政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/153441

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/153441

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51688534 Online Users : 633

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

Scope

please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results

please goto advance search for comprehansive author search

Adv. Search

Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer

Goto mobile version

政大典藏 > College of Liberal Arts > Department of Philosophy > Theses > Item 140.119/153441

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153441

Title:	超驗論證之條件關係與形上立基之探討 On the conditional relation of transcendental arguments and metaphysical grounding
Authors:	楊佳儒 Yang, Chia-Ju
Contributors:	鄭會穎 Cheng, Huei-Ying 楊佳儒 Yang, Chia-Ju
Keywords:	超驗論證必要條件形上立基心智哲學現象學反事實條件後設形上學 transcendental arguments necessary condition metaphysical grounding philosophy of mind phenomenology counterfactual condition metametaphysics
Date:	2024
Issue Date:	2024-09-04 15:15:36 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	超驗論證在哲學史中最著名的使用者無疑是康德，但在當代分析哲學中也有不少使用者，如Putnam(1981)、Davidson(1989)與Lowe(2012)等。本文將著重於探討超驗論證於當代分析哲學中之使用所遇到的問題，而不會處理康德原始版本的超驗論證或涉及哲學史中超驗論證的討論。當代對超驗論證的形式化包含了作為前提之條件句，因此條件句是否為真成為了對超驗論證攻防的焦點。形上立基是近年後設形上學的熱門研究對象，被認為比上世紀形上學討論主流之模態概念更為細緻，但受到了當代超驗論證研究者的忽視而鮮有相關討論。本文指出形上立基關係有助於推進關於超驗論證的討論，使之得以與當前的後設形上學對話，並論證使用形上立基關係的超驗論證較過往模態關係版本的更有可能成功。 The most famous user of transcendental argument in the history of philosophy is undoubtedly Kant, but there are also many users in contemporary analytic philosophy, such as Putnam (1981), Davidson (1989) and Lowe (2012). This article will focus on the problems encountered in the use of transcendental arguments in contemporary analytic philosophy, and will not deal with Kant's original version of the transcendental arguments or involve the discussions of transcendental arguments in the history of philosophy. The contemporary formalization of transcendental arguments includes a conditional statement as premises, so whether the conditional statements are true has become the focus of the discussions of transcendental arguments. Metaphysical grounding has been popular in metametaphysics recent years. It is considered to be more fine-grained than the modal concept that was the mainstream of discussions of metaphysics in the last century. However, it has been ignored by contemporary researchs of transcendental arguments and there is few relevant discussion. This paper points out that metaphysical grounding relations can help advance the discussion of transcendental arguments, allowing them to dialogue with current metametaphysics, and demonstrates that transcendental arguments using metaphysical grounding relations are better and more likely to succeed than the old ones using modal relation.
Reference:	Bardon, A. (2023). Transcendental arguments, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://iep.utm.edu/, 2023/4/24. Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press. Cassam, Q., editor (2007). The Possibility of Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, GB. Cheng, T. (2023). Transcendental imagination. [Unpublished manuscript]. Davidson, D. (1989). The conditions of thought. le Cahier (Collège International de Philosophie), 7:165–171. Fine, K. (2012). Guide to ground. Metaphysical grounding: Understanding the structure of reality, pages 37–80. Gomes, A. (2017). Perception and reﬂection. Philosophical Perspectives, 31:131– 152. Hoffmann, M. H. (2019). Transcendental arguments in scientiﬁc reasoning. Erkenntnis, 84:1387–1407. Illies, C. (2003). The grounds of ethical judgement: new transcendental arguments in moral philosophy. Clarendon Press. Kannisto, T. (2019). Transcendentally idealistic metaphysics and counterfactual transcendental arguments. In Metametaphysics and the Sciences, pages 153–167. Routledge. Lowe, E. J. (2012). What is the source of our knowledge of modal truths? Mind, 121(484):919–950. Putnam, H. (1981). Brains in a Vat, chapter 1, pages 1–21. Cambridge University Press. Raven, M. J. (2015). Ground. Philosophy Compass, 10(5):322–333. Schnieder, B. (2020). Grounding and dependence. Synthese, 197(1):95–124. Skiles, A. (2015). Against grounding necessitarianism. Erkenntnis, 80:717–751. Stern, R. (2007). Transcendental arguments: A plea for modesty. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 74:143–161. Stern, R. and Cheng, T. (2023). Transcendental Arguments. In Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U., editors, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, Fall 2023 edition. Stroud, B. (1968). Transcendental arguments. Journal of Philosophy, 65(9):241–256. Walker, R. C. S. (2006). Kant and transcendental arguments. In Guyer, P., editor, Kant and modern philosophy. Cambridge University Press. Ward, D. (2021). Phenomenology as radical reﬂection. In Purpose and Procedure in Philosophy of Perception, pages 234-257. Oxford University Press. Williamson, T. (2007). The philosophy of philosophy. Blackwell.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學哲學系 110154005
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110154005
Data Type:	thesis
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Philosophy] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
400501.pdf		456Kb	Adobe PDF	2	View/Open

All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - Feedback