从定性状态到命题意旨:经验证明的困惑

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Inquiries Pub Date : 2019-03-03 DOI:10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I1.243
S. Caiani
{"title":"从定性状态到命题意旨:经验证明的困惑","authors":"S. Caiani","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I1.243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is generally agreed that our beliefs must have epistemic justification if they are to count as knowledge. It is also a commonplace thought that our beliefs can be either inferentially justified or empirically justified. However, while the theory of inferential reasoning provides a theoretical framework for understanding how a belief may get inferential justification, we lack a similar framework for empirical justification. Indeed, since inferential justification is transmitted only from propositional contents to propositional contents, experiences cannot figure as part of this process, unless their qualitative format are translated in a propositional format. This paper aims at clarifying the nature of empirical justification by focusing on the longstanding problem of how experiences get a propositional content. After a rebuttal of two popular naturalization strategies, I will argue that also the phenomenal intentionality research program suffers from a critical flow. Indeed, although experiences have intrinsic phenomenal intentionality, this is not sufficient for experience to obtain propositional content.","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From qualitative states to propositional contents: the puzzle of experiential justification\",\"authors\":\"S. Caiani\",\"doi\":\"10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I1.243\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is generally agreed that our beliefs must have epistemic justification if they are to count as knowledge. It is also a commonplace thought that our beliefs can be either inferentially justified or empirically justified. However, while the theory of inferential reasoning provides a theoretical framework for understanding how a belief may get inferential justification, we lack a similar framework for empirical justification. Indeed, since inferential justification is transmitted only from propositional contents to propositional contents, experiences cannot figure as part of this process, unless their qualitative format are translated in a propositional format. This paper aims at clarifying the nature of empirical justification by focusing on the longstanding problem of how experiences get a propositional content. After a rebuttal of two popular naturalization strategies, I will argue that also the phenomenal intentionality research program suffers from a critical flow. Indeed, although experiences have intrinsic phenomenal intentionality, this is not sufficient for experience to obtain propositional content.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I1.243\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Inquiries","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V7I1.243","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们普遍认为,如果我们的信念要算作知识,就必须有认识论上的证明。我们的信念既可以通过推理证明,也可以通过经验证明,这也是一种普遍的想法。然而,虽然推理推理理论为理解信念如何获得推理证明提供了理论框架,但我们缺乏类似的经验证明框架。事实上,由于推理证明只是从命题意旨传递到命题意旨,经验不能作为这一过程的一部分,除非它们的定性格式被翻译成命题格式。本文旨在通过关注经验如何获得命题内容这一长期存在的问题来澄清经验证明的本质。在对两种流行的归化策略进行反驳之后,我将认为现象性意向性研究项目也受到了临界流的影响。的确,尽管经验具有内在的现象意向性,但这并不足以使经验获得命题意旨。
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
From qualitative states to propositional contents: the puzzle of experiential justification
It is generally agreed that our beliefs must have epistemic justification if they are to count as knowledge. It is also a commonplace thought that our beliefs can be either inferentially justified or empirically justified. However, while the theory of inferential reasoning provides a theoretical framework for understanding how a belief may get inferential justification, we lack a similar framework for empirical justification. Indeed, since inferential justification is transmitted only from propositional contents to propositional contents, experiences cannot figure as part of this process, unless their qualitative format are translated in a propositional format. This paper aims at clarifying the nature of empirical justification by focusing on the longstanding problem of how experiences get a propositional content. After a rebuttal of two popular naturalization strategies, I will argue that also the phenomenal intentionality research program suffers from a critical flow. Indeed, although experiences have intrinsic phenomenal intentionality, this is not sufficient for experience to obtain propositional content.
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Commentary to B. William’s French introduction to "Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy" Sonic obstacles and conceptual nostalgia: Preliminary considerations on musical conceptualism and contemporary art Intergenerational aesthetics: A future-oriented approach to aesthetic theory and practice Presentism and the Pain of the Past: A Reply to Orilia “Who inspires who?” Aesthetics in front of AI art
×
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