Moore contra os céticos

  • Jody Azzouni Tufts University, Somerville, Massachusetts, United States.
Palavras-chave: Ónus da prova, Debates, G. E. Moore, Conhecimento, Ceticismo

Resumo

A “Prova de um mundo externo” de Moore e suas “Quatro formas de ceticismo” há muito intrigam os comentaristas. Como são essas respostas adequadas aos céticos? Até que ponto a chamada prova de um mundo externo é pertinente para o desafio do ceticismo? A noção de ônus da prova relativizada é introduzida: este é um ônus da prova vis-à-vis o oponente que se assume ao tentar convencer alguém de algo. O ônus da prova relativizado é tornar explícito (no tópico do discurso racional) o truísmo de que se você argumentar com alguém com a intenção de tentar convencer alguém de algo, e se você não conseguir, você não encontrou sua própria conversação meta. Assumir que Moore está implicitamente contando com a noção de fardos relativizados da prova ilumina sua abordagem nesses artigos.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Jody Azzouni, Tufts University, Somerville, Massachusetts, United States.

Ph.D in Philosophy from CUNY Graduate Center, NY, United States; MS in Mathematics from Courant Institute, New York University, NY, United States; MA in Philosophy from New York University, NY, United States; BA in Liberal Arts, major: philosophy, New York University, NY, United States. Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, Medford MA, United States.

Referências

AIKIN, Scott. Epistemology and the regress problem. London: Routledge, 2011.

AUSTIN, J. L. Sense and sensibilia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962.

AZZOUNI, Jody. Attributing knowledge: What it means to know something. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

AZZOUNI, Jody. Challenging knowledge: How we sometimes don’t know what we think we know. Forthcoming.

BALDWIN, Thomas. G. E. Moore. London: Routledge, 1992.

BURNYEAT, M. F. Examples in epistemology: Socrates, Theaetetus and G. E. Moore. Philosophy, Cambridge, v. 52, n. 202, p. 381-398, 1977.

CAVELL, Stanley. The claim of reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.

CLARKE, Thompson. The legacy of skepticism. The Journal of Philosophy, New York, v. 69, n. 20, p. 754- 769, 1972.

COLIVA, Annalisa. 2007. The paradox of Moore’s proof of an external world, The Philosophical Quarterly, St. Andrews, v. 58, n. 231, p. 234-243, 2007.

DEROSE, Keith. The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. v. 1.

KLEIN, Peter. How a Pyrrhonian skeptic might respond to academic skepticism. In: LOPER, Stephen (ed.) The skeptics: Contemporary essays. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.

LYCAN, William G. Moore against the new skeptics. Philosophical Studies, v. 103, n. 1, p. 35-53, 2001.

MALCOLM, Norman. Defending common sense. The Philosophical Review, Ithaca, NY, v. 58, n. 3, p. 208-220, 1949.

MALCOLM, Norman. Moore and ordinary language. In: SCHILPP, P. A. (ed.). The philosophy of G.E. Moore. 2. ed. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1952.

MOORE, George Edward. Hume’s philosophy. In: MOORE, George Edward. Philosophical studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1922.

MOORE, George Edward. Some judgments of perception. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. London: The Aristotelian Society, [in between 1918 and 1919].

MOORE, George Edward. A defense of common sense. In: MOORE, George Edward. Philosophical papers. New York: Collier Books, 1962. (1925).

MOORE, George Edward. Proof of the external world. In: MOORE, George Edward. Philosophical papers. New York: Collier Books, 1962. (1939).

MOORE, George Edward. An autobiography. In: SCHILPP, P. A. (ed.). The philosophy of G.E. Moore. 2. ed. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1952. (1942).

MOORE, George Edward. Four forms of skepticism. In: MOORE, George Edward. Philosophical Papers. New York: Collier Books, 1962. (1959a).

MOORE, George Edward. 1959b. Certainty. In: MOORE, George Edward. Philosophical Papers. New York: Collier Books, 1962. (1959b).

PRYOR, James. The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs, [S. I.], v. 34, n. 4, p. 517-549, 2000.

PRYOR, James. What’s wrong with Moore’s argument? Philosophical Issues, [S. I.], v. 14, p. 349-371, 2004.

QUINE, W.V.O. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1960.

QUINE, W.V.O. Reply to Stroud. In: FRENCH, Peter A.; UEHLING, Theodore E.; WETTSTEIN, Howard K. Midwest studies in philosophy, [S. I.], n. 6, p. 473-475, 1981.

RONSON, Jon. The psychopath test: A journey through the madness industry. New York: Penguin Group Inc., 2011.

RUSSELL, Bertrand. Analysis of matter. London: Allen & Unwin, 1927a.

RUSSELL, Bertrand. An outline of philosophy. London: Allen & Unwin, 1927b.

STROUD, Barry. The significance of philosophical scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.

WILLIAMS, Bernard. Descartes: The project of pure enquiry. London: Routledge, 1978.

WILLIAMS, Michael. Unnatural doubts: Epistemological realism and the basis of scepticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

WILLIAMS, Michael. Problems of knowledge: A critical introduction to epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

WITTGENSTEIN, L. On certainty. Edited by G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright; translated by Denis Paul and G.E.M. Anscombe. NewYork: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1969.

WRIGHT, Crispen. Facts and certainty. Proceedings of the British Academy. London: British Academy, 1985. p. 429-472.

Publicado
2021-12-27
Como Citar
Azzouni, J. (2021). Moore contra os céticos. Veritas (Porto Alegre), 66(1), e41521. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-6746.2021.1.41521
Seção
Epistemologia & Filosofia da Linguagem