Ashton Natalie Alana
Philosophy Department, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Inquiry (Oslo). 2023 Feb 21;67(2):769-783. doi: 10.1080/0020174X.2023.2179107. eCollection 2024.
I evaluate Tanesini's attempt to provide a social approach to intellectual vices. I do this in three steps. First, I explain what I mean by a 'social approach'. Tanesini offers three senses in which her account is social, and I explain each of these before honing in on the one in which I am most interested. Second, I address the extent to which her approach to the of intellectual vices can be said to be a social approach. My assessment here will be broadly positive, though I highlight some points where I think more explicit details could be given. Third, I discuss whether Tanesini's approach to to intellectual vices is a social one. Here I decide that her approach is not social, and that she doesn't intend it to be. Finally, in the last section, I offer some remarks about what these conclusions mean, and what further work I hope they could provoke.
我评估了塔内西尼尝试为智识恶德提供一种社会进路的做法。我分三步来做这件事。首先,我解释一下我所说的“社会进路”是什么意思。塔内西尼给出了三种她的论述具有社会性的意义,在专注于我最感兴趣的那种意义之前,我先对这三种意义逐一进行解释。其次,我探讨她对智识恶德的研究进路在何种程度上可以说是一种社会进路。我这里的评估总体上是积极的,不过我也会指出一些我认为可以给出更明确细节的地方。第三,我讨论塔内西尼对智识恶德的研究进路是否是一种社会性的进路。在这一点上,我判定她的进路并非社会性的,而且她也无意使其具有社会性。最后,在最后一节中,我就这些结论意味着什么,以及我希望它们能引发什么样的进一步研究发表一些看法。