作者MathTurtle (恩典)
看板W-Philosophy
标题Re: [思辩] 事实与认知的关系
时间Wed Jan 12 18:10:58 2011
: 推 playskin:区别 fact 和 reality 两个概念在哲学史的演进与关系 01/11 03:44
: → playskin:我觉得还蛮有帮助於认识大多数现今的哲学议题 判断会变快 01/11 03:45
: → playskin:此外也可稍加研究一下实证主义造成了哪些影响 以致 01/11 03:46
: → playskin:现在我们不太讨论 reality。关键字可以找 意识型态终结 01/11 03:47
: → nominalism:Who exactly are the "we" you're talking about that 01/12 11:49
: → nominalism:do not talk about "reality"? 01/12 11:50
: 推 MathTurtle:主张realism倒不一定要讨论reality。 01/12 16:41
: → MathTurtle:他可以说 xxx存在, 或xxx are mind-independent... 01/12 16:41
: → MathTurtle:这两种谈法都可以被归为realism。 01/12 16:42
: 推 nominalism:Since realism is a view closely related to the talk 01/12 17:42
: → nominalism:of reality, it seems really inappropriate to claim 01/12 17:44
: → nominalism:that "we" (who exactly do that term refer to is 01/12 17:49
: → nominalism:still quite unclear) usually do not talk about 01/12 17:50
: → nominalism:reality recently without giving further evidence or 01/12 17:51
: → nominalism:justification. At least as far as I know, there are 01/12 17:52
: → nominalism:tons of literature discussing about reality in 01/12 17:52
: → nominalism:domains including truth theory, metaphysics of 01/12 17:53
: → nominalism:science, semantic theory, moral theory, etc. by 01/12 17:54
: → nominalism:many of the 20th century philosophers. 01/12 17:58
嗯嗯...这是个有趣的问题。
我这里是没什麽证据啦, 不过就我个人的感觉,
playskin说的现象, 在逻辑实证之後一段时间的确是存在的,
大概是有一段时间比较少人会直接谈 "reality"
(对比大概是像 Bradley, McTaggart 那时代的人会直接谈
'Appearance and reality', 'the reality/unreality of time', etc)
虽然是换汤不换药, 但当中的哲学立场预设是可以看的出来,
举例来讲, 在谈truth时, 从传统的 'agreement between words and reality'
转成讨论 fact 是否存在, 以及 individuation of fact的论题。
换言之, 这段时间的哲学家有避开直接谈reality是什麽的倾向,
而喜欢谈 fact, 例如, 在关於道德的实在论上面,
谈的是有没有 moral fact 的存在, 以及 moral facts的ontological status。
而当然, 这种避开谈 reality 的倾向随着形上学的复兴有逐渐改善,
虽然 fact-ontology 还是一种技术上被大家接受的谈法,
不过也有人开始强调我们应该要直接谈 reality,
认为只谈fact并无法合理处理所有的形上学问题。
持这立场的, 很有影响力的就是 kit Fine, 在2001的一篇
文章 'The question of realism' 提出了这样的看法。
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 86.30.200.214
1F：推 playskin:我可不可以说，M大这篇文章现在至少证明我之前说的 we 01/15 11:05
2F：→ playskin:有2个人了？ 如此一来这个we就成立啦。我想藉此澄清的是 01/15 11:06
3F：→ playskin:通常我们说到我们的时候，并没有强迫要每个听者都要对号 01/15 11:06
4F：推 playskin:入座的意图。反之我们不必看到"我们"就excite起来。 01/15 11:08
5F：推 nominalism:如果你在说「我们」的时候,只想讲「两个人」,这个「我 01/24 20:34
6F：→ nominalism:们现在不太谈XXX」 is simply trivially true. 01/24 20:34
7F：→ nominalism:It has no significance. 01/24 20:34
8F：推 playskin:完全不重要的枝微末节。你的哲学训练可以做更显着的贡献 01/24 21:49
9F：→ playskin:认真陪你玩一次你该感谢了。你也该看清楚这次你是彻底被 01/24 21:49
10F：→ playskin:"以其人之道还治其人之身了"我只是借用你的作法对你罢了 01/24 21:50
11F：→ playskin:nothing more or less! 01/24 21:50
12F：→ playskin:what on earth do you want to prove through all this? 01/24 21:51
13F：→ playskin:it's your turn to say loud your intention and it's 01/24 21:52
14F：→ playskin:always been the weakest part of yours. you destruct 01/24 21:52
15F：→ playskin:way too much more than construct on the board 01/24 21:53
16F：→ playskin:这可是有目共睹有口皆碑的呢！ 01/24 21:54
17F：→ nominalism:If you truely cannot understand what was I asking, 01/26 19:18
18F：→ nominalism:please just quit responding with such haste. 01/26 19:18
19F：推 playskin:"truely"这个字从你嘴里说出来特别可笑耶。然後呢我可能 01/27 08:43
20F：→ playskin:采取的回应方式，可能是回应你，也可能是删掉所有我可以 01/27 08:44
21F：→ playskin:删的你的推文。你管不着。但你无法改变我对你不屑的事实 01/27 08:45
22F：→ playskin:所以省省力气吧。 01/27 08:45