Lexicon of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes Help us establish new Lexicons of Arguments
Psychology - Economics
History - Politics
Law - Social Sciences
Art Theory - Others

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Recognition Protagoras
 
Books on Amazon
Taureck I 98
Recognition/World/Protagoras/Taureck: Thesis: The human is the measure of all things. (Sentence "M", "Homo mensura sentence"). "The human is the measurement for all things, the being that they are, the not being that they are not."
Other translation:
"... a human, ... as they are."
Interpretation at first sight: recognition, truth, the good and beauty are anthropologically understandable. > Relativity of knowledge.
---
I 99
HobbesVsProtagoras: (Leviathan, 1651): "human" describes the source of all errors. BaconVsProtagoras: (1561-1626): the assertion that the human sense is the measure of all things is inaccurate. The human mind resembles a mirror which does not reflect the rays uniformly, but mixes its nature into things and distorts them.
Protagoras/Taureck: there is no indication that Protagoras himself had somehow understood his sentence critically.
---
I 100
Protagoras: I know nothing about the gods, the secrecy and the brevity of life hinders me. ---
Taureck I 101
Sextus Empiricus: (150 - ~ 250) explains why the skeptics were not seeing Protagoras as one of them: + ... confused "metron" with criterion ... ---
I 104
Protagoras: Paradoxes of the senses and minds: the senses speak to the mind: "Unhappy mind, you take the certifications of us with which you revive us. Your refutation is your downfall."


Tau I
B. H.F. Taureck
Die Sophisten Hamburg 1995
Relativism Putnam
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 436
Realtivism/Putnam: My main concern in the book truth, reason and history. (Putnam Thesis: explanation, interpretation and ethics are not in the same boat - "Companions in guilt" argument: In case of partial relativism, the total relativism threatens - (PutnamVsHarman). ---
Horwich I 503
PutnamVsCultural Relativism/PutnamVsRelativism/M. Williams: internal contradiction: E.g. if I as a cultural relativist say that if you say that something is true according to the standards of your culture, then I say, in reality, that this is true according to the standards of my own culture. - I cannot express the transcendental assertion which is the heart of relativism that all cultures are in the same position. - Opposition: truth for a culture is something absolute, which contradicts the alleged relativity. ---
Putnam III 139f
Relativism/PutnamVsWilliams: acts as if science would consist of objective individual judgments, whereas one would have to take or reject the "culture" as a whole. ---
V 141
Awareness/PutnamVsLocke: that stones do not have one, is a fact about our notion of consciousness - Problem: that makes truth ultimately dependent on our cultural standards. ---
V 165
Relativism/tradition: easy to refute, because he himself had to set absolutely, otherwise its position is not more secure than any other. - PlatoVsProtagoras (relativist): Regress "I think that I think that snow is white". - PutnamVsPlato: it does not follow that it must be iterated indefinitely, just that it could. - Modern Relativism/Foucault, discourse relativity: everything is relative, also the relativism - Vs: Problem: if "absolutely true relative to person P": then no total relativism - no relativist wants the relativism applies to everything. ---
I 241
Justified Assertibility/Dewey/Rorty: depends on the majority in a culture. - Norms and standards are historical and reflect interests. - PutnamVsRorty: regardless of the majority, but not transcendental reality but characteristic of the concept of entitlement. PutnamVsRelativism/VsRealism: both claim they can be simultaneously inside and outside the language. ---
I 249
Relativism/Putnam: the world is not a "product" (of our culture), it is only the world.

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990


Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994

The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Garfinkel, H. Putnam Vs Garfinkel, H.
 
Books on Amazon
Horwich I 415
Relativism/Field pro: the relativism to which we are led here is coherent and manageable. Because it only refers to values, not to facts. Relativism/Garfinkel: (p. 119f): relativism about values is itself no evaluation, therefore there is no reason to believe that it itself is only relatively true. (Garfinkel "one liner").
PutnamVsGarfinkel: his argument is not applicable here.
Relativism/Protagoras/Plato/Field: this relativism is different: this claims that it is pointless to say that there is objectively Fs, but only Fs relative to us.
PutnamVsProtagoras: this relativism is incoherent. (Field ditto).
Internal realism/iR/Putnam: its own internal realism is immune to the objection VsProtagoras because Putnam says that our standards of rationality are objectively correct. So it is not a true relativism.

Pu I
H. Putnam
Von einem Realistischen Standpunkt Frankfurt 1993

Pu II
H. Putnam
Repräsentation und Realität Frankfurt 1999

Pu III
H. Putnam
Für eine Erneuerung der Philosophie Stuttgart 1997

Pu IV
H. Putnam
Pragmatismus Eine offene Frage Frankfurt 1995

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990

Hor I
P. Horwich (Ed.)
Theories of Truth Aldershot 1994
Relativism Plato Vs Relativism
 
Books on Amazon
Putnam V 163
PlatonVsProtagoras (relativist): Protagoras: when I say X, I should actually say "I think X". No view has the same meaning for me as for anyone else.
PlatonVsRelativism: Recourse: if every statement X means: "I think X", then you have to insert infinitely:
(1) I think that I think that snow is white
V 164
PutnamVsPlaton: in this form the argument is not much good. Protagoras might agree, but it does not follow that his analysis must be indefinitely applied to itself, but only that it could! Plato, however, had noticed something very deep. Relativism, modern form: every culture, and every discourse has its own views, standards, requirements, and truth (and justification) is relative in relation to them.
Of course, it is naturally assumed that the question of whether X is relatively true to them, is something "absolute", in turn!

Pu V
H. Putnam
Vernunft, Wahrheit und Geschichte Frankfurt 1990