آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 719 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,752 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 9,488,321 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,943,214 |
Paradox and Relativism | ||
| مجله پژوهش های فلسفی دانشگاه تبریز | ||
| مقاله 8، دوره 11، شماره 21، زمستان 1396، صفحه 75-80 اصل مقاله (388 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی- پژوهشی | ||
| نویسنده | ||
H. Muhammad Legenhausen 
| ||
| Professor of philosophy, The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, Qom | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Since the time of Plato, relativism has been attacked as a self-refuting theory. Today, there are two basic kinds of argument that are used to show that global relativism is logically incoherent: first, a direct descendent of the argument Plato uses against Protagoras, called the peritrope; and, second, a more recent argument that relativism leads to an infinite regress. Although some relativist theories may be formulated in such a way as to be susceptible to these arguments, there are other versions of relativism that are impervious to these charges of incoherence. First the arguments against relativism will be stated. Next, a radical form of global relativism with assessment sensitivity is introduced, RR. Finally, it is shown how RR can be defended against the challenges of the peritrope and the regress. No attempt is made to defend RR as a plausible theory; however, the usual attempts to show the logical incoherence of radical forms of global relativism fail. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| relativism؛ Paradox؛ peritrope؛ infinite regress؛ global relativism؛ Plato | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Paradox and Relativism | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| H. Muhammad Legenhausen | ||
| Professor of philosophy, The Imam Khomeini Education and Research Institute, Qom | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Since the time of Plato, relativism has been attacked as a self-refuting theory. Today, there are two basic kinds of argument that are used to show that global relativism is logically incoherent: first, a direct descendent of the argument Plato uses against Protagoras, called the peritrope; and, second, a more recent argument that relativism leads to an infinite regress. Although some relativist theories may be formulated in such a way as to be susceptible to these arguments, there are other versions of relativism that are impervious to these charges of incoherence. First the arguments against relativism will be stated. Next, a radical form of global relativism with assessment sensitivity is introduced, RR. Finally, it is shown how RR can be defended against the challenges of the peritrope and the regress. No attempt is made to defend RR as a plausible theory; however, the usual attempts to show the logical incoherence of radical forms of global relativism fail | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| relativism, Paradox, peritrope, infinite regress, global relativism, Plato | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
- Boghossian, Paul. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - Burnyeat, M. F. 1976. “Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Plato's Theatetus.” The Philosophical Review 85(2):172-195. - Coliva, Annalisa and Sebastiano Moruzzi. 2012. “Truth Relativists Can't Trump Moral Progress.” Analytic Philosophy 53(1):48-57. - Fine, Gail 1998. “Relativism and Self-Refutation: Plato, Protagoras, and Burnyeat.” Pp. 137-164 in Method in Ancient Philosophy, edited by Jyl Gentzler. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - Fine, Gail. 2003. Plato on Knowledge and Forms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - Hales, Steven D. 1997. “A Consistent Relativism.” Mind 106(421):33-52 - Kölbel, Max 2011. “Global Relativism and Self-Refutation.” Pp. 11-30 in A Companion to Relativism, edited by Steven D. Hales. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. - MacFarlane, John. 2014. Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and Its Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - Nagel, Thomas. 1997. The Last Word. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. - Schafer, Karl. 2012. “Assessor Relativism and the Problem of Moral Disagreement.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50(4):602-620. - Shapiro, Lionel. 2014. “Assertoric Force Perspectivalism: Relativism without Relative Truth.” Ergo 1(6):139-168. - Swoyer, Chris. 2014. “Relativism.” The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved April 19, 2015 (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/relativism/). - Williamson, Timothy. 2015. Tetralog. Oxford: Oxford University Press. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 832 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 280 |
||
