休谟缓和了对现实系统的怀疑

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia Pub Date : 2022-08-01 DOI:10.1590/0100-512x2022n15203whpc
Wendel de Holanda Pereira Campelo
{"title":"休谟缓和了对现实系统的怀疑","authors":"Wendel de Holanda Pereira Campelo","doi":"10.1590/0100-512x2022n15203whpc","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, I argue that Hume’s commitment to mind-independent objects is based on two types of realism or system of realities: (a) a naïve realism based on an unjustified vulgar belief which identifies perceptions and objects, and (b) a representational realism or philosophical system of double-existence. Firstly, I emphasize that the philosophical question “Whether there be body or not” cannot be considered a full case of unmitigated skepticism, because Hume accepts a mitigated skepticism compatible with both vulgar and representational realism. Furthermore, I argue that, while the vulgar belief in bodies is based on an unjustified assent, the double-existence theory is based on both an unjustified assent and a rationally justified assent (that corrects the former). Considering all these points, I conclude that Hume’s mitigated skepticism allows and requires a belief in or supposition of continued and distinct existences, and that this must, as a practical matter, take vulgar and philosophical forms at different times.","PeriodicalId":52055,"journal":{"name":"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"HUME’S MITIGATED SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO THE SYSTEMS OF REALITY\",\"authors\":\"Wendel de Holanda Pereira Campelo\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/0100-512x2022n15203whpc\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this paper, I argue that Hume’s commitment to mind-independent objects is based on two types of realism or system of realities: (a) a naïve realism based on an unjustified vulgar belief which identifies perceptions and objects, and (b) a representational realism or philosophical system of double-existence. Firstly, I emphasize that the philosophical question “Whether there be body or not” cannot be considered a full case of unmitigated skepticism, because Hume accepts a mitigated skepticism compatible with both vulgar and representational realism. Furthermore, I argue that, while the vulgar belief in bodies is based on an unjustified assent, the double-existence theory is based on both an unjustified assent and a rationally justified assent (that corrects the former). Considering all these points, I conclude that Hume’s mitigated skepticism allows and requires a belief in or supposition of continued and distinct existences, and that this must, as a practical matter, take vulgar and philosophical forms at different times.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-512x2022n15203whpc\",\"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":"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-512x2022n15203whpc","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

在本文中,我认为休谟对独立于心灵的客体的承诺是基于两种类型的现实主义或现实体系:(a)一种naïve现实主义,它基于一种未经证实的庸俗信仰,它将知觉和客体识别出来;(b)一种表征现实主义或双重存在的哲学体系。首先,我强调,哲学问题“是否有身体”不能被认为是一个完全的怀疑主义的案例,因为休谟接受了一种与庸俗的和表征的现实主义兼容的缓和的怀疑主义。此外,我认为,虽然肉体的庸俗信仰是基于一个未经证明的同意,双重存在理论是基于一个未经证明的同意和一个理性证明的同意(纠正了前者)。考虑到所有这些观点,我得出结论,休谟的缓和的怀疑主义允许并要求对持续的和不同的存在的信仰或假设,作为一个实际问题,这必须在不同的时间采取庸俗和哲学的形式。
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
HUME’S MITIGATED SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO THE SYSTEMS OF REALITY
ABSTRACT In this paper, I argue that Hume’s commitment to mind-independent objects is based on two types of realism or system of realities: (a) a naïve realism based on an unjustified vulgar belief which identifies perceptions and objects, and (b) a representational realism or philosophical system of double-existence. Firstly, I emphasize that the philosophical question “Whether there be body or not” cannot be considered a full case of unmitigated skepticism, because Hume accepts a mitigated skepticism compatible with both vulgar and representational realism. Furthermore, I argue that, while the vulgar belief in bodies is based on an unjustified assent, the double-existence theory is based on both an unjustified assent and a rationally justified assent (that corrects the former). Considering all these points, I conclude that Hume’s mitigated skepticism allows and requires a belief in or supposition of continued and distinct existences, and that this must, as a practical matter, take vulgar and philosophical forms at different times.
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
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
KANT, LIBERDADE E A HERMENÊUTICA DO FRACASSO A RELAÇÃO ENTRE A ÁGUA E A LOUCURA EM HISTOIRE DE LA FOLIE REVISITANDO O EXPERIMENTO DE LIBET: CONTRIBUIÇÕES ATUAIS DA NEUROCIÊNCIA PARA O PROBLEMA DO LIVRE-ARBÍTRIO AGAMBEN E FOUCAULT: EXPLORANDO OS LIMITES DESSA APROXIMAÇÃO A PARTIR DO TEMA DO ‘DESTITUINTE’ NAVIGATING THROUGH THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE(S)
×
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