反对心理原子论

Q4 Arts and Humanities Dialogue and Universalism Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5840/du202232115
M. Slote
{"title":"反对心理原子论","authors":"M. Slote","doi":"10.5840/du202232115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Total permissiveness can be captured by the phrase “anything goes.” Psychological atomism can be informally characterized by the idea that in the mind anything goes with anything. There is a strong tendency toward such thinking in Western philosophical thought—both in classical antiquity and during and since the Enlightenment. Perhaps the two most important philosophers of the Enlightenment, Hume and Kant, accepted more or less limited forms of atomism, and I shall explain in what follows in the main text and footnotes, why and how I think their atomism goes astray. Since much of Western philosophy since the Enlightenment to some extent bears its imprint, we shall also be seeing some recent examples of ill-conceived atomism. However, and despite the main themes of the present volume, I shall go well beyond the task of dealing with themes in Enlightenment thinking. In fact, I shall be relying on some unfamiliar aspects of Chinese thought to correct quite generally what I take to be erroneous atomistic thinking.","PeriodicalId":36732,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue and Universalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Against Psychological Atomism\",\"authors\":\"M. Slote\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/du202232115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Total permissiveness can be captured by the phrase “anything goes.” Psychological atomism can be informally characterized by the idea that in the mind anything goes with anything. There is a strong tendency toward such thinking in Western philosophical thought—both in classical antiquity and during and since the Enlightenment. Perhaps the two most important philosophers of the Enlightenment, Hume and Kant, accepted more or less limited forms of atomism, and I shall explain in what follows in the main text and footnotes, why and how I think their atomism goes astray. Since much of Western philosophy since the Enlightenment to some extent bears its imprint, we shall also be seeing some recent examples of ill-conceived atomism. However, and despite the main themes of the present volume, I shall go well beyond the task of dealing with themes in Enlightenment thinking. In fact, I shall be relying on some unfamiliar aspects of Chinese thought to correct quite generally what I take to be erroneous atomistic thinking.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dialogue and Universalism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dialogue and Universalism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/du202232115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue and Universalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/du202232115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

完全的放任可以用“为所欲为”这个短语来表达。心理原子论可以被非正式地描述为,在头脑中,任何事物都与任何事物相关联。在西方哲学思想中,无论是在古典时代,还是在启蒙运动期间和之后,都有一种强烈的这种思维倾向。也许启蒙运动中最重要的两位哲学家,休谟和康德,都或多或少地接受了有限形式的原子论,我将在接下来的正文和脚注中解释,我为什么以及如何认为他们的原子论误入歧途。由于启蒙运动以来的许多西方哲学在某种程度上都带有它的印记,我们也将看到一些构思拙劣的原子论的例子。然而,尽管有本卷的主要主题,我将远远超出处理启蒙思想主题的任务。事实上,我将依靠中国思想的一些不熟悉的方面来大致纠正我认为是错误的原子论思想。
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
Against Psychological Atomism
Total permissiveness can be captured by the phrase “anything goes.” Psychological atomism can be informally characterized by the idea that in the mind anything goes with anything. There is a strong tendency toward such thinking in Western philosophical thought—both in classical antiquity and during and since the Enlightenment. Perhaps the two most important philosophers of the Enlightenment, Hume and Kant, accepted more or less limited forms of atomism, and I shall explain in what follows in the main text and footnotes, why and how I think their atomism goes astray. Since much of Western philosophy since the Enlightenment to some extent bears its imprint, we shall also be seeing some recent examples of ill-conceived atomism. However, and despite the main themes of the present volume, I shall go well beyond the task of dealing with themes in Enlightenment thinking. In fact, I shall be relying on some unfamiliar aspects of Chinese thought to correct quite generally what I take to be erroneous atomistic thinking.
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
Dialogue and Universalism
Dialogue and Universalism Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Problems of the Unknowability and Total Unity in the Light of Philosophy of Semyon L. Frank Re-Thinking Cultural Hedonism Do We Really Need a New Enlightenment for the 21st Century? On the Question of Whether We Need a New Enlightenment for the 21st Century How Do We Shape a Reform of the 21st-Century Human World in an Enlightenment Spirit? On Projects by Robert E. Allinson and Michael H. Mitias
×
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