罗伯特·波义耳和自然种类

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Journal of the American Philosophical Association Pub Date : 2022-08-17 DOI:10.1017/apa.2022.17
H. T. Adriaenssen, L. Nauta
{"title":"罗伯特·波义耳和自然种类","authors":"H. T. Adriaenssen, L. Nauta","doi":"10.1017/apa.2022.17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper studies Robert Boyle's account of kinds and classification. A number of commentators have argued that, for Boyle, classifications are inevitably the product of conventions. Others have challenged this reading, arguing that, according to Boyle, the corpuscular makeup of bodies gives rise to hard-edged natural kinds and classes. We argue that Boyle's position is more complicated than the available realist and conventionalist readings acknowledge. We argue that, according to Boyle, the individuation of kinds was to some degree the result of convention. At the same time, however, Boyle held that our classificatory practices are subject to constraints. We identify some of these constraints by turning to Boyle's discussion of the late scholastic debate about the plurality of forms, in particular the contributions of Jacopo Zabarella and Daniel Sennert. In this way, we clarify how Boyle strikes a balance between realist and conventionalist elements in his treatment of kinds.","PeriodicalId":44879,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Philosophical Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robert Boyle and Natural Kinds\",\"authors\":\"H. T. Adriaenssen, L. Nauta\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/apa.2022.17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This paper studies Robert Boyle's account of kinds and classification. A number of commentators have argued that, for Boyle, classifications are inevitably the product of conventions. Others have challenged this reading, arguing that, according to Boyle, the corpuscular makeup of bodies gives rise to hard-edged natural kinds and classes. We argue that Boyle's position is more complicated than the available realist and conventionalist readings acknowledge. We argue that, according to Boyle, the individuation of kinds was to some degree the result of convention. At the same time, however, Boyle held that our classificatory practices are subject to constraints. We identify some of these constraints by turning to Boyle's discussion of the late scholastic debate about the plurality of forms, in particular the contributions of Jacopo Zabarella and Daniel Sennert. In this way, we clarify how Boyle strikes a balance between realist and conventionalist elements in his treatment of kinds.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Philosophical Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Philosophical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2022.17\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Journal of the American Philosophical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2022.17","RegionNum":2,"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

本文研究了罗伯特·波义耳关于种类和分类的论述。许多评论家认为,在波义耳看来,分类不可避免地是惯例的产物。另一些人则对这种解读提出了质疑,他们认为,根据波义耳的说法,身体的微粒构成产生了棱角分明的自然种类和阶级。我们认为,波义耳的立场比现有的现实主义和传统主义解读所承认的要复杂得多。我们认为,根据波义耳的观点,种类的个性化在某种程度上是惯例的结果。但同时,Boyle认为我们的分类实践是受到约束的。我们通过转向波义耳对晚期关于形式多元性的学术辩论的讨论,特别是雅各布·扎巴雷拉和丹尼尔·塞纳特的贡献,来确定其中的一些限制。通过这种方式,我们阐明了波义耳是如何在他对种类的处理中平衡现实主义和传统主义元素的。
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
Robert Boyle and Natural Kinds
This paper studies Robert Boyle's account of kinds and classification. A number of commentators have argued that, for Boyle, classifications are inevitably the product of conventions. Others have challenged this reading, arguing that, according to Boyle, the corpuscular makeup of bodies gives rise to hard-edged natural kinds and classes. We argue that Boyle's position is more complicated than the available realist and conventionalist readings acknowledge. We argue that, according to Boyle, the individuation of kinds was to some degree the result of convention. At the same time, however, Boyle held that our classificatory practices are subject to constraints. We identify some of these constraints by turning to Boyle's discussion of the late scholastic debate about the plurality of forms, in particular the contributions of Jacopo Zabarella and Daniel Sennert. In this way, we clarify how Boyle strikes a balance between realist and conventionalist elements in his treatment of kinds.
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
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Appearing quarterly in print and online, the Journal of the American Philosophical Association provides a platform for original work in all areas of philosophy. The Journal aims to publish compelling papers written in a way that can be appreciated by philosophers of every persuasion and to review papers quickly (typically within 30 days of submission) and fairly (using a triple anonymous review system), encouraging succinct, constructive reports. Papers are published online early via FirstView (typically within 8 weeks of acceptance).
期刊最新文献
What Do Beginning Students Think about Philosophy before Their First College Course? Standpoint Epistemology and Epistemic Peerhood: A Defense of Epistemic Privilege Doing Moral Philosophy Without ‘Normativity’ Explanation and the Right to Explanation How to Disrupt a Social Script
×
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