{"title":"罗素论经验与自我中心","authors":"Donovan Wishon","doi":"10.1093/arisup/akae002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Neutral monism is the view that ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ are composed of, or grounded in, more basic elements of reality that are intrinsically neither mental nor material. Before adopting this view in 1918, Russell was a mind–matter dualist and a pointed critic of it. His most ‘decisive’ objection concerns whether it can provide an adequate analysis of egocentricity and our use of indexical expressions such as ‘I’, ‘this’, ‘now’, and so on. I argue that M. G. F. Martin (2024) and other recent interpreters cannot make proper sense of Russell’s shifting views about egocentricity because they misascribe to his early dualism the thesis that experience is in some sense ‘diaphanous’ or ‘transparent’. Against this, I make the case that (1) Russell rejected the diaphaneity of experience as a dualist, (2) this rejection played a key role in his early objections to neutral monism, and (3) several decades later Russell takes his neutral monism to have key resources for answering his prior objections.","PeriodicalId":100121,"journal":{"name":"Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume","volume":"300 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Russell on Experience and Egocentricity\",\"authors\":\"Donovan Wishon\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/arisup/akae002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Neutral monism is the view that ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ are composed of, or grounded in, more basic elements of reality that are intrinsically neither mental nor material. Before adopting this view in 1918, Russell was a mind–matter dualist and a pointed critic of it. His most ‘decisive’ objection concerns whether it can provide an adequate analysis of egocentricity and our use of indexical expressions such as ‘I’, ‘this’, ‘now’, and so on. I argue that M. G. F. Martin (2024) and other recent interpreters cannot make proper sense of Russell’s shifting views about egocentricity because they misascribe to his early dualism the thesis that experience is in some sense ‘diaphanous’ or ‘transparent’. Against this, I make the case that (1) Russell rejected the diaphaneity of experience as a dualist, (2) this rejection played a key role in his early objections to neutral monism, and (3) several decades later Russell takes his neutral monism to have key resources for answering his prior objections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":100121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume\",\"volume\":\"300 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/arisup/akae002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arisup/akae002","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
中性一元论认为,"心智 "和 "物质 "是由现实中更基本的元素组成的,或以这些元素为基础,而这些元素在本质上既不是心智的,也不是物质的。在 1918 年采纳这一观点之前,罗素是心物二元论者,并对其进行了尖锐的批评。他最 "决定性 "的反对意见是,这种观点能否对自我中心和我们使用 "我"、"这"、"现在 "等索引式表达进行充分的分析。我认为马丁(M. G. F. Martin,2024)和其他新近的解释者无法正确理解罗素关于自我中心的观点的转变,因为他们错误地将经验在某种意义上是 "不透明的 "或 "透明的 "这一论点归结为罗素早期的二元论。针对这一点,我提出的理由是:(1)罗素作为二元论者拒绝接受经验的非透明性;(2)这种拒绝在他早期反对中性一元论的过程中发挥了关键作用;(3)几十年后,罗素认为他的中性一元论拥有回答他先前反对意见的关键资源。
Neutral monism is the view that ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ are composed of, or grounded in, more basic elements of reality that are intrinsically neither mental nor material. Before adopting this view in 1918, Russell was a mind–matter dualist and a pointed critic of it. His most ‘decisive’ objection concerns whether it can provide an adequate analysis of egocentricity and our use of indexical expressions such as ‘I’, ‘this’, ‘now’, and so on. I argue that M. G. F. Martin (2024) and other recent interpreters cannot make proper sense of Russell’s shifting views about egocentricity because they misascribe to his early dualism the thesis that experience is in some sense ‘diaphanous’ or ‘transparent’. Against this, I make the case that (1) Russell rejected the diaphaneity of experience as a dualist, (2) this rejection played a key role in his early objections to neutral monism, and (3) several decades later Russell takes his neutral monism to have key resources for answering his prior objections.