Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson

Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: 2008
Autor(a) principal: Marco Aurelio Sousa Alves
Orientador(a): Não Informado pela instituição
Banca de defesa: Não Informado pela instituição
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
Idioma: por
Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Programa de Pós-Graduação: Não Informado pela instituição
Departamento: Não Informado pela instituição
País: Não Informado pela instituição
Palavras-chave em Português:
Link de acesso: https://hdl.handle.net/1843/ARBZ-842LKE
Resumo: This thesis evaluates a contemporary debate concerning the very possibility of thinking about the world. In the first chapter, McDowell's critique of Davidson is presented, focusing on the coherentism defended by the latter. The critique of the myth of the given (as it appears inSellars and Wittgenstein), as well as the necessity of a minimal empiricism (which McDowell finds in Quine and Kant), lead to an oscillation in contemporary thinking between two equally unsatisfactory ways of understanding the empirical content of thought. In the second chapter, I defend Davidson's approach, focusing on his theory of interpretation and semantic externalism, as well as on the relation between causes and reasons. In the third chapter, the debate is analyzed in more detail. I criticize the anomalous monism, the way in which the boundaries between the conceptual and the non-conceptual are understood by Davidson, as well as the naturalized Platonism defended by McDowell. This thesis is mainly negative, and it concludes by revealing problems in both positions under evaluation.
id UFMG_73045842d7eef35bde4f67cc7b6d45e1
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/ARBZ-842LKE
network_acronym_str UFMG
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UFMG
repository_id_str
spelling Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald DavidsonDavidson, Donald,1917-2003FilosofiaMcDowell, John HenryJohn HenryMcDowellDonald DavidsonThis thesis evaluates a contemporary debate concerning the very possibility of thinking about the world. In the first chapter, McDowell's critique of Davidson is presented, focusing on the coherentism defended by the latter. The critique of the myth of the given (as it appears inSellars and Wittgenstein), as well as the necessity of a minimal empiricism (which McDowell finds in Quine and Kant), lead to an oscillation in contemporary thinking between two equally unsatisfactory ways of understanding the empirical content of thought. In the second chapter, I defend Davidson's approach, focusing on his theory of interpretation and semantic externalism, as well as on the relation between causes and reasons. In the third chapter, the debate is analyzed in more detail. I criticize the anomalous monism, the way in which the boundaries between the conceptual and the non-conceptual are understood by Davidson, as well as the naturalized Platonism defended by McDowell. This thesis is mainly negative, and it concludes by revealing problems in both positions under evaluation.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais2019-08-13T08:04:50Z2025-09-09T00:58:03Z2019-08-13T08:04:50Z2008-03-27info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/1843/ARBZ-842LKEMarco Aurelio Sousa Alvesinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessporreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMGinstname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)instacron:UFMG2025-09-09T00:58:03Zoai:repositorio.ufmg.br:1843/ARBZ-842LKERepositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://repositorio.ufmg.br/oairepositorio@ufmg.bropendoar:2025-09-09T00:58:03Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson
title Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson
spellingShingle Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson
Marco Aurelio Sousa Alves
Davidson, Donald,1917-2003
Filosofia
McDowell, John Henry
John Henry
McDowell
Donald Davidson
title_short Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson
title_full Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson
title_fullStr Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson
title_full_unstemmed Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson
title_sort Sobre a possibilidade de pensarmos o mundo: o debate entre John McDowell e Donald Davidson
author Marco Aurelio Sousa Alves
author_facet Marco Aurelio Sousa Alves
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Marco Aurelio Sousa Alves
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Davidson, Donald,1917-2003
Filosofia
McDowell, John Henry
John Henry
McDowell
Donald Davidson
topic Davidson, Donald,1917-2003
Filosofia
McDowell, John Henry
John Henry
McDowell
Donald Davidson
description This thesis evaluates a contemporary debate concerning the very possibility of thinking about the world. In the first chapter, McDowell's critique of Davidson is presented, focusing on the coherentism defended by the latter. The critique of the myth of the given (as it appears inSellars and Wittgenstein), as well as the necessity of a minimal empiricism (which McDowell finds in Quine and Kant), lead to an oscillation in contemporary thinking between two equally unsatisfactory ways of understanding the empirical content of thought. In the second chapter, I defend Davidson's approach, focusing on his theory of interpretation and semantic externalism, as well as on the relation between causes and reasons. In the third chapter, the debate is analyzed in more detail. I criticize the anomalous monism, the way in which the boundaries between the conceptual and the non-conceptual are understood by Davidson, as well as the naturalized Platonism defended by McDowell. This thesis is mainly negative, and it concludes by revealing problems in both positions under evaluation.
publishDate 2008
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2008-03-27
2019-08-13T08:04:50Z
2019-08-13T08:04:50Z
2025-09-09T00:58:03Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
format masterThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/1843/ARBZ-842LKE
url https://hdl.handle.net/1843/ARBZ-842LKE
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFMG
instname:Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
instacron:UFMG
instname_str Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
instacron_str UFMG
institution UFMG
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UFMG
collection Repositório Institucional da UFMG
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UFMG - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositorio@ufmg.br
_version_ 1856414062680735744