dc.contributor.author | Ebner, Maria | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-02-17T12:51:25Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-02-17T12:51:25Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1689-4286 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11089/40653 | |
dc.description.abstract | In this paper I present my own argument in support of the thesis that de
dicto beliefs are, in at least one sense, more basic than de re beliefs. This
argument rests on the fact of the progress of civilization, which appears,
as I try to demonstrate, not to be possible without de dicto beliefs
constituting a key part of the mental processes of the inventor. My
argument is to counterweigh the force of Tyler Burge’s argument for the
fundamentality of de re beliefs, leading to the conclusion that beliefs de
re are a necessary condition of language understanding and having
propositional attitudes at all (Burge 1977, p. 347-348). The first part
of the paper is devoted to the examination of the structure of different
versions of transcendental arguments – objective and subjective, the second part focuses on an analysis of Burge’s argument from
language understanding, while the aim of the third part is to present the
Reader with the argument from the progress of civilization.
The exposition of the argument is followed by a discussion of certain
possible objections which the argument may face. | pl_PL |
dc.language.iso | en | pl_PL |
dc.publisher | Instytut Filozofii Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego | pl_PL |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Internetowy Magazyn Filozoficzny HYBRIS;54 | |
dc.subject | de dicto belief | pl_PL |
dc.subject | de re belief | pl_PL |
dc.subject | transcendental arguments | pl_PL |
dc.subject | argument from understanding language | pl_PL |
dc.subject | argument from progress of civilization | pl_PL |
dc.title | The progress of civilization and the de dicto/de re distinction | pl_PL |
dc.type | Article | pl_PL |
dc.page.number | 32-49 | pl_PL |
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation | Uniwersytet Warszawski | pl_PL |
dc.references | Burge T. (1977). Belief de re. The Journal of Philosophy, 74 (6), 338-362 | pl_PL |
dc.references | Cresswell M. J., Hughes E. (1968). An Introduction to Modal Logic. London: Methuen and Co | pl_PL |
dc.references | Kaplan D. (1968). Quantifying in. Synthese 19, 178-214 | pl_PL |
dc.references | Putnam H. (1999). Brains in a Vat. In: K. DeRose, T. A. Warfield (eds.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (27-42). New-York Oxford: Oxford University Press | pl_PL |
dc.references | Quine W. V. (1956). Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 53, 177-187 | pl_PL |
dc.references | Richard M. (1997). Propositional Attitudes. In: B. Hale, C. Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language (197-226). Blackwell Publishers | pl_PL |
dc.references | Searle J. R. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (3), 417-457 | pl_PL |
dc.references | Stern R. (2008). Kant’s Response to Skepticism. In: J. Greco (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism (265-279). Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press | pl_PL |
dc.references | Stern R. (2011). Transcendental Arguments. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/transcendentalarguments/ | pl_PL |
dc.references | Strawson P. (1966). Objectivity and Unity. In: The Bounds of Sense (72- 117). London: Methuen & Co Ltd | pl_PL |
dc.references | Strawson P. (1985). Scepticism and Naturalism: some Varieties. New York: Columbia University Press | pl_PL |
dc.references | Vahid H. (2011), Skepticism and Varieties of Transcendental Arguments. Logos & Episteme, 2 (3), 395-411 | pl_PL |
dc.references | Warfield T. A. (1999). A Priori Knowledge of the World: Knowing the World by Knowing Our Minds. In: K. DeRose, T. A. Warfield (eds.), Skepticism. A Contemporary Reader (76-90). Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press | pl_PL |
dc.relation.volume | 3 | pl_PL |
dc.discipline | filozofia | pl_PL |