丹尼特的原初哺乳动物对结果论证的反对

IF 0.3 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Theoria-A Swedish Journal of Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-07-15 DOI:10.1111/theo.12467

J. Gustafsson

{"title":"丹尼特的原初哺乳动物对结果论证的反对","authors":"J. Gustafsson","doi":"10.1111/theo.12467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Consequence Argument is the classic argument for the incompatibility of determinism and our ability to do otherwise. Daniel C. Dennett objects that the Consequence Argument suffers from the same error as a clearly uncon-vincing argument that there are no mammals. In this paper, I argue that these arguments do not suffer from the same error. The argument that there are no mammals is unconvincing as it takes the form of a sorites, whereas the Consequence Argument does not. Accordingly, Dennett ’ s objection misses its mark.","PeriodicalId":43859,"journal":{"name":"Theoria-A Swedish Journal of Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dennett’s prime‐mammal objection to the consequence argument\",\"authors\":\"J. Gustafsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/theo.12467\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Consequence Argument is the classic argument for the incompatibility of determinism and our ability to do otherwise. Daniel C. Dennett objects that the Consequence Argument suffers from the same error as a clearly uncon-vincing argument that there are no mammals. In this paper, I argue that these arguments do not suffer from the same error. The argument that there are no mammals is unconvincing as it takes the form of a sorites, whereas the Consequence Argument does not. Accordingly, Dennett ’ s objection misses its mark.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43859,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoria-A Swedish Journal of Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoria-A Swedish Journal of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12467\",\"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":"Theoria-A Swedish Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12467","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

结果论是关于决定论与我们的能力不相容的经典论点。Daniel C.Dennett反对“结果论”与“没有哺乳动物”这一明显不成立的论点存在相同的错误。在本文中，我认为这些论点并没有遭受同样的错误。不存在哺乳动物的论点是不令人信服的，因为它采用了sorites的形式，而结果论点则没有。因此，Dennett的反对意见没有切中要害。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Dennett’s prime‐mammal objection to the consequence argument

The Consequence Argument is the classic argument for the incompatibility of determinism and our ability to do otherwise. Daniel C. Dennett objects that the Consequence Argument suffers from the same error as a clearly uncon-vincing argument that there are no mammals. In this paper, I argue that these arguments do not suffer from the same error. The argument that there are no mammals is unconvincing as it takes the form of a sorites, whereas the Consequence Argument does not. Accordingly, Dennett ’ s objection misses its mark.

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

Theoria-A Swedish Journal of Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Since its foundation in 1935, Theoria publishes research in all areas of philosophy. Theoria is committed to precision and clarity in philosophical discussions, and encourages cooperation between philosophy and other disciplines. The journal is not affiliated with any particular school or faction. Instead, it promotes dialogues between different philosophical viewpoints. Theoria is peer-reviewed. It publishes articles, reviews, and shorter notes and discussions. Short discussion notes on recent articles in Theoria are welcome.

期刊最新文献

Emotional actions: A new approach An embodied theorisation: Arend Heyting's hypothesis about how the self separates from the outer world finds confirmation Unruh's hybrid account of harm Should we be politically correct? Dennett’s prime‐mammal objection to the consequence argument