1.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 41
彭孟 堯
Eric Peng
蒼涼蘊涵與天擇論證 ─人類是不理性的嗎?
The Bleak Implication and the Selection Argument -Are Humans Irrational?
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
本文主旨在於探討並拒斥在1980 年代一群認知科學家依其研究結果而 主張的「蒼涼蘊涵」:人類是不理性的。本文首先解析這些認知科學家建立 此結論時所依據的前提,再逐一反駁。另一方面,Stich 檢討了文獻上訴諸 天擇演化以辯護人類理性的主張,並重新建構了「天擇論證」,然後提出三 件反駁。本文檢視Stich 這三件反駁,並藉由指出其思考不足之處,來修改 天擇演化論證,以試圖說明理性與心理推想系統之間的關聯,並重新開啟以 演化理論辯護人類理性之路。
This essay is to reject the so-called “bleak implication”—human beings are irrational in nature, which was said to follow from experiments on human reasoning in the eighties. The rejection is advocated by way of re-constructing for the cognitive scientists their argument for the bleak implication. Meanwhile, Stich constructs what he calls the “Selection argument” for human rationality, and then rejects it. This essay examines his arguments and argues that his objections are defective. This essay then revises the selection argument to show how human rationality is connected to the design and performance of human reasoning mechanism with the hope that we may re-open the possibility of defending human rationality from an evolutionary point of view.
|
|
2.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 41
王志 輝
Zhi-Hue Wang
亞理斯多德論「善」 及「存有」之同名異義
Aristotle on the Homonymy of “Goodness” and “Being”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
亞理斯多德對柏拉圖哲學最常提出的控訴,便是它過於簡化。在他看 來,柏拉圖也分享了蘇格拉底關於字詞與定義的假定。蘇格拉底認為,當問 及「何謂F?」(正義、勇敢等)的問題時,總是可以找到某個關於「F」的 單一定義。然而,亞理斯多德卻宣稱,某些哲學上關鍵的字詞與概念,例如 「存有」、「善」、「正義」、「友情」等等,乃是同名異義或者以各種方式來述 說的。因此,在他眼中,柏拉圖正犯了過度簡化的問題:柏拉圖錯誤地忽略 了同名異義,並誤以為相同的字詞總是以相同方式而述說的。因而我們必須 放棄柏拉圖對於「存有」、「善」以及「正義」的說明。然而Ch. Shields 卻認為,亞理斯多德哲學中的兩個關鍵概念─「存 有」以及「善」─是無法被證明為同名異義的;雖然亞理斯多德經常提出 對於「存有」以及「善」之同名異義的警示,對於兩者同名異義的論證卻是 失敗的。Shields 宣稱,根本沒有一套可用以辯護亞理斯多德有關「存有」 之同名異義的學說,因為這個學說根本是錯誤的;他也認為,「善」之同名 異義同樣也無法被建立,因為它是從可疑的「存有」之同名異義學說推導而 來。本文將展示,Shields 對於亞理斯多德有關「存有」與「善」同名異義 論證之批判並不成功。本文將藉這種方式重構亞理斯多德嘗試建立「存有」 與「善」之同名異義的基本架構。
The criticism of Plato most often leveled by Aristotle against Plato is that his philosophy is oversimplified. On his view, Plato shares the Socratic assumption about words and definitions. When asked “What is F?” (justice, courage, etc.), Socrates thinks that a single definition can always be found. However, Aristotle claims that some of the crucial words and concepts in his philosophy, such as “being,” “goodness,” “justice,” and “friendship,” are homonymous or multivocal (said in many ways). In his eyes, therefore, Plato oversimplifies the issue: Plato mistakenly ignores homonymy and simply supposes that the same word is always said in the same way. Put briefly, the Platonic accounts of “being, ” “goodness, ” and “justice” should be rejected because homonymy and multivocity are ignored.However, Ch. Shields holds that two of the crucial concepts of the Aristotelian philosophy – “being” and “goodness” – cannot be shown to be homonymous; although Aristotle often issues special warnings against the homonymy of “being” and “goodness, ” all of his arguments fail. Shields claims that there is no defensible Aristotelian doctrine about the homonymy of “being” because this doctrine is false; he also thinks that the homonymy of “goodness” cannot be established because it is inferred from the problematical doctrine of the homonymy of “being”. In this article, I shall show that Shields’ critiques of Aristotle’s arguments for the homonymy of “being” and “goodness” do not succeed. In this way, I shall reconstruct the basic framework of Aristotle’s attempt to establish the homonymy of “being” and “goodness”.
|
|
3.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 41
蔡龍 九
Lung-Chiu Tsai
王陽明「理」的內容 與「心即理」的適用範圍
The Content of Wang Yangming’s “Li” and the Proper Application Range of “Xin Ji Li”
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
陽明的「理」概念在他的立教宗旨中明顯偏向「德性方面」,然而他論 述「理」的內容時對「非德性方面」亦曾提及,並且欲亦以「心」說之;筆 者於本文中除考察他對此兩種方向之「理」的論述內容之外,在個人的分類 中,談論出他的「心即理」教法可適用於「德性意義之理」,並且指出陽明 若勉強地以「心」談論「非德性意義之理」時所遭受的困難以及不通暢之處。 於本文中,筆者除了對陽明的「理」概念內容作出分類及釐清之外,並論述 其「心即理」的適用範圍。
In Wang Yangming’s theoretical premises, the concept of “Li” tends to relate to “the moral domain,” though its affinity with “the amoral domain” is also suggested. He furthermore expounds this concept of “Li” by the notion of “Xin.” In this paper I investigate Wang’s twin-track approach upon “Li,” and propose that his tenet of “Xin Ji Li” suits a moral conception of “Li.” I also point out the predicaments Wang encounters when carring out a forced application of the notion of “Xin” in expounding an amoral conception of “Li.” In addition to my attempts to categorize and elucidate Wang’s concept of “Li,” the proper application range of “Xin Ji Li” will also be explored.
|
|
4.
|
NTU Philosophical Review:
Year >
2011 >
Issue: 41
蘇慶 輝
Ching-Hui Su
論瑣碎性結果與對條件化的限制
On the Triviality Results and the Restriction on Conditionalization
abstract |
view |
rights & permissions
| cited by
路易士的「瑣碎性結果」論證被視為能有力地拒斥對於條件句採行的真 值條件語意論,因為如果接受古典的機率理論、條件化,以及史東內克對條 件句的論點,我們可以推導出一個荒謬的結果─對任意的命題A 與C 而 言,p(C/A) = p(C)。本文試圖回應他的「瑣碎性結果」論證,並指出:無論 我們以條件機率如何定義自然語言的任何二位連接詞,瑣碎性結果仍會出 現。因此,放棄史東內克對條件句的論點不是避開瑣碎性結果的唯一方式; 相反的,我們可以對「條件化」做適當的限制來避免瑣碎性結果。
Lewis’s arguments for the triviality results are considered as a powerful rejection of the truth-conditional accounts of conditionals: the absurd consequencethat for any propositions A and C, p(C/A) = p(C) is derived from the classical probability calculus, conditionalization, and Stalnaker’s semantics for conditionals.In this paper, it is argued that the triviality results need not be a threat to Stalnaker’s semantics, for we can derive a generalized triviality result from the classicalprobability theory and any thesis about conditional probability. The lesson, I suggest, is that we should reconsider the classical probability theory or set a restriction on the rule of conditionalization such that the triviality results may be avoided.
|
|