潜能:现实主义减去自然主义等于柏拉图主义

IF 0.2 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Inquiries Pub Date : 2020-03-31 DOI:10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I1.278
Giacomo Giannini, Matthew Tugby
{"title":"潜能:现实主义减去自然主义等于柏拉图主义","authors":"Giacomo Giannini, Matthew Tugby","doi":"10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I1.278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Vetter (2015) develops a localised theory of modality, based on potentialities of actual objects. Two factors play a key role in its appeal: its commitment to Hardcore Actualism, and to Naturalism. Vetter’s commitment to Naturalism is in part manifested in her adoption of Aristotelian universals. In this paper, we argue that a puzzle concerning the identity of unmanifested potentialities cannot be solved with an Aristotelian conception of properties. After introducing the puzzle, we examine Vetter’s attempt at amending the Aristotelian conception in a way that avoids the puzzle, and conclude that this amended version is no longer to be considered naturalistic. Potentiality theory cannot be both actualist and naturalist. We then argue that, if naturalism is to be abandoned by the actualist, there are good reasons to adopt a Platonist conception of universals, for they offer a number of theoretical advantages and allow us to avoid some of the problems facing Vetter’s theory.","PeriodicalId":41386,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Inquiries","volume":"52 1","pages":"117-140"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Potentiality: Actualism minus naturalism equals platonism\",\"authors\":\"Giacomo Giannini, Matthew Tugby\",\"doi\":\"10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I1.278\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Vetter (2015) develops a localised theory of modality, based on potentialities of actual objects. Two factors play a key role in its appeal: its commitment to Hardcore Actualism, and to Naturalism. Vetter’s commitment to Naturalism is in part manifested in her adoption of Aristotelian universals. In this paper, we argue that a puzzle concerning the identity of unmanifested potentialities cannot be solved with an Aristotelian conception of properties. After introducing the puzzle, we examine Vetter’s attempt at amending the Aristotelian conception in a way that avoids the puzzle, and conclude that this amended version is no longer to be considered naturalistic. Potentiality theory cannot be both actualist and naturalist. We then argue that, if naturalism is to be abandoned by the actualist, there are good reasons to adopt a Platonist conception of universals, for they offer a number of theoretical advantages and allow us to avoid some of the problems facing Vetter’s theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"117-140\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Inquiries\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4454/PHILINQ.V8I1.278\",\"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.V8I1.278","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: 6

摘要

Vetter(2015)发展了一种基于实际对象潜力的情态本地化理论。两个因素在它的吸引力中起着关键作用:它对硬核现实主义的承诺,以及对自然主义的承诺。维特对自然主义的承诺部分体现在她对亚里士多德共相的采纳上。在本文中,我们认为一个关于未表现潜能的同一性的难题不能用亚里士多德的属性概念来解决。在介绍了这个谜题之后,我们研究了维特试图以一种避免谜题的方式修正亚里士多德概念的尝试,并得出结论,这个修正后的版本不再被认为是自然主义的。潜势理论不能既是现实主义的又是自然主义的。然后,我们认为,如果现实主义者要抛弃自然主义,那么就有很好的理由采纳柏拉图主义的共相概念,因为它们提供了许多理论上的优势,并使我们能够避免维特理论面临的一些问题。
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
Potentiality: Actualism minus naturalism equals platonism
Vetter (2015) develops a localised theory of modality, based on potentialities of actual objects. Two factors play a key role in its appeal: its commitment to Hardcore Actualism, and to Naturalism. Vetter’s commitment to Naturalism is in part manifested in her adoption of Aristotelian universals. In this paper, we argue that a puzzle concerning the identity of unmanifested potentialities cannot be solved with an Aristotelian conception of properties. After introducing the puzzle, we examine Vetter’s attempt at amending the Aristotelian conception in a way that avoids the puzzle, and conclude that this amended version is no longer to be considered naturalistic. Potentiality theory cannot be both actualist and naturalist. We then argue that, if naturalism is to be abandoned by the actualist, there are good reasons to adopt a Platonist conception of universals, for they offer a number of theoretical advantages and allow us to avoid some of the problems facing Vetter’s theory.
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