原始史:永无止境的直觉

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY METAPHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2023-11-13 DOI:10.1111/meta.12663
Idowu Odeyemi
{"title":"原始史:永无止境的直觉","authors":"Idowu Odeyemi","doi":"10.1111/meta.12663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Philosophers ponder on <i>how to do philosophy</i> and <i>how to do it well</i>. This pondering has divided metaphilosophers' concern about philosophical methodology into two groups, which we could label “pro-history” and “pro-intuition.” The claim (and belief) of philosophers who are in the “pro-history” group can be found in this sentence by Robert Pasnau (2011): “The discipline of philosophy benefits from a serious, sustained engagement with its history.” Those in the “pro-intuition” group believe that for philosophy not to slide into the realm of irrelevance it must rely on intuitions to make sense of our present ontologies, rather than study history of philosophy. This paper argues that both proponents of the pro-history and those of the pro-intuition approach are wrongheaded. It argues for what it calls <i>protohistory</i>. Protohistory here refers to the method of doing philosophy in which the intuitions of philosophers are informed by the history of philosophy (though not directly influenced by it but indirectly informed by it).</p>","PeriodicalId":46874,"journal":{"name":"METAPHILOSOPHY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protohistory: Unending intuitions\",\"authors\":\"Idowu Odeyemi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/meta.12663\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Philosophers ponder on <i>how to do philosophy</i> and <i>how to do it well</i>. This pondering has divided metaphilosophers' concern about philosophical methodology into two groups, which we could label “pro-history” and “pro-intuition.” The claim (and belief) of philosophers who are in the “pro-history” group can be found in this sentence by Robert Pasnau (2011): “The discipline of philosophy benefits from a serious, sustained engagement with its history.” Those in the “pro-intuition” group believe that for philosophy not to slide into the realm of irrelevance it must rely on intuitions to make sense of our present ontologies, rather than study history of philosophy. This paper argues that both proponents of the pro-history and those of the pro-intuition approach are wrongheaded. It argues for what it calls <i>protohistory</i>. Protohistory here refers to the method of doing philosophy in which the intuitions of philosophers are informed by the history of philosophy (though not directly influenced by it but indirectly informed by it).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"METAPHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"METAPHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.12663\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"METAPHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.12663","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

摘要

哲学家们在思考如何做哲学以及如何做好哲学。这种思考将形而上学哲学家对哲学方法论的关注分为两派,我们可以将其分为 "支持历史派 "和 "支持直觉派"。罗伯特-帕斯瑙(Robert Pasnau,2011 年)的这句话可以看出 "亲历史 "派哲学家的主张(和信念):"哲学学科得益于对其历史的认真、持续的参与"。"支持直觉 "派认为,哲学要想不滑向无关紧要的境地,就必须依靠直觉来理解我们现在的本体论,而不是研究哲学史。本文认为,支持历史的人和支持直觉的人都是错误的。本文主张所谓的原史学。这里的原史学指的是一种哲学研究方法,在这种方法中,哲学家的直觉受到哲学史的影响(虽然不是直接受到哲学史的影响,而是间接受到哲学史的影响)。
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
Protohistory: Unending intuitions

Philosophers ponder on how to do philosophy and how to do it well. This pondering has divided metaphilosophers' concern about philosophical methodology into two groups, which we could label “pro-history” and “pro-intuition.” The claim (and belief) of philosophers who are in the “pro-history” group can be found in this sentence by Robert Pasnau (2011): “The discipline of philosophy benefits from a serious, sustained engagement with its history.” Those in the “pro-intuition” group believe that for philosophy not to slide into the realm of irrelevance it must rely on intuitions to make sense of our present ontologies, rather than study history of philosophy. This paper argues that both proponents of the pro-history and those of the pro-intuition approach are wrongheaded. It argues for what it calls protohistory. Protohistory here refers to the method of doing philosophy in which the intuitions of philosophers are informed by the history of philosophy (though not directly influenced by it but indirectly informed by it).

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
METAPHILOSOPHY
METAPHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Metaphilosophy publishes articles and reviews books stressing considerations about philosophy and particular schools, methods, or fields of philosophy. The intended scope is very broad: no method, field, or school is excluded.
期刊最新文献
Moral testimony and epistemic privilege The poverty of postmodernist constructivism: And a case for naturalism out of Hume, Darwin, and Wittgenstein Virtuous leadership: Ambiguities, challenges, and precedents The practical turn in philosophy: A revival of the ancient art of living through modern philosophical practice Issue Information
×
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