只有单词分开?论实用主义宗教哲学中的“世界”

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Contemporary Pragmatism Pub Date : 2023-07-25 DOI:10.1163/18758185-bja10067
L. Hedrick
{"title":"只有单词分开?论实用主义宗教哲学中的“世界”","authors":"L. Hedrick","doi":"10.1163/18758185-bja10067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn his well-known critique of conceptual relativism, Donald Davidson declared that we are not worlds but “only words apart.” His interpretive principle of charity asserts that the transcendental condition of disagreement is agreement. Pragmatist philosophers of religion have relied upon the principle of charity to argue against a framework theory of religion. They use the notion of a scale of observationality to illustrate where broad-scale agreement lies and place disagreement (and specifically convictional difference qualifying as “religious”) at the higher reaches, considering it interpretively parasitic. In this article, I problematize the ontological premises of construing difference in this way (specifically insofar as they betray traces of positivism) and the uses of ethnography to substantiate it. I draw on the work of contemporary anthropologists who identify with the so-called ontological turn in ethnography to help think differently about difference—about what it means to be “only words apart.”","PeriodicalId":42794,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Pragmatism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Only Words Apart? Talking About “The World” in Pragmatist Philosophy of Religion\",\"authors\":\"L. Hedrick\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18758185-bja10067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nIn his well-known critique of conceptual relativism, Donald Davidson declared that we are not worlds but “only words apart.” His interpretive principle of charity asserts that the transcendental condition of disagreement is agreement. Pragmatist philosophers of religion have relied upon the principle of charity to argue against a framework theory of religion. They use the notion of a scale of observationality to illustrate where broad-scale agreement lies and place disagreement (and specifically convictional difference qualifying as “religious”) at the higher reaches, considering it interpretively parasitic. In this article, I problematize the ontological premises of construing difference in this way (specifically insofar as they betray traces of positivism) and the uses of ethnography to substantiate it. I draw on the work of contemporary anthropologists who identify with the so-called ontological turn in ethnography to help think differently about difference—about what it means to be “only words apart.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":42794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Pragmatism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Pragmatism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-bja10067\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"Contemporary Pragmatism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-bja10067","RegionNum":4,"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

唐纳德·戴维森(Donald Davidson)在其著名的对概念相对主义的批判中宣称,我们不是世界,而是“只有文字相隔”。他的慈善解释原则断言,分歧的先验条件是一致。实用主义的宗教哲学家依靠慈善原则来反对宗教的框架理论。他们使用观察尺度的概念来说明广泛的一致性所在,并将分歧(特别是符合“宗教”条件的定罪差异)置于更高的层次,认为这是解释上的寄生。在这篇文章中,我对以这种方式解释差异的本体论前提(特别是在它们暴露出实证主义痕迹的情况下)以及民族志的使用来证实它提出了质疑。我借鉴了当代人类学家的工作,他们认同民族志中所谓的本体论转向,以帮助以不同的方式思考差异——“只有单词分开”意味着什么
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
Only Words Apart? Talking About “The World” in Pragmatist Philosophy of Religion
In his well-known critique of conceptual relativism, Donald Davidson declared that we are not worlds but “only words apart.” His interpretive principle of charity asserts that the transcendental condition of disagreement is agreement. Pragmatist philosophers of religion have relied upon the principle of charity to argue against a framework theory of religion. They use the notion of a scale of observationality to illustrate where broad-scale agreement lies and place disagreement (and specifically convictional difference qualifying as “religious”) at the higher reaches, considering it interpretively parasitic. In this article, I problematize the ontological premises of construing difference in this way (specifically insofar as they betray traces of positivism) and the uses of ethnography to substantiate it. I draw on the work of contemporary anthropologists who identify with the so-called ontological turn in ethnography to help think differently about difference—about what it means to be “only words apart.”
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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊最新文献
Pragmatism as a Compatible Theoretical Lens for Mixed Methods Research in Prehospital Care Democracy as Communication: Towards a Normative Framework for Evaluating Digital Technologies Postpragmatism: Quine, Rorty, and a thoroughgoing Atheoreticism Resonant Experience: An Exploration of the Relational Nature of Meaning and Value Jane Addams and the Limits of Sympathy. Failures, Corrections, and Lessons to be Learned
×
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