摘要
回顾了对约翰.塞尔的"是-应当"推导的有关批评,以及塞尔对这些批评的回应和对他的理论的发展。在此基础上,借助于对行为的概念分析,试图论证,塞尔在他的推导中,混淆了做出某种行为和某种行为获得成功之间的区分;由此,未能正确地解释制度与制度性事实的关联方式,以至于认为制度性事实的存在可以否定"是-应当"区分。
This article intends to examine John Searle＇ s ＇is ought＇ derivation. We have re- viewed some criticisms to this derivation, and Searle＇s reply to these criticisms and development of his theory. Then, by means of conceptual analysis of action, we try to argue, in his derivation, Searle overlooked the distinction between doing something and succeeding in doing something. Therefore, he didn＇t explain how institutes relate to institutional facts correctly, and thought that the existence of institutional facts could deny the ＇is ought＇ gap.
出处
《四川大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2009年第5期43-49,68,共8页
Journal of Sichuan University：Philosophy and Social Science Edition
基金
四川大学2007年度青年基金项目资助
关键词
构成性规则
制度性事实
是与应当
行为
承诺
Constitutive Rule
Institutional Fact
Is and Ought
Action
Promise
