• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Inquiry >The 'should 'in conceptual engineering
【24h】

The 'should 'in conceptual engineering

机译：概念工程中的“应该”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Several philosophers have inquired into the metaphysical limits of conceptual engineering: Can we engineer? And if so, to what extent?'. This paper is not concerned with answering these questions. It does concern itself, however, with the limits of conceptual engineering, albeit in a largely unexplored sense: it cares about the normative, rather than about the metaphysical limits thereof. I first defend an optimistic claim: I argue that the ameliorative project has, so far, been too modest; there is little value theoretic reason to restrict the project to remedying deficient representational devices, rather than go on a more ambitious quest: conceptual improvement. That being said, I also identify a limitation to the optimistic claim: I show that the should' in ameliorative projects suffers from a wrong-kind-of-reasons' problem. Last but not least, I sketch a proposal of normative constraining meant to address both the above results. The proposal gives primacy to epistemic constraints: accordingly, a concept should be ameliorated only insofar as this does not translate into epistemic loss.
机译：一些哲学家已经对概念工程的形而上学极限进行了研究：我们可以工程吗？如果是这样，到什么程度？本文与回答这些问题无关。但是，它确实涉及概念工程的限制，尽管在很大程度上尚未探索：它关注的是规范，而不是其形而上学的限制。首先，我捍卫一个乐观的主张：我认为，到目前为止，改善项目还不太温和。没有什么价值理论上的理由将项目限制在补救有缺陷的代表性设备上，而不是进行更雄心勃勃的追求：概念上的改进。话虽如此，我也确定了乐观主张的局限性：我表明，改善项目中的“应该”遭受了错误原因的困扰。最后但并非最不重要的一点是，我概述了旨在解决上述两个结果的规范约束提议。该提案将认知限制放在首位：因此，仅在不转化为认知丧失的情况下，才应改善这一概念。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号