Subject-sensitive invariantism posits surprising connections between a person’s knowledge and features of her environment that are not paradigmatically epistemic features. But which features of a person’s environment have this distinctive connection to knowledge? Traditional defenses of subject-sensitive invariantism emphasize features that matter to the subject of the knowledge-attribution. Call this pragmatic encroachment. A more radical thesis usually goes ignored: knowledge is sensitive to moral facts, whether or not those moral facts matter to the subject. Call this moral encroachment. This paper (...) argues that, insofar as there are good arguments for pragmatic encroachment, there are also good arguments for moral encroachment. (shrink)

We often speak as if there are merely possible people—for example, when we make such claims as that most possible people are never going to be born. Yet most metaphysicians deny that anything is both possibly a person and never born. Since our unreflective talk of merely possible people serves to draw non-trivial distinctions, these metaphysicians owe us some paraphrase by which we can draw those distinctions without committing ourselves to there being merely possible people. We show that such paraphrases (...) are unavailable if we limit ourselves to the expressive resources of even highly infinitary first-order modal languages. We then argue that such paraphrases are available in higher-order modal languages only given certain strong assumptions concerning the metaphysics of properties. We then consider alternative paraphrase strategies, and argue that none of them are tenable. If talk of merely possible people cannot be paraphrased, then it must be taken at face value, in which case it is necessary what individuals there are. Therefore, if it is contingent what individuals there are, then the demands of paraphrase place tight constraints on the metaphysics of properties: either (i) it is necessary what properties there are, or (ii) necessarily equivalent properties are identical, and having properties does not entail even possibly being anything at all. (shrink)

Two expressive limitations of an infinitary higher-order modal language interpreted on models for higher-order contingentism – the thesis that it is contingent what propositions, properties and relations there are – are established: First, the inexpressibility of certain relations, which leads to the fact that certain model-theoretic existence conditions for relations cannot equivalently be reformulated in terms of being expressible in such a language. Second, the inexpressibility of certain modalized cardinality claims, which shows that in such a language, higher-order contingentists cannot (...) express what is communicated using various instances of talk of ‘possible things’, such as ‘there are uncountably many possible stars’. (shrink)

The models of contingency in what propositions, properties and relations there are developed in Part 1 are related to models of contingency in what propositions there are due to Robert Stalnaker. It is shown that some but not all of the classes of models of Part 1 agree with Stalnaker’s models concerning the patterns of contingency in what propositions there are they admit. Further structural connections between the two kinds of models are explored.

Call the following claim Asymmetry: rationality often requires a more steadfast response to pure moral disagreement than it does to otherwise analogous non-moral disagreement. This paper briefly motivates Asymmetry and explores its implications for meta-ethics. Some philosophers have thought that anti-realists are better-placed than realists to explain Asymmetry because, if anti-realism is true, disagreement cannot provide evidence against the reliability of one's thinking about objective moral facts. This paper argues that this simple diagnosis fails to support otherwise plausible anti-realisms. It (...) closes by discussing an alternative explanation for Asymmetry, which appeals to the moral importance of steadfastness. (shrink)

This paper presents a challenge to conciliationist views of disagreement. I argue that conciliationists cannot satisfactorily explain why we need not revise our beliefs in response to certain moral disagreements. Conciliationists can attempt to meet this challenge in one of two ways. First, they can individuate disputes narrowly. This allows them to argue that we have dispute-independent reason to distrust our opponents’ moral judgment. This approach threatens to license objectionable dogmatism. It also inappropriately gives deep epistemic significance to superficial questions (...) about how to think about the subject matter of a dispute. Second, conciliationists can individuate disputes widely. This allows them to argue that we lack dispute-independent reason to trust our opponents’ moral judgment. But such arguments fail; our background of generally shared moral beliefs gives us good reason to trust the moral judgment of our opponents, even after we set quite a bit of our reasoning aside. On either approach, then, conciliationists should acknowledge that we have dispute-independent reason to trust the judgment of those who reject our moral beliefs. Given a conciliationist view of disagreement’s epistemic role, this has the unattractive result that we are epistemically required to revise some of our most intuitively secure moral beliefs. (shrink)

Many writers have recently argued that there is something distinctively problematic about sustaining moral beliefs on the basis of others’ moral views. Call this claim pessimism about moral deference. Pessimism about moral deference, if true, seems to provide an attractive way to argue for a bold conclusion about moral disagreement: moral disagreement generally does not require belief revision. Call this claim steadfastness about moral disagreement. Perhaps the most prominent recent discussion of the connection between moral deference and moral disagreement, due (...) to Alison Hills, uses pessimism about the former to argue for steadfastness about the latter. This paper reveals that this line of thinking, and others like it, are unsuccessful. There is no way to argue from a compelling version of pessimism about moral deference to the conclusion of steadfastness about moral disagreement. The most plausible versions of pessimism about moral deference have only very limited implications for moral disagreement. (shrink)

To the memory of Prof. Grigori Mints, Stanford UniversityBorn: June 7, 1939, St. Petersburg, RussiaDied: May 29, 2014, Palo Alto, California.

Lee and Schwarz suggest grounded procedures of separation as a mechanism for embodied cleansing. We compare this process to other mechanisms in grounded cognition and suggest a broader conceptualization that allows integration into general cognitive models of social behavior. Specifically, separation will be understood as a mindset of completed avoidance resulting in high abstraction and openness to new experiences.

In _Wine & Philosophy,_ philosophers, wine critics, and winemakers share their passion for wine through well-crafted essays that explore wine’s deeper meaning, nature, and significance Joins _Food & Philosophy_ and _Beer & Philosophy_ in in the "Epicurean Trilogy Essays are organized thematically and written by philosophers, wine writers, and winemakers Chapters include, “The Art & Culture of Wine”; “Tasting & Talking about Wine”; “Wine & Its Critics”; “The Beauty of Wine”; “The Metaphysics of Wine”; and “The Politics & Economics of (...) Wine” Accessible to a general audience while at the same time covering some serious philosophical ground Incorporates traditional areas of philosophical study, including philosophy of language, philosophy of perception, aesthetics, metaphysics, ethics and political philosophy A great complimentary text to any guided-tour visit to the Napa Valley or other wineries. (shrink)

In the second part of these aphorisms, starting at about Aphorism 121, Schelling sketches the traits of his Naturphilosophie. The total of the two hundred and twenty-four aphorisms can rightly bear the title of an Introduction to Naturphilosophie. But when I here present a translation of only the first eighty, I ought to warn the reader that she or he will not find Schelling’s Naturphilosophie, but rather an emphatic introduction to the method of philosophizing and more especially a short “negative (...) theology,” that is, an instruction in what not to do when theologizing. I hope that theologians unfamiliar with the German original will find my translation useful, and that it will challenge philosophers to revise a still current notion that Fichte provides one half of philosophy and Schelling the other. (shrink)

Der auBere AnlaB zur Niederschrift dieses Buches war ein Schreiben des Springer-Verlages, Berlin. Darin wurde die Bitte ausgesprochen, bisher lediglich in Vortragen und Aufsatzen veroffentlichte Gedanken tiber wirtschaftliches Konstruieren weiter auszubauen und in einem Buche zusammenfassend darzulegen. Zu jener Zeit aber - es war kurz nach Ausbruch des zweiten Weltkrieges - hatte ich mich innerlich be­ reits von Betrachtungen solcher Art losgelost. Es schien mir wichtiger und vor allem dringlicher, zunachst nach einer Sinngebung und tiber­ geordneten Zielsetzung fUr das technische (...) Schaffen zu suchen. Die Be­ miihungen, beiden Anliegen gerecht zu werden, fiihrten mich schlieB­ lich zu der Ueberzeugung, daB ein Buch, in dem die neuartige Kon­ struktionslehre in die groBen ethischen, wissenschaftlichen und wirt­ schaftlichenZusammenhange-eingeordnetist, einem allgemeinenBedtirfnis unserer Zeit entsprechen dfirfte. Und so ist aus dem doppelten Erleben der Technik als Mensch und als Ingenieur die Zweiteilung und in der Folge die gesamteDisposition diesesBuches entstanden, das in gewissem Sinne als Fortsetzung des Fachstudiums, zugleich aber auch als erste Einfiihrung in die mannigfachen Bezirke des wirklichen technischen Geschehens gedacht ist. Die Ausarbeitung hat sich, hauptsachlich bedingt durch die Kriegs-und Nachkriegsereignisse, tiber volle zwolf Jahre hin­ gezogen; doch hoffe ich, daB das unmittelbare Erleben dieser Zeit und die innere Auseinandersetzung mit ihren Problemen dem Buche irgendwie zugute gekommen sind. Ich habe vielen zu danken: Zunachst Herrn R. Bingel t, ehemaliger Vorsitzender des Vorstandes der Siemens-Schuckertwerke AG., Berlin, ffir seine Anteilnahme und verstandnisvolle Forderung; dann meinen nachsten Mitarbeitem, vor allem Herrn O. (shrink)