Utilizing arguments imbedded in the pragmatist and hermeneutic traditions, the conclusion emerges that genuinely understanding opposing points of view requires a penetrating and sustained questioning process that find...Utilizing arguments imbedded in the pragmatist and hermeneutic traditions, the conclusion emerges that genuinely understanding opposing points of view requires a penetrating and sustained questioning process that finds relief only when the justificatory background material of the other nibbles at the certainty of one＇s own position. The implications of the edict that one ought to question to hesitation are then explored, namely, that （1） it suggests what kind of questioning is the right kind of qteestioning, （2） it suggests a redefinition of what counts as ＂respect for persons,＂ and （3） it challenges the common assumption that the efficacy of communal inquiry is self-fulfilling and self-regulating, and suggests, by contrast, that facilitators ought to be far more prepared to engage in questioning to hesitation.展开更多
David Sosa argues that Millians cannot handle the ambiguity of name in belief report cases similar to Paderewski’s.He raises a puzzle against Millians commitment to the Hermeneutic principle-a name having a single re...David Sosa argues that Millians cannot handle the ambiguity of name in belief report cases similar to Paderewski’s.He raises a puzzle against Millians commitment to the Hermeneutic principle-a name having a single referent is sufficient for being logically represented by one constant.In this paper,I devise a dilemma to show that Sosa’s argument fails.Either the ambiguity issue collapses into the problem of the substitution principle against Sosa’s goal,or Millians can use a syntactic tool to disambiguate and resolve the puzzle.The ambiguity issue does not favour Fregeanism over Millianism.展开更多
文摘Utilizing arguments imbedded in the pragmatist and hermeneutic traditions, the conclusion emerges that genuinely understanding opposing points of view requires a penetrating and sustained questioning process that finds relief only when the justificatory background material of the other nibbles at the certainty of one＇s own position. The implications of the edict that one ought to question to hesitation are then explored, namely, that （1） it suggests what kind of questioning is the right kind of qteestioning, （2） it suggests a redefinition of what counts as ＂respect for persons,＂ and （3） it challenges the common assumption that the efficacy of communal inquiry is self-fulfilling and self-regulating, and suggests, by contrast, that facilitators ought to be far more prepared to engage in questioning to hesitation.
基金under the support of the China Scholarship Council
文摘David Sosa argues that Millians cannot handle the ambiguity of name in belief report cases similar to Paderewski’s.He raises a puzzle against Millians commitment to the Hermeneutic principle-a name having a single referent is sufficient for being logically represented by one constant.In this paper,I devise a dilemma to show that Sosa’s argument fails.Either the ambiguity issue collapses into the problem of the substitution principle against Sosa’s goal,or Millians can use a syntactic tool to disambiguate and resolve the puzzle.The ambiguity issue does not favour Fregeanism over Millianism.
