不合理について：バークリ『アルシフロン』における登場人物ライシクレス

TY - JOUR

T1 - 不合理について：バークリ『アルシフロン』における登場人物ライシクレス

AU - Stoneham, Thomas William Charles

N1 - This is a Japanese translation of an abridged version of a paper of the same name which is under preparation.

PY - 2017/9/11

Y1 - 2017/9/11

N2 - The character of Lysicles in Berkeley’s Alciphron represents a familiar form of amoralism, namely the person who is not susceptible to reason on moral matters, who refuses to be moved by moral arguments. It is thus puzzling why Berkeley lets Lysicles leave the dialogues untouched by all the debate that has been going on for seven days. This creates an exegetical puzzle: why does Berkeley introduce this character if he will then fail to persuade him? My solution to the exegetical puzzle is of historical interest, for it suggests that Berkeley is aware of the limits of rational argument in moral discourse, that he sees some of the flaws in the great Enlightenment project of universal reason. But that is not the primary purpose of the paper, for I do not think Berkeley would have found it a satisfying philosophical solution: he would have wanted to show that even if Lysicles cannot have his mind changed by reason alone, his failing is a cognitive one rather than a mere brute difference with which philosophy and reason cannot engage. So the second half of the paper shows how Berkeley’s theory of religious language in the seventh dialogue of the book does in fact provide the resources for showing that Lysicles has a cognitive failing, that he is unreasonable because there is something he doesn’t know.

AB - The character of Lysicles in Berkeley’s Alciphron represents a familiar form of amoralism, namely the person who is not susceptible to reason on moral matters, who refuses to be moved by moral arguments. It is thus puzzling why Berkeley lets Lysicles leave the dialogues untouched by all the debate that has been going on for seven days. This creates an exegetical puzzle: why does Berkeley introduce this character if he will then fail to persuade him? My solution to the exegetical puzzle is of historical interest, for it suggests that Berkeley is aware of the limits of rational argument in moral discourse, that he sees some of the flaws in the great Enlightenment project of universal reason. But that is not the primary purpose of the paper, for I do not think Berkeley would have found it a satisfying philosophical solution: he would have wanted to show that even if Lysicles cannot have his mind changed by reason alone, his failing is a cognitive one rather than a mere brute difference with which philosophy and reason cannot engage. So the second half of the paper shows how Berkeley’s theory of religious language in the seventh dialogue of the book does in fact provide the resources for showing that Lysicles has a cognitive failing, that he is unreasonable because there is something he doesn’t know.

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 1

EP - 18

JO - 人間存在論

JF - 人間存在論

ER -