理性支配的两种形式

Q2 Arts and Humanities Nordic Wittgenstein Review Pub Date : 2019-06-07 DOI:10.15845/NWR.V8I0.3503
Matteo Falomi
{"title":"理性支配的两种形式","authors":"Matteo Falomi","doi":"10.15845/NWR.V8I0.3503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In his paper \"The Problem of Domination by Reason and its Non-Relativist Solution\" Oskari Kuusela describes a problem about our conception of rationality, which he labels the problem of “domination by reason”. This problem has contributed to generate, Kuusela notes, a widespread dissatisfaction with reason, which has resulted in a tendency to discard ideals of rationality altogether. Kuusela, in his paper, provides a response to this dissatisfaction. He argues that Wittgenstein, if we read him correctly, exemplifies a conception of reason that doesn’t incur the problem he indicates. In my response, I suggest a possible extension of Kuusela’s reflections. Domination by reason, as I argue, may also take another form, different from the one recognized by Kuusela. This alternative form is interesting for two reasons. First, those concerned about rationality’s dominance have quite often in mind this latter problem. Second, it is not obvious that the alternative version of the problem can be solved by appealing to the conception of rationality Kuusela locates in Wittgenstein: it could even be argued that such a conception, on a certain construal, may contribute to reinforcing it. I suggest that, if we focus solely on the aspects of Wittgenstein’s method highlighted in Kuusela’s paper, then such methods may be taken to promote domination by reason (in the alternative sense I introduce). There are, however, other aspects of Wittgenstein’s philosophy - most notably, his conception of ethical language - which may help us to dispel this version of the problem. \nKeywords: Wittgenstein, rationality, modernity, clarification, James Baldwin","PeriodicalId":31828,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Wittgenstein Review","volume":"314 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two Forms of Domination by Reason\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Falomi\",\"doi\":\"10.15845/NWR.V8I0.3503\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In his paper \\\"The Problem of Domination by Reason and its Non-Relativist Solution\\\" Oskari Kuusela describes a problem about our conception of rationality, which he labels the problem of “domination by reason”. This problem has contributed to generate, Kuusela notes, a widespread dissatisfaction with reason, which has resulted in a tendency to discard ideals of rationality altogether. Kuusela, in his paper, provides a response to this dissatisfaction. He argues that Wittgenstein, if we read him correctly, exemplifies a conception of reason that doesn’t incur the problem he indicates. In my response, I suggest a possible extension of Kuusela’s reflections. Domination by reason, as I argue, may also take another form, different from the one recognized by Kuusela. This alternative form is interesting for two reasons. First, those concerned about rationality’s dominance have quite often in mind this latter problem. Second, it is not obvious that the alternative version of the problem can be solved by appealing to the conception of rationality Kuusela locates in Wittgenstein: it could even be argued that such a conception, on a certain construal, may contribute to reinforcing it. I suggest that, if we focus solely on the aspects of Wittgenstein’s method highlighted in Kuusela’s paper, then such methods may be taken to promote domination by reason (in the alternative sense I introduce). There are, however, other aspects of Wittgenstein’s philosophy - most notably, his conception of ethical language - which may help us to dispel this version of the problem. \\nKeywords: Wittgenstein, rationality, modernity, clarification, James Baldwin\",\"PeriodicalId\":31828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic Wittgenstein Review\",\"volume\":\"314 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic Wittgenstein Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15845/NWR.V8I0.3503\",\"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":"Nordic Wittgenstein Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15845/NWR.V8I0.3503","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: 1

摘要

Oskari Kuusela在其论文《理性支配问题及其非相对主义解决方案》中描述了一个关于我们理性概念的问题,他称之为“理性支配”问题。Kuusela指出,这个问题导致了对理性的普遍不满,这导致了一种完全抛弃理性理想的倾向。Kuusela在他的论文中对这种不满做出了回应。他认为,如果我们正确解读维特根斯坦的话,他举例说明了一种理性的概念,这种概念不会引发他所指出的问题。在我的回答中,我提出了Kuusela思考的一个可能的延伸。理性支配,正如我所说,也可能采取另一种形式,不同于Kuusela所认可的形式。这种替代形式很有趣,原因有二。首先,那些担心理性占主导地位的人往往会想到后一个问题。其次,问题的另一个版本能否通过诉诸库塞拉(Kuusela)在维特根斯坦(Wittgenstein)中找到的理性概念来解决,这一点并不明显:甚至可以认为,在某种解释上,这样一个概念可能有助于强化它。我认为,如果我们只关注Kuusela论文中强调的维特根斯坦方法的各个方面,那么这些方法可能会被用来促进理性统治(在我介绍的另一种意义上)。然而,维特根斯坦哲学的其他方面——最值得注意的是,他的伦理语言概念——可以帮助我们消除这个版本的问题。关键词:维特根斯坦,理性,现代性,澄清,鲍德温
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
Two Forms of Domination by Reason
In his paper "The Problem of Domination by Reason and its Non-Relativist Solution" Oskari Kuusela describes a problem about our conception of rationality, which he labels the problem of “domination by reason”. This problem has contributed to generate, Kuusela notes, a widespread dissatisfaction with reason, which has resulted in a tendency to discard ideals of rationality altogether. Kuusela, in his paper, provides a response to this dissatisfaction. He argues that Wittgenstein, if we read him correctly, exemplifies a conception of reason that doesn’t incur the problem he indicates. In my response, I suggest a possible extension of Kuusela’s reflections. Domination by reason, as I argue, may also take another form, different from the one recognized by Kuusela. This alternative form is interesting for two reasons. First, those concerned about rationality’s dominance have quite often in mind this latter problem. Second, it is not obvious that the alternative version of the problem can be solved by appealing to the conception of rationality Kuusela locates in Wittgenstein: it could even be argued that such a conception, on a certain construal, may contribute to reinforcing it. I suggest that, if we focus solely on the aspects of Wittgenstein’s method highlighted in Kuusela’s paper, then such methods may be taken to promote domination by reason (in the alternative sense I introduce). There are, however, other aspects of Wittgenstein’s philosophy - most notably, his conception of ethical language - which may help us to dispel this version of the problem. Keywords: Wittgenstein, rationality, modernity, clarification, James Baldwin
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
Nordic Wittgenstein Review
Nordic Wittgenstein Review Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊最新文献
Cavell’s Must We Mean What We Say? at 50 , edited by Greg Chase, Juliet Floyd and Sandra Laugier Wittgenstein and Aesthetics, by Hanne Appelqvist Wittgenstein in Alethea Graham’s diary (1929-1930), and new data on the audience of his Lecture on Ethics and LT 1930 class Ethical Inquiries after Wittgenstein, edited by Salla Aldrin Salskov, Ondřej Beran and Nora Hämäläinen “What Line Can’t Be Measured With a Ruler?”: Riddles and Concept-Formation in Mathematics and Aesthetics
×
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