事实与价值问题区分的休谟基础

Q4 Social Sciences Prudentia Iuris Pub Date : 2022-12-01 DOI:10.46553/prudentia.94.2022.pp.109-130
Albano Jofré
{"title":"事实与价值问题区分的休谟基础","authors":"Albano Jofré","doi":"10.46553/prudentia.94.2022.pp.109-130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": In his latest work, Dr. Félix A. Lamas addresses the issue of the gap between the is order and the ought order and states that this is the fundament for the distinction between matters of fact and of right and the naturalistic fallacy formulated by Moore 2 . Mainly, he says that the theoretical bases of these distinctions can be found in the first section of the first part of the book III of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume. On the present article we pretend to explore in a critical way those bases by exposing Hume’s theory of practical and theoretical knowledge and confronting it with the tradi-tion of classical Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy","PeriodicalId":36086,"journal":{"name":"Prudentia Iuris","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"El fundamento humeano de la distinción entre cuestiones de hecho y de valor\",\"authors\":\"Albano Jofré\",\"doi\":\"10.46553/prudentia.94.2022.pp.109-130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": In his latest work, Dr. Félix A. Lamas addresses the issue of the gap between the is order and the ought order and states that this is the fundament for the distinction between matters of fact and of right and the naturalistic fallacy formulated by Moore 2 . Mainly, he says that the theoretical bases of these distinctions can be found in the first section of the first part of the book III of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume. On the present article we pretend to explore in a critical way those bases by exposing Hume’s theory of practical and theoretical knowledge and confronting it with the tradi-tion of classical Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy\",\"PeriodicalId\":36086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prudentia Iuris\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prudentia Iuris\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46553/prudentia.94.2022.pp.109-130\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prudentia Iuris","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46553/prudentia.94.2022.pp.109-130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

:在他的最新著作中,Félix A.Lamas博士谈到了is秩序和should秩序之间的差距问题,并指出这是区分事实和权利以及Moore 2提出的自然主义谬误的基础。他说,这些区别的理论基础主要可以在大卫·休谟的《人性论》第三卷第一部分的第一节中找到。本文试图通过揭示休谟的实践知识论和理论知识论,并将其与亚里士多德的传统哲学对立起来,对这些理论基础进行批判性的探索
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
El fundamento humeano de la distinción entre cuestiones de hecho y de valor
: In his latest work, Dr. Félix A. Lamas addresses the issue of the gap between the is order and the ought order and states that this is the fundament for the distinction between matters of fact and of right and the naturalistic fallacy formulated by Moore 2 . Mainly, he says that the theoretical bases of these distinctions can be found in the first section of the first part of the book III of the Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume. On the present article we pretend to explore in a critical way those bases by exposing Hume’s theory of practical and theoretical knowledge and confronting it with the tradi-tion of classical Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy
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
Prudentia Iuris
Prudentia Iuris Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
La familia como fundamento del Estado Constitucional. Una investigación pretendidamente radical Comisión por omisión y causalidad La jurisprudencia en una economía con tipo de cambio múltiple. El caso de Argentina 2020-2023. ¿Francisco de Vitoria ideólogo del imperialismo? Revisión crítica de algunas interpretaciones recientes. La vigencia del derecho natural en el derecho positivo de todas las comunidades
×
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