错误之于神话就像虚伪之于小说:对古德曼的回复。

Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel) Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-03-08 DOI:10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5
Björn Lundgren
{"title":"错误之于神话就像虚伪之于小说:对古德曼的回复。","authors":"Björn Lundgren","doi":"10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this reply I defend Kripke's creationist thesis for mythical objects (<i>Reference and Existence</i>, 2013) against Jeffrey Goodman's counter-argument to the thesis (\"Creatures of fiction, objects of myth\", <i>Analysis, 74</i>(1), 35-40, 2014). I argue that Goodman has mistaken the basis for when mythical abstracta are created. Contrary to Goodman I show that, as well as how, Kripke's theory consistently retains the analogy between creation of mythical objects and creation of fictional objects, while also explaining in what way they differ.</p>","PeriodicalId":74436,"journal":{"name":"Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mistake is to Myth What Pretense is to Fiction: A Reply to Goodman.\",\"authors\":\"Björn Lundgren\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this reply I defend Kripke's creationist thesis for mythical objects (<i>Reference and Existence</i>, 2013) against Jeffrey Goodman's counter-argument to the thesis (\\\"Creatures of fiction, objects of myth\\\", <i>Analysis, 74</i>(1), 35-40, 2014). I argue that Goodman has mistaken the basis for when mythical abstracta are created. Contrary to Goodman I show that, as well as how, Kripke's theory consistently retains the analogy between creation of mythical objects and creation of fictional objects, while also explaining in what way they differ.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/3/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在这篇回复中,我为克里普克关于神话对象的创造论论点(参考与存在,2013)辩护,反对杰弗里·古德曼对该论点的反驳(“虚构的生物,神话的对象”,分析,74(1),35-40,2014)。我认为古德曼搞错了神话抽象创作的基础。与古德曼相反,我表明,克里普克的理论始终保留了神话对象的创造与虚构对象的创造之间的相似性,同时也解释了它们的不同之处。
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
Mistake is to Myth What Pretense is to Fiction: A Reply to Goodman.

In this reply I defend Kripke's creationist thesis for mythical objects (Reference and Existence, 2013) against Jeffrey Goodman's counter-argument to the thesis ("Creatures of fiction, objects of myth", Analysis, 74(1), 35-40, 2014). I argue that Goodman has mistaken the basis for when mythical abstracta are created. Contrary to Goodman I show that, as well as how, Kripke's theory consistently retains the analogy between creation of mythical objects and creation of fictional objects, while also explaining in what way they differ.

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
W. Matthews Grant's Dual Sources Account and Ultimate Responsibility. Taxation in the COVID-19 Pandemic: to Pay or Not to Pay. The Value of Knowledge and Other Epistemic Standings: A Case for Epistemic Pluralism. The Conditional Analysis of the Agentive Modals: a Reply to Mandelkern et al. Junk Science, Junk Journals, and Junk Publishing Management: Risk to Science's Credibility.
×
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