Walter Sinnott Armstrong kimdir? Walter Sinnott Armstrong kitapları ve sözleri

Felsefe Profesörü, Yazar Walter Sinnott Armstrong hayatı araştırılıyor. Peki Walter Sinnott Armstrong kimdir? Walter Sinnott Armstrong aslen nerelidir? Walter Sinnott Armstrong ne zaman, nerede doğdu? Walter Sinnott Armstrong hayatta mı? İşte Walter Sinnott Armstrong hayatı...

Felsefe Profesörü, Yazar Walter Sinnott Armstrong edebi kişiliği, hayat hikayesi ve eserleri merak ediliyor. Kitap severler arama motorlarında Walter Sinnott Armstrong hakkında bilgi edinmeye çalışıyor. Walter Sinnott Armstrong hayatını, kitaplarını, sözlerini ve alıntılarını sizler için hazırladık. İşte Walter Sinnott Armstrong hayatı, eserleri, sözleri ve alıntıları...

Doğum Tarihi:

Doğum Yeri:

Walter Sinnott Armstrong kimdir?

Dartmouth Fakültesi’nde (ABD) felsefe profesörüdür. Yazdığı kitaplardan bazıları şunlardır: God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (William Lane Craig’le birlikte), Moral Skepticisms Understanding Arguments. Oxford Üniversity Press’te yayımlanan Philosophy in Action dizisinin editörlüğünü yapmaktadır. Elinizdeki Tanrısız Ahlak? kitabı bu dizi içinde yayımlanmıştır.

Walter Sinnott Armstrong Kitapları - Eserleri

• Tanrısız Ahlak?
• Understanding Arguments

Walter Sinnott Armstrong Alıntıları - Sözleri

• This is a case of damning with faint praise. Faint praise can be damning because, under the first part of the rule of Quantity, it conversationally implies that no stronger praise is warranted. (Understanding Arguments)
• Neyin doğru, neyin yan­lış olduğunu zaten bilmeden Tanrı' nın neyi emrettiğini bilmemizin bir yolu yoktur. (Tanrısız Ahlak?)
• Several explicit performatives play important roles in constructing arguments. These include sentences of the following kind: I conclude that this bill should be voted down. I base my conclusion on the assumption that we do not want to hurt the poor. Speech Acts I stipulate that anyone who earns less than $10,000 is poor. I assure you that this bill will hurt the poor. I concede that I am not absolutely certain. I admit that there is much to be said on both sides of this issue. I give my support to the alternative measure. I deny that this alternative will hurt the economy. I grant for the sake of argument that some poor people are lazy. I reply that most poor people contribute to the economy. I reserve comment on other issues raised by this bill. We will call this kind of performative an argumentative performative. (Understanding Arguments)
• "Din, insanları dürüst kılıyor diye bir şey yok." (Tanrısız Ahlak?)
• Both justifications and explanations try to provide reasons, but reasons of different kinds. Justifications are supposed to give reasons to believe their conclusions, whereas explanations are supposed to give reasons why their conclu- sions are true we can say that the argument is used for impersonal normative justification. The justification is normative because the goal is to find a reason that is a good reason. It is impersonal because what is sought is a reason that is or should be accepted as a good reason by everyone ca- pable of grasping this argument, regardless of who they are. (Understanding Arguments)
• Grammarians, for example, have divided sentences into various moods, among which are: Indicative: Barry Bonds hit a home run. Imperative: Get in there and hit a home run, Barry! Interrogative: Did Barry Bonds hit a home run? Expressive: Hurray for Barry Bonds! The first sentence states a fact. We can use it to communicate information about something that Barry Bonds did. If we use it in this way, then what we say will be either true or false. Notice that none of the other sentences can be called either true or false even though they are all meaningful. (Understanding Arguments)
• Eğer Tanrı tecavüz etmemizi em­retmiş olsaydı, tecavüz yine de ahlaken yanlış olurdu. Ve eğer Tanrı tecavüz etmememizi emretmemiş olsaydı, tecavüz yine de ahlaken yanlış olurdu, (Tanrısız Ahlak?)
• I agree with you. (This describes one’s thoughts or beliefs, so, unlike a performative, it can be false.) I am sorry for being late. (This describes one’s feelings and could be false.) Yesterday I bid sixty dollars. (This is a statement about a past act and might be false.) I’ll meet you tomorrow. (This utterance may only be a prediction that can turn out to be false.) Questions, imperatives, and exclamations are not explicit performatives, because they cannot sensibly be plugged into the thereby test at all. They do not have the right form, since they are not in the first-person singular indica- tive noncontinuous present. (Understanding Arguments)
• We will call them speech acts.4 They in- clude such acts as stating, promising, swearing, and refusing. A speech act is the conventional move that a remark makes in a language exchange. It is what is done in saying something. (Understanding Arguments)
• Famous example is “Buffalo buffalo buffalo.” Again, this seems like nonsense at first, but then someone points out that “buffalo” can be a verb meaning “to confuse.” The sentence “Buffalo buffalo buffalo” then means “North American bison confuse North American bison.” Indeed, we can even make sense out of “Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.” This means “North American bison from Buffalo, New York, that North American bison from Buffalo, New York, confuse also confuse North American bison from Buffalo, New York, that North American bison from Buffalo, New York, confuse." (Understanding Arguments)
• vatandaşların hükümete güvenmemeleri konusunda yeterince sağlam nedenleri varsa ve itaatin fazlasıyla zarar­lı olacağına inanmak için de yeterince sağlam gerekçeleri bulunuyorsa, itaatsizlik gerçek vatanseverlik bile olabilir. (Tanrısız Ahlak?)
• "Din insanları daha az dolandırıcı yapmaz. Sadece dolandırıcıları daha az dindar yapar." (Tanrısız Ahlak?)
• Once we know the cause of a phenomenon, we can cite this cause in a premise of an argument whose purpose is to explain the phenomenon (as we saw in Chapter 1). Explanation and causation are also related in a different way, for explanations can be used to pick out the cause from among various conditions correlated with the phe- nomenon (a problem faced at the end of Chapter 9). The general strategy is then to cite the explanatory value of a causal hypothesis as evidence for that hypothesis. This form of argument, which is described as an inference to the best explanation, is the first topic in this chapter. It requires us to determine which explanation is best, so we will investigate common standards for assessing explanations, including falsifia- bility, conservativeness, modesty, simplicity, power, and depth. (Understanding Arguments)
• Nedenleri ne olursa olsun ve bu nedenler ister iyi, ister kötü olsun; çoğu Evangelik Hıristiyan, ateistlerin ahlaken matah insanlar olmadık­larını düşünüyor gibidir. Çoğu ateist hakkında haklı da olabilirler. Gü­venilmez pek çok ateist vardır. Pek çok ateist korkunç suçlar işler. Pek çok teist gibi pek çok ateist de kötüdür. Fakat bu, onların ateist olmala­rından ileri gelmez; insan olduklarından dolayıdır. Herhangi bir insan grubunda hem iyi üyeler hem de kötü üyeler vardır. Bu, Hıristiyanlar için de böyledir, başka din mensupları için de; elbette ateist ve agnostik­ler için de böyledir. (Tanrısız Ahlak?)
• Ahlakın dinle ya da Tanrıyla ilgisi yoktur, dolayısıyla ateistler her halükârda ahlaksız demek değildir. Herkese bunu anlatabilirsek, her şey daha iyi olacak. (Tanrısız Ahlak?)
• The purpose of explanations is not to prove that some- thing happened, but to make sense of things. (Understanding Arguments)
• Assuming an appropriate context, all of the following sentences meet the thereby test: I promise to meet you tomorrow. I bid sixty-six dollars. (said at an auction) I bid one club. (said in a bridge game) I resign from this club. I apologize for being late. Notice that it doesn’t make sense to deny any of these performatives. (Understanding Arguments)
• Din, insanları dürüst kılıyor diye bir şey yok. (Tanrısız Ahlak?)