1,722,014 research outputs found
R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason
No full textDilanni Albert R. R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Troisième série, tome 62, n°75, 1964. pp. 528-532
R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason
No full textDilanni Albert R. R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Troisième série, tome 62, n°75, 1964. pp. 528-532
A solução apresentada por R. M. Hare para os problemas do emotivismo e do descritivismo em filosofia moral
Get PDFThe first part of this article argues that descriptivism as proposed by Moritz Schlick does not correctly understand the function of moral judgements. The second part argues that emotivism does not provide an adequate explanation of the role of reason in ethics. Finally, the article shows how the universal prescriptivism proposed by R. M. Hare furthers the solution of the problems of emotivism, since it extends the role of reason in ethics and in the resolution of the problems of descriptivism, given that it understands the function of moral judgements in ordinary language
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Michael M. Hare, Microcosm and Macrocosm. An Approach to the Synthesis of the Real
No full textJordens Robert. Michael M. Hare, Microcosm and Macrocosm. An Approach to the Synthesis of the Real. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Quatrième série, tome 75, n°25, 1977. pp. 165-166
Michael M. Hare, Microcosm and Macrocosm. An Approach to the Synthesis of the Real
No full textJordens Robert. Michael M. Hare, Microcosm and Macrocosm. An Approach to the Synthesis of the Real. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Quatrième série, tome 75, n°25, 1977. pp. 165-166
L'analyse du langage et les jugements moraux dans l'œuvre de R. M. Hare
No full textDilanni Albert R. L'analyse du langage et les jugements moraux dans l'œuvre de R. M. Hare. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Troisième série, tome 65, n°87, 1967. pp. 281-331
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
R. M. Hare On Universalizability
No full text本文的目的在批判黑爾（R. M. Hare）的普遍化原則。黑爾主張普遍化原則是道德判斷之判準的一個必要條件，他認為如果一個人面臨相同的處境做出不同的判斷，則不是他的判斷不屬於道德範疇，就是他的判斷不是全部皆真。換句話說，一個道德原則如果被認定對某人在某種情況下有約束力，它對其他任何人在相同情境下也同樣有約束力。本文透過黑爾所舉的例子，檢視其論證之健全性，指出其普遍化原則並不能做為決定人們在實際生活中思考應該如何行動的有效法則；事實上，普遍化原則根本不能如黑爾所主張是定義道德的一個充分或必要條件
- …
