http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 전승태 (검색결과 12 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
전승태,김종현,이근오 한국안전학회 2003 한국안전학회지 Vol.18 No.4
The goal of this study is to show the way to decrease the noise from air nozzles. The variables of this test are the shapes of air nozzles, air flow rate and the distance between a reflection plate and a nozzle tip. This experiment is aimed to find the most appropriate condition to minimize the noise. These are the results. If diameter ratio is more than 12:8, noise level increases by over 10 dB(A) regardless of the distance between a reflection plate and a nozzle and the existence of a reflection plate. And when L₂ of a nozzle is 5mm long, noise level rise relatively highly. So, it is strongly recommended that L₂ should be manufactured more than 10mm. The reason for a high intensity noise is that when diameter ratio is more than 12:8, the diameter of a nozzle tip(D₂) turns small drastically, which increases the air velocity. It is assumed that when the vortex is great around the spots where a nozzle hole is suddenly smaller, great turbulent flow increases much noise.
-
-
-
전승태 서울대학교 철학사상연구소 2022 철학사상 Vol.86 No.-
이 논문은 메타윤리학에서의 설명적 도전에 응답함으로써 비환원적 자연주의의 한 입장을 옹호하고자 한다. 우선 나는 이 문제를 둘러싸고 하만과 스터전 사이에 벌어졌던 과거 논쟁을 되살펴봄으로써 문제의 관건은 도덕적 성격, 즉 덕에 의한 행위 설명이 인과적 설명으로 간주될 수 있는지 여부였다는 점을 밝힐 것이다. 그러고 나면, 덕은 일반적으로 심리적 성향의 일종으로 간주되므로, 그것에 의한 행위 설명이 인과적 설명이라는 점은 비교적 쉽게 받아들여질 수 있다. 하지만 심리적 성향에 의한 행위 설명이 환원 불가능한 진정한 인과적 설명이라는 점을 확립하기 위해서는 심리 철학에서의 정신 인과 문제와 거의 동일한 문제를 해결해야 하는데, 이에 대해 만족스러운 답변을 제시하지 못한 것이 기존 비환원적 자연주의의 심각한 약점이었다고 할 수 있다. 나는 덕과 같은 심리적 성향을 자연적 존재자들이 가진 인과적 힘의 일종으로 간주했던, 고대 철학적 전통을 계승하는 근래의 몇몇 작업들을 재조명함으로써, 정신 인과 문제를 일으키는 주요 원인인 폐쇄성 논제를 합리적으로 거부할 수 있는 대안을 제시할 것이다. In this paper, I defend a kind of non-reductive naturalism by responding to the explanatory challenge in metaethics. First, by looking back upon the past dispute between Harman and Sturgeon on this matter, I clarify that the point of this problem is whether the explanations of action in terms of moral character, namely virtue, can be regarded as causal explanations or not. Then, as virtues are generally seen as a sort of psychological disposition, it can be easily accepted that the action explanations by them are causal explanations. However, establishing that the action explanations by psychological dispositions are real non-reducible causal ones, requires solving a problem which is almost like the problem of mental causation in philosophy of mind. I think that it was the critical shortcomings for the existing non-reductive naturalism not to give a satisfying answer to that question. By reexamination of some recent works inheriting ancient philosophical tradition, that says the psychological dispositions like virtues are causal powers of natural entities, I suggest an alternative to the closure principle, which is the main source of the mental causation problem and should be rejected rationally.
-
-
전승태(Seung Tae Jeon) 철학연구회 2016 哲學硏究 Vol.0 No.112
I argue that in spite of various efforts, physicalism which is the most prevalent answer to the problem of mental causation at this time cannot be a satisfactory solution, and we need a better alternative. Having been much criticized, the reason why physicalism holds its high place is that the principle named ‘the causal closure of the physical’ makes it hard to think about non-physicalist alternatives. In this paper, by applying Anscombe’s discussion about determinism and Cartwright’s works influenced by Anscombe to the problem of mental causation, I will try to clarify that the causal closure is not a self-evident principle but an illusion. They give better understanding on the theory and practice of natural sciences, that is, most of the situations where scientific theory has its application are special ones created by human activity. In the light of that conception, it turns out that the physical events which seem to be explained by physical causes only, have actually non-physical causes in their lists of complete causes, unlike the appearances. If so, there is no good reason to infer the causal closure of the physical from the achievement of modern sciences.
-
-
전승태(Jeon, SeungTae) 서울대학교 철학사상연구소 2019 철학사상 Vol.71 No.-
나는 두꺼운 개념의 평가적 요소와 관련하여 화용론적 견해를 취하는 분리주의자들이 의미론적 견해에 대해 제기하는 문제들에 답함으로써 의미론적 견해를 취하는 비분리주의를 옹호하고자 한다. 화용론적 견해의 지지자들에 따르면, 두꺼운 개념을 표현하는 용어가 동반하는 평가가 이의제기 가능하거나 가변적이라는 것은 두꺼운 개념이 평가를 함축하지 않는다는 것을 보여주는 것이며, 이는 두꺼운 개념에 관한 의미론적 견해가 잘못되었음을 시사하는 것이다. 나는 화용론적 견해가 언어적 자료들을 부적절하게 해석하고 있으며, 적절하게 해석할 경우, 두꺼운 개념들, 특히 이 논의가 초점을 맞춰온 덕과 악덕을 표상하는 개념들이 동반하는 평가는 이의제기 가능하지도, 가변적 이지도 않다고 주장할 것이다. 덕과 악덕의 개념들은 언제나 일정한 평가를 함축하는 것으로 보이며, 이는 우리가 의미론적 견해를 받아들일만한 강력한 근거가 된다. I defend non-separationism which takes a semantic view on the evaluative element of thick concepts by replying to the problems raised by proponents of a separationist pragmatic view. According to them, the fact that evaluations carried by terms expressing thick concepts are objectionable or variable shows that the thick concepts does not entail evaluations, and this suggests that the semantic view of thick concepts is wrong. I will argue that the pragmatic view misinterprets linguistic data, and when properly construed, the evaluations carried by thick concepts, especially the virtue and vice concepts on which this discussion has focused, are neither objectionable nor variable. It seems that virtue and vice concepts always entail fixed evaluations, and this is a strong reason to accept the semantic view.
-
전승태(Jeon, Seungtae) 서울대학교 철학사상연구소 2024 철학사상 Vol.0 No.91
In this paper, I present a response to the moral twin earth argument which is one of major problems in metaethics. Generally, it is raised to the causal reference theory, which is a semantic aspect of naturalist moral realism, and known as asking whether moral terms can be treated like natural kind terms. I point out that some former answers which suspect the self-evident intuition supposed by the argument, are plausible, but they have almost nothing to say about the more fundamental problem behind the argument revealed by raising the question. The real problem is where is the moral theory that can be comparable to natural scientific theories, when one takes a naturalist position on this matter. It seems to me that unlike people assume explicitly or implicitly about it, moral theory is not one of the typical normative ethical theories, and their presupposition is a source of the real problem of the moral twin earth argument. I suggest an idea that “virtue theory” which can be regarded as a kind of empirical anthropology, is close to the moral theory corresponding to the naturalist moral realism.
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
