本体论室中的量化

Q2 Arts and Humanities DIALECTICA Pub Date : 2019-12-18 DOI:10.1111/1746-8361.12286
Bradley Rettler
{"title":"本体论室中的量化","authors":"Bradley Rettler","doi":"10.1111/1746-8361.12286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There is a growing movement towards construing some classic debates in ontology as meaningless, either because the answers seem obvious or the debates seem intractable. In this paper, I respond to this movement. The response has three components: First, the members of the two sides of the ontological debates that dismissivists have targeted are using different quantifiers. Second, the austere ontologist is using a more fundamental quantifier than her opponent. Third, the austere ontologist's more fundamental quantifier is a restriction of her opponent's quantifier. This response takes seriously the intuition that there is something wrong with the ontological disputes, but does not entail dismissivism.</p>","PeriodicalId":46676,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICA","volume":"73 4","pages":"563-585"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1746-8361.12286","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantification in the Ontology Room\",\"authors\":\"Bradley Rettler\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1746-8361.12286\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There is a growing movement towards construing some classic debates in ontology as meaningless, either because the answers seem obvious or the debates seem intractable. In this paper, I respond to this movement. The response has three components: First, the members of the two sides of the ontological debates that dismissivists have targeted are using different quantifiers. Second, the austere ontologist is using a more fundamental quantifier than her opponent. Third, the austere ontologist's more fundamental quantifier is a restriction of her opponent's quantifier. This response takes seriously the intuition that there is something wrong with the ontological disputes, but does not entail dismissivism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"volume\":\"73 4\",\"pages\":\"563-585\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1746-8361.12286\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"DIALECTICA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12286\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们越来越倾向于将本体论中的一些经典辩论理解为无意义的,要么是因为答案似乎显而易见,要么是争论似乎难以解决。在这篇论文中,我回应了这场运动。回应有三个组成部分:首先,否定主义者所针对的本体论辩论双方的成员使用了不同的量词。其次,这位严肃的本体论者使用了一个比她的对手更基本的量词。第三,严格本体论者更基本的量词是对其对手的量词的限制。这种回应认真对待本体论争议有问题的直觉,但并不意味着不屑一顾。
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
Quantification in the Ontology Room

There is a growing movement towards construing some classic debates in ontology as meaningless, either because the answers seem obvious or the debates seem intractable. In this paper, I respond to this movement. The response has three components: First, the members of the two sides of the ontological debates that dismissivists have targeted are using different quantifiers. Second, the austere ontologist is using a more fundamental quantifier than her opponent. Third, the austere ontologist's more fundamental quantifier is a restriction of her opponent's quantifier. This response takes seriously the intuition that there is something wrong with the ontological disputes, but does not entail dismissivism.

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
DIALECTICA
DIALECTICA PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding.
期刊最新文献
Biosafety Considerations for Viral Vector Gene Therapy: An Explanation and Guide for the Average Everyday-Hero Pharmacist. Robinson's Regress Argument from Vagueness to Dualism David Armstrong on the Metaphysics of Mathematics Are There Occurrent Continuants? Review of Willaschek (2018)
×
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