Titlebook: Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision; Dionysis Christias Book 2023 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author

trace-mineral

書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision被引頻次




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision年度引用




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision讀者反饋




書目名稱Normativity, Lifeworld, and Science in Sellars’ Synoptic Vision讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

prostatitis

Annotate

prosperity

978-3-031-27028-4The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerl

Leaven

Dionysis ChristiasConsiders the relationship between Wilfrid Sellars‘ work,‘phenomenology, and speculative realism.Discusses Sellars’ concept of the stereoscopic fusion between the manifest and scientific images.Integr

sperse

Husserl’s Lifeworld and the Scientific ImageIn this part of the book, I put Sellars into conversation with phenomenology. It is argued that Husserl’s ‘lifeworld’ amounts to a very detailed and refined description of what Sellars calls the manifest image of man-in-the-world, which however absolutizes the latter’s categorial structure and mislocates the role of science within it.

迎合

Evocative

沉著

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27026-0Sellars; Phenomenology; Twentieth Century Philosophy; American Philosophy; Philosophy of Science

虛構(gòu)的東西

Toward the Thing-in-Itself: Sellars’ and Meillassoux’s Divergent Conception of Kantian Transcendentasimilar to Meillassoux’s own view in that they both reject the ontological import of the principle of sufficient reason and take it that worldly processes are ultimately contingent and not characterized by any causal necessity, from a more penetrating point of view, their views on these issues are in fact radically different.