認識論は死んだか |
少し前「認識論の死」(death of epistemology)という運動があった。
それについての調べ物。
Quine(自然主義者naturalist):
"Epistemology naturalized"(1969)
正当化の問題―ヒュームより一歩も出ていない
“The Humean predicament is the human predicament.” (p. 72)
知識の生成の分析の問題―科学的心理学にまかせるべき
M.Williams, R.Rorty
認識論の死:Rorty死亡記事執筆者(obituarist)
(Michael Williams, Problems of Knowledge. A Critical Introduction to
Epistemology, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2001)
認識論は死んだか2
R.Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature Rorty (1979)
認識論死亡記事執筆者Rorty
What is liberating and exhilarating about the book is the way in which it was able to open the eyes of so many people to the utter bankrupcy of traditional, foundationalist philosophizing. European philosophers (e.g., Derrida) had of course already said much the same thing, but Rorty's easy style of writing served to bring the message home with great éclat. What is announced here so effectively is the demise of modern philosophy, of, in other words, the whole epistemological project of modernity or what Rorty calls "epistemology centered philosophy." Rorty defines epistemology "as the quest, initiated by Descartes, for those privileged items in the field of consciousness which are the touchstones of truth" (210). Epistemology is a foundational discipline, not itself a science in the narrow sense of the term, but the theory of science which secures for each and every science its legitimacy by establishing for it its foundation and method. Rorty asks whether in these postmodern times, when the Cartesian-Lockean-Kantian "cognizing subject" of modernity--a subject which is nothing but a pure, disembodied gaze upon a fully object world (the mind as a "mirror of nature")--has been deconstructed, "there still remains something for epistemology to be" (210). His answer, of course, is that there doesn't. When, for just one thing, one considers all the interesting developments in postpositivist and postpopperian philosophy of science (Kuhn, Hesse, Toulmin, Feyerabend, etc.), it is hard not to agree. Epistemology is now dead, thanks in large part to Rorty.
COPING WITH NIETZSCHE'S LEGACY: Rorty, Derrida, Gadamer
Gary Brent Madison
Philosophy Today (Winter 1991), pp. 3-19
(http://www.focusing.org/apm_papers/madison2.html)
認識論は死んだか3
There are some […] who loudly proclaim the death of epistemology. This seems to me less premature than confused: what they observe is the breakdown of classical foundationalism, which is only one epistemological program among several, even if a historically important one. […] Nevertheless, one of the most exciting developments in twentieth-century theory of knowledge is the rejection of deontology and the sudden appearance of various forms of externalism. More precisely, this development is less appearance than the reappearance of externalism in epistemology. Externalism goes a long way back, to Thomas Reid, to Thomas Aquinas — back, in fact, all the way to Aristotle.
A. Plantinga, Warrant: The Current Debate (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1993
(http://www.arsdisputandi.org/index.html?http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000054/index.html)
Plantinga:
認識論の死という判断は早計だった、
破綻したのは古典的基礎づけ主義(classical foundationalism)に過ぎない、
それは歴史的に重要な役割を果たしたにせよ、認識論プログラムの一つに過ぎない、全部ではない。
20世紀の知識の理論における最もエキサイテイングな動向の一つは、様々な形態の外在主義(externalism)の突然ともいえる復活である。
それは新しい登場ではなくあくまで復活再生である。
外在主義は長い歴史をもつ。
Thomas Reidへ、さらにThomas Aquinasへ、さらにはAristotleまで遡る伝統をもつのである。
認識論は死んだか4
Richard Rortyが「認識論の死」を説きまわっていたのはそう昔のことではない。
認識論関連の本の出版状況をみると、そのような悲観主義は結局長続きせず、今日では間違いなくピントはずれである。
この25年は認識論にとって最も多産な時期の一つだった。そして、これら数多くの書物から判断すると、現代認識論のダイナミズムは今後数世代、健康な状態を続けるだろう、というのが正しい診断である。
SOME RECENT WORK IN EPISTEMOLOGY
DUNCAN PRITCHARD
(The Philosophical Quarterly 54 (2004), 604-13)
認識論は現在ルネサンスの時代を迎えている。
大部分、それは、(3つ例をあげれば)
Stewart Cohen, Keith DeRose,David Lewis and Michael Williamsらにより提唱された文脈主義諸理論
Fred Dretske、 Robert Nozickによる知識の様相概念
John Greco, Ernest Sosa and Linda Zagzebskiらによる徳知識論(virtue epistemologies)
により活気づけられてきた。
ごく最近は理論化が一段落、新しい知見の哲学の他分野への応用が主になりつつある。
(Kristijan Krkaè
http://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?
show=clanak_download&id_clanak_jezik=768)