This article reviews Paula Olmos’s Narration as Argument collection.

Avner Baz claims that questions philosophers ask about hypothetical cases lack the kind of ‘point’ possessed by ‘everyday’ questions. He concludes from this that there is something wrong with the philosophical practice of asking questions about hypothetical cases. This paper defends the practice from Baz’s criticism.

The simple knowledge norm of assertion holds that one may assert that p only if one knows that p. Turri :37–45, 2011) and Williamson both argue that more is required for epistemically permissible assertion. In particular, they both think that the asserter must assert on the basis of her knowledge. Turri calls this the express knowledge norm of assertion. I defend SKNA and argue against EKNA. First, I argue that EKNA faces counterexamples. Second, I argue that EKNA assumes an implausible (...) view of permissibility on which an assertion is epistemically permissible only if it is made for a right reason, i.e., a reason that contributes to making it the case that it is epistemically permissible to make that assertion. However, the analogous view in other normative domains is both controversial and implausible. This is because it doesn’t make it possible for one to act or react rightly for the wrong reason. I suggest that proponents of EKNA have conflated requirements for φ-ing rightly with requirements for φ-ing well. Finally, I argue that proponents of SKNA can explain the intuitive defectiveness of asserting on the basis of an epistemically bad reason, even when the asserters know the content of their assertion, by arguing that the asserters are epistemically blameworthy. (shrink)

It is argued that 'p but I do not believe that p' seems close to a contradiction because if the speaker is correct in all that s/he says then what s/he says is false. Similarly,what is wrong with 'p, but I have no opinion whether p' is that, whether 'p' or 'not-p', if the speaker believes it, s/he cannot be completely correct. The argument assumes that 'I believe that' is not a mere parenthesis as in 'p, I believe', and that (...) to say 'I believe that p' is not only to claim a certain mentality, but to claim to be correct or mistaken depending upon whether 'p' is true or false. (shrink)

Representationalist theories of the phenomenal character of conscious experience are attractive because they promise a simpler 'naturalization' of the mind. However, I argue that representationalists cannot endorse an otherwise attractive externalist theory of the representational contents of conscious experiences. The combination of representationalism and externalism conflicts with a true principle linking phenomenal character to perceptual indistinguishability.

What are the mechanisms underlying the reproduction and change of collective beliefs? The paper suggests that a productive and promising approach for dealing with this question can be found in ontogenetic and cross-cultural studies on ‘collective argumentations and belief systems’; this is illustrated with regard to moral beliefs: After a short discussion of the rationality/relativity issue in cultural anthropology some basic elements of a conceptual framework for the empirical study of collective argumentations are outlined. A few empirical case studies are (...) summarized; the results deliver some empirical evidence to the assumption that as the ‘logic of collective argumentations’ develops in children and adolescent there will be different and increasingly more complex constraints on the kinds of basic moral beliefs that can be collectively accepted. Most importantly, as children approach adolescence they may have acquired a ‘logic of argumentation’ which makes possible a collectively valid distinction between the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’ of some disputed particular moral issue. A comparison with a land litigation among Trobriands (Papua New Guinea) shows that the ‘logic of argumentation’ and the corresponding basic moral beliefs of Trobriands very much resemble the ‘logic of argumentation’ and moral rationality standards of (German) adolescents. (shrink)

Le présent volume : Fichte, la philosophie pratique, a pour ambition de présenter la philosophie pratique de Fichte en tenant compte de l'état actuel de la recherche, intégrant la meilleure connaissance de la seconde philosophie de l'auteur qu'on peut avoir depuis que sont rendus accessibles de nombreux textes de cette période en allemand, et grâce à des traductions en français, notamment par les soins d'un certain nombre d'auteurs de ce volume. Les divers aspects abordés permettent de montrer que ce thème (...) radical détermine de façon essentielle l'ensemble des branches du système de Fichte. On voit ainsi que Fichte brosse une détermination radicale et générale de ce qui est à partir de l'agir, tant sur le plan des institutions, que de celui de la nation, de la politique, du droit et de la morale : tous ces concepts renvoient chez lui à des réalités en mouvement, ce mouvement étant leur vie, et leur vie étant l'expression de l'agir de l'homme conforme à son concept. Tout en étant un théoricien du concept et de la loi, Fichte confirme ainsi sa place dans la lignée des penseurs du devenir, avant Nietzsche et Bergson, qui, par-delà leurs différences, lui doivent beaucoup, chacun à sa manière, sur ce point. (shrink)

À l'encontre de la conception classique qui fait de l'idée d'infini l'expression de la perfection de Dieu inscrite en l'homme, Diderot propose une conception de l'infini qui rapporte immédiatement celui-ci à sa production corporelle. Soustrayant ainsi l'infini au divin, la pensée du corps sensible révoque jusqu'en ses fondements la conceptualité classique qui, par la notion d'ordre, liait l'épistémologie au théologique. Le désordre s'en trouve réévalué jusqu'en ses formes pathologiques et gagne ainsi une valeur créatrice immanente et fondamentale.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Frege presents the eponymous distinction of "Über Sinn und Bedeutung" as a correction to the theory of identity he held in the Begriffsschrift.1 His retrospective assessment has prompted different reactions from commentators. Many have simply taken him at his word.2 Others, who have lingered over the relevant texts, have encountered a difficulty: in the Begriffsschrift Frege appears to raise the same problem with which he begins USB and to respond to it in words that are strikingly similar to those (...) found in the later work.3 Thus, a number of important scholars have been led to argue that Frege misrepresents his earlier view: contrary to what he says in USB, the Begriffsschrift already contains the distinction between Sinn and Bedeutung.4 Despite their obvious differences, the logic of both interpretations requires that the two works be responsive to the same problem. In this paper I challenge that fundamental premise.5 If I might be allowed to express my thesis tersely but suggestively: the problem of the Begriffsschrift is epistemological; that of USB, ontological.6 The two problems and Frege's solutions to them shall be explained in what follows. (shrink)

This paper is an evaluation of the sociological significance of the development and adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. The concept of “appropriationism” is introduced as a means of determining whether or not sustainable agriculture is an expression of class antagonisms in U. S. agriculture. “Appropriationism” is the process by which corporate agribusiness replaces natural processes with industrial products. A comparison of responses to farm crisis in the late 19th century and in the 1980s is employed as a heuristic device to (...) determine the contemporary sociological significance of sustainable agriculture. Based on past experience and changes in key institutions over the past century, it is concluded that the development of sustainable agricultural practices will not significantly challenge the economic prerogatives of agribusiness and that the long-term process of the industrial appropriation of natural processes in agriculture will continue into the 21st century. (shrink)