里德对怀疑主义的回应中的常识

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY REVUE PHILOSOPHIQUE DE LA FRANCE ET DE L ETRANGER Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.3917/RPHI.211.0033
Patrick Rysiew
{"title":"里德对怀疑主义的回应中的常识","authors":"Patrick Rysiew","doi":"10.3917/RPHI.211.0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thomas Reid is one figure whose epistemological views are bound up with common sense. As with his positive theory, however, Reid’s response to scepticism – what it’s meant to establish, and how – is a matter of controversy. Of course, insofar as it respects and defends our ordinary view of ourselves as having knowledge, and from a variety of sources, any response to scepticism is ‘commonsensical’ in the broad sense. Notably, however, recent interpreters of Reid, and contemporary figures who take inspiration from his views, differ in what role if any they see common sense itself as playing in Reid’s response to the sceptic – hence, in whether they think that response is commonsensical in some more substantive sense. Here, I argue that even those who do give common sense a place in Reid’s defense of our pretheoretic epistemological views underrate the importance therein of common sense as Reid conceives of it. Specifically, they overlook the fact that common sense has an irreducible normative aspect for Reid, and that an adherence to the first principles of common sense is, for him, a minimal requirement on rational judgment and action, a requirement which even the sceptic cannot evade.","PeriodicalId":44338,"journal":{"name":"REVUE PHILOSOPHIQUE DE LA FRANCE ET DE L ETRANGER","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Common Sense in Reid’s Response to Scepticism\",\"authors\":\"Patrick Rysiew\",\"doi\":\"10.3917/RPHI.211.0033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Thomas Reid is one figure whose epistemological views are bound up with common sense. As with his positive theory, however, Reid’s response to scepticism – what it’s meant to establish, and how – is a matter of controversy. Of course, insofar as it respects and defends our ordinary view of ourselves as having knowledge, and from a variety of sources, any response to scepticism is ‘commonsensical’ in the broad sense. Notably, however, recent interpreters of Reid, and contemporary figures who take inspiration from his views, differ in what role if any they see common sense itself as playing in Reid’s response to the sceptic – hence, in whether they think that response is commonsensical in some more substantive sense. Here, I argue that even those who do give common sense a place in Reid’s defense of our pretheoretic epistemological views underrate the importance therein of common sense as Reid conceives of it. Specifically, they overlook the fact that common sense has an irreducible normative aspect for Reid, and that an adherence to the first principles of common sense is, for him, a minimal requirement on rational judgment and action, a requirement which even the sceptic cannot evade.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"REVUE PHILOSOPHIQUE DE LA FRANCE ET DE L ETRANGER\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"REVUE PHILOSOPHIQUE DE LA FRANCE ET DE L ETRANGER\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3917/RPHI.211.0033\",\"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":"REVUE PHILOSOPHIQUE DE LA FRANCE ET DE L ETRANGER","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3917/RPHI.211.0033","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

托马斯·里德是一个认识论观点与常识联系在一起的人物。然而,与他的实证理论一样,里德对怀疑主义的回应——怀疑主义意味着什么,以及如何建立——是一个有争议的问题。当然,只要它尊重并捍卫我们的普遍观点,即我们自己是有知识的,而且有各种各样的来源,那么,对怀疑主义的任何回应,就广义而言,都是"常识"的。然而,值得注意的是,里德最近的诠释者,以及从他的观点中获得灵感的当代人物,在里德对怀疑论的回应中,他们认为常识本身所起的作用(如果有的话)是不同的——因此,他们是否认为这种回应在某种更实质性的意义上是常识。在这里,我认为即使是那些在里德为我们的前理论认识论观点辩护时给予常识一席之地的人也低估了里德对常识的理解。具体地说,他们忽略了这样一个事实,即对里德来说,常识具有不可约的规范性方面,对常识的第一原则的坚持,对他来说,是理性判断和理性行动的最低要求,即使是怀疑论者也无法逃避的要求。
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
Common Sense in Reid’s Response to Scepticism
Thomas Reid is one figure whose epistemological views are bound up with common sense. As with his positive theory, however, Reid’s response to scepticism – what it’s meant to establish, and how – is a matter of controversy. Of course, insofar as it respects and defends our ordinary view of ourselves as having knowledge, and from a variety of sources, any response to scepticism is ‘commonsensical’ in the broad sense. Notably, however, recent interpreters of Reid, and contemporary figures who take inspiration from his views, differ in what role if any they see common sense itself as playing in Reid’s response to the sceptic – hence, in whether they think that response is commonsensical in some more substantive sense. Here, I argue that even those who do give common sense a place in Reid’s defense of our pretheoretic epistemological views underrate the importance therein of common sense as Reid conceives of it. Specifically, they overlook the fact that common sense has an irreducible normative aspect for Reid, and that an adherence to the first principles of common sense is, for him, a minimal requirement on rational judgment and action, a requirement which even the sceptic cannot evade.
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
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Fondée en 1876, la Revue philosophique publie quatre fascicules par an. La plupart sont des numéros consacrés soit à une notion fondamentale, soit à une grande période de l"histoire de la pensée, soit à un auteur - classique ou contemporain. Chaque livraison groupe en outre les analyses d"un grand nombre d"ouvrages philosophiques publiés de par le monde. Des informations tiennent le lecteur au courant des événements de la vie philosophique, en particulier des colloques ou congrès organisés en France ou à l"étranger.
期刊最新文献
La théorie néo-sentimentaliste des valeurs à l’épreuve de sa formalisation logique Bruno Latour (1947-2022) Sur la structure herméneutique de la raison kantienne Entre littérature et philosophie d’autrefois : quelques correspondances remarquables Spinoza avec Vygotski : une psychologie des affects
×
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