No morality, no self : Anscombe's radical skepticism
著者
書誌事項
No morality, no self : Anscombe's radical skepticism
Harvard University Press, 2018
- : hardcover
大学図書館所蔵 全4件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Includes bibliographical references (p. [223]-230) and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
Frequently cited and just as often disputed, Elizabeth Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) and "The First Person" (1975) are touchstones of twentieth-century analytic philosophy. Though the arguments Anscombe advances in these papers are familiar to philosophers, their significance remains widely misunderstood, says James Doyle.
No Morality, No Self offers a fresh interpretation of Anscombe's still-controversial theses about ethical reasoning and individual identity, specifically, her argument that the term "moral" (as it occurs in such contexts as "moral obligation") is literally meaningless, and that "I" does not refer to some special entity called a "self"-a pair of claims that philosophers have responded to with deep skepticism. However unsettling Anscombe's conclusions may be, Doyle shows the underlying seriousness of the British philosopher's reasoning, exposing with clarity and concision how the counterarguments of Anscombe's detractors are based on a flawed or incomplete understanding of her ideas.
Doyle zeroes in on the central conundrum Anscombe posed to the referentialist school: namely, that it is impossible to give a noncircular explanation of how "I" refers to the person who utters it. He shows where the refutations of philosophers including Lucy O'Brien, Gareth Evans, and Ian Rumfitt fall short, and throws light on why "I" developed features that make it look as if it functions as a referring expression. Reconciling seemingly incompatible points of view, Doyle argues that "I" does refer to a self, but not in a way anyone suspected-a surprising conclusion that is entirely a propos of Anscombe's provocative thought.
「Nielsen BookData」 より