评麦克道威尔与布兰顿的“经验”之争
作者简介:王玮,南开大学哲学院助理研究员(天津 300350)
作者简介:陈亚军,浙江大学人文学院哲学系教授(杭州 310058)、复旦大学“杜威中心”主任(上海 200433)
摘要: 麦克道威尔和布兰顿有关经验的观点都源于塞拉斯的伦敦讲座。但前者坚持“经验”在认识论中扮演必不可少的证成角色,而后者则主张“经验”最多只扮演了因果角色,在经验知识图画中不必引入这个概念。虽然伦敦讲座没有明确提及经验的证成角色,仅论证观察报告证成报告内容所表达的经验知识,但是观察报告既可以是言语发声,也可以是兼具命题内容和描述内容的感知经验,两者根本上都是某个思想在某种语境中以某种方式发生在某人身上,经验就此而言扮演证成角色。因此,布兰顿对经验的理解与麦克道威尔的经验概念并非如人们所想的那样矛盾。
Controversy over the Concept “Experience”between McDowell and Brandom
- Available Online:
2018-11-01
Abstract: Both McDowell and Brandom claim their own views on empiricism stem from Sellars’ London lectures. However, the former insists that the reformed concept " experience” plays an indispensible role of justification in epistemology, while the later argues that experience has only a causal role with the result that there is no need to introduce it into the picture of empirical knowledge. The London lectures do not mention the justificatory role of experience, and only include the argument of observation reports justifying the empirical knowledge expressed by their contents. Observation reports could be verbal utterances as well as the perceptual experiences which have both propositional and descriptive contents, they are essentially a certain thought occur to one in a certain context and manner. And, for this reason, experiences could play a role of justification. It could be argued, in this way, that the Brandon’s picture of empirical knowledge does not clash with the McDowell’s. Moreover, besides the forces of causality and justification, it could also be found in the three persons’ arguments the third force of building empirical knowledge, the historical force.