• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Philosophia >A Contentious Trinity: Levels of Entailment in Brandom’s Pragmatist Inferentialism
【24h】

A Contentious Trinity: Levels of Entailment in Brandom’s Pragmatist Inferentialism

机译：有争议的三位一体：布兰登实用主义推论的蕴含度

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

We investigate the relations among Brandom’s three dimensions of semantic inferential articulation, namely, incompatibility entailments, committive consequences, and permissive consequences. In his unpublished manuscript “Conceptual Content and Discursive Practice” Brandom argues that (1) incompatibility entailment implies committive consequence, and that (2) committive consequence in turn implies permissive consequence. We criticize this hierarchy both on internal and external grounds. Firstly, we prove that, using Brandom’s own definitions, the reverse of (1) also holds, and that the reverse of (2) may hold (but the proof relies on substantive assumptions). This suggests that there are no three different notions of inference emerging from Brandom’s definitions, but at most two, and perhaps even just one. Secondly, this result puts into question the connections between the three inferential relations and the familiar notions of deduction and induction.
机译：我们研究了Brandom的语义推理表达的三个维度之间的关系，即不相容性，承诺性后果和允许性后果。布兰登在他未出版的手稿“概念内容和话语实践”中指出：（1）不相容必然意味着承诺后果，（2）承诺后果又意味着允许后果。我们从内部和外部两个方面批评这种等级制度。首先，我们证明，使用布兰登自己的定义，（1）的反面也成立，而（2）的反面可能成立（但证明依赖于实质性假设）。这表明，在布兰登的定义中，没有三种不同的推理概念，但最多只有两种，甚至可能只有一种。其次，这个结果使三个推论关系与熟悉的演绎和归纳概念之间的联系受到质疑。

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