Fred Feldman kimdir? Fred Feldman kitapları ve sözleri

Amerikalı Filozof Fred Feldman hayatı araştırılıyor. Peki Fred Feldman kimdir? Fred Feldman aslen nerelidir? Fred Feldman ne zaman, nerede doğdu? Fred Feldman hayatta mı? İşte Fred Feldman hayatı...

Amerikalı Filozof Fred Feldman edebi kişiliği, hayat hikayesi ve eserleri merak ediliyor. Kitap severler arama motorlarında Fred Feldman hakkında bilgi edinmeye çalışıyor. Fred Feldman hayatını, kitaplarını, sözlerini ve alıntılarını sizler için hazırladık. İşte Fred Feldman hayatı, eserleri, sözleri ve alıntıları...

Doğum Tarihi: 1941

Doğum Yeri: New Jersey

Fred Feldman kimdir?

Fred Feldman

Filozof

Doğum: 1941, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri

Eğitim: Brown Üniversitesi

Fred Feldman Kitapları - Eserleri

• Etik Nedir?
• Introductory Ethics

Fred Feldman Alıntıları - Sözleri

• Moore’s main thesis in Principia Ethica is that goodness is an unanalyzable, nonnatural property. Put linguistically, this thesis is the view that “good” cannot be defined, and is not synonymous with any naturalistic expression. (Introductory Ethics)
• for example, the sentence “Pain is bad” could not be used to assert anything. It could only be used expressively or imperativally. Consequently, it would seem that no one could Objections to know, or even believe, that pain is bad. For there simply is no such thing as the “fact” that pain is bad, according to radical emotivism. Thus, emotivism entails that there can be no “moral knowledge.” For this reason, emotivism is sometimes classified as a form of noncognitivism. (Introductory Ethics)
• moral judgments are closely associated with positive and negative feelings, or emotions. (Introductory Ethics)
• No single work of twentieth-century metaethics has been more influential than G. E. Moore’s Principia Ethica. (Introductory Ethics)
• Eylemler mutluluğa vesile olma eğilimi gösterdiği ölçüde doğrudur, mutluluğun zıddına yol açma eğilimi gösterdiği ölçüde yanlıştır. "Mutluluk" derken hazzı ve acının olmamasını kastederiz; "mutsuzluk" derken de, acıyı ve hazdan mahrum olmayı kastederiz. (Etik Nedir?)
• (1) Something is good if and only if it is--------. (2) Therefore, x is good =df. x is--------. If naturalists use arguments of this form, in each case putting some naturalistic expression in the blank, then they argue fallaciously. For arguments of the illustrated form are not in general valid. (Introductory Ethics)
• There is a crucial difference between SN and WM. According to SN, moral sentences have truth values. According to WM, they do not. This follows from the fact that according to WM, each moral sentence has two meaning components. One component is factual. It is the assertion that the speaker has a certain attitude. This part has a truth value. But the other component is a command. Commands are neither true nor false. (Introductory Ethics)
• suppose we want to discuss some complicated feature of actions and there simply is no single word in the English language that expresses this feature. In such a case, we can introduce a new word and stipulate that it shall henceforward be used to express the complicated feature we want to talk about. A good example of this sort of procedure is the definition of “utility” that was presented in Chapter 2. We were interested in the amount of pleasure, minus the amount of pain, that a given act would produce if it were performed. We wanted a simple expression that would refer to this amount. So we introduced a stipulative definition of “utility.” (Introductory Ethics)
• Moore seems to be attempting to show that naturalists have not given us any good reason to accept their view. Somewhere in each naturalist’s thinking, there is an error that leads him to accept naturalism. This mistake is called the naturalistic fallacy. However, even if naturalists were to admit that they have not proved their view to be true, thev might still claim that it is true anyway. So in the second stage of his attack, Moore attempts to show that every form of naturalism is false. (Introductory Ethics)