Cover of NTU Philosophical Review
Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:


  • Issue: 61

Displaying: 1-3 of 3 documents

Show/Hide alternate language

論 著 / articles
1. NTU Philosophical Review: Year > 2021 > Issue: 61
Jerry J. Yang 楊景德
A Response to Rosenthal’s Arguments against the Intrinsic View of Consciousness
對羅森陶反意識本有主義論證之回應

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Rosenthal argues that if consciousness is seen as intrinsic, it will appear to be simple and unanalyzable, and therefore not amenable to scientific explanation, which requires a relational structure involving an extrinsic property of the mind. I shall first criticize Rosenthal's argument against intrinsicalism by way of conceptual analysis. I shall then examine three of his arguments against the intrinsic view of consciousness: the argument from the distinction between transitive and intransitive consciousness, the argument from reporting and expressing, and the argument of the individuation of mental states. I suggest that the content of a mental state can be considered to be an information space, which will allow for an explanation of consciousness. My rejection of Rosenthal's position relies on distinguishing two different forms of intrinsicalism: with and without self-representation. We shall find that both versions have explanatory traction from a naturalistic perspective.
2. NTU Philosophical Review: Year > 2021 > Issue: 61
劉吉宴 Chi Yen Liu
合理性推論的兩個準則
Two Criteria of Reasonable Inferences

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
亞當斯和史東內克在傳統的有效性觀點之外,對指示條件句的推論提出了合理性這樣的概念,並對這樣的概念提出了兩個不同的準則。本文從可斷說性的概念分別來對兩者提出形式上的刻畫,以檢視這兩者的關係。本文把亞當斯支持的準則稱為「可斷說性的證成性」,而把史東內克支持的準則稱為「嚴格的證成性」,並認為這兩個準則可以幫助我們釐清條件句推論中的爭議。本文用這兩個準則來重新分析麥基對肯定前件律所提出的反例,試圖說明為何麥基提出的是一個可斷說證成性的反例,而不是嚴格證成性的反例。接著,本文對這個現象提出一個診斷,說明為何這兩個準則只會在條件句的推論中產生實質的分歧。最後,本文論證可斷說性的證成性太過於嚴格而難以成立,主張嚴格的證成性才是一個較好的準則。
3. NTU Philosophical Review: Year > 2021 > Issue: 61
Tsung-Hsing Ho 何宗興
How to Locate Pain in Mandarin: Reply to Liu and Klein
如何在中文裡定位疼痛

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Some philosophers argue that pain is an object located in bodily parts because the locative form of pain report is permissible in English. To examine this argument, Liu and Klein recently argue that the linguistic argument cannot work because the locative form is impermissible in Mandarin. They are wrong, however. I demonstrate that the locative form in Mandarin is not only permissible but also common.