领域进行量化。但相对主义者可能会寻求以不同的方式应对这一挑战。一种选择是利用更熟悉的量词域限制的情况,以激发量词域总是受到限制的论点。另一种选择是允许不受限制的量词,但坚持认为,即使这些量词也不能达到绝对的普遍性,因为话语的世界总是开放的,可以扩展。本章概述了相对主义的限制主义和扩张主义变体,并认为这种区别的重要性体现在反对相对主义的两种有影响力的反对意见中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Restrictionism and Expansionism
If her view is to diffuse charges of mystical censorship, the relativist needs a well-motivated account of what prevents our quantifying over an absolutely comprehensive domain. But relativists may seek to meet this challenge in different ways. One option is to draw on more familiar cases of quantifier domain restriction in order to motivate the thesis that a quantifier’s domain is always subject to restriction. An alternative is to permit unrestricted quantifiers but maintain that even these fail to attain absolute generality on the grounds that the universe of discourse is always open to expansion. This chapter outlines restrictionist and expansionist variants of relativism and argues that the importance of the distinction comes out in two influential objections that have been levelled against relativism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Russell, Zermelo, and Dummett How Universes Expand Russell Reductio Redux Schemas Absolutism and Relativism
×
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