DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Vol. III (Pdf)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Vol. III (Pdf) Perspectives International Postgraduate Journal of Philosophy Volume III, 2010 Andrew O’Connor, Lisa Foran Seferin James, Rozemund Ulj´ee Editors Andrew O’Connor Lisa Foran Seferin James Rozemund Ulj´ee Founding Editors Anna Nicholson Luna Dolezal Sheena Hyland International Board of Advisors Lilian O’Brien Anil Gomes Paul O’Grady Christopher Lindsay Nick Tosh Jason Turner Joel Walmsley Thanks to Maria Baghramian Margaret Brady Christopher Crowley Helen Kenny James O’Shea LATEX by Seferin James Cover Design by Patrick McKay, Advantage Point Promotions Published in association with the School of Philosophy, UCD Dublin, 2010 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Fran- cisco, California, 94105, USA. 2010 Contents Editorial 6 Interview Modality & Other Matters: An Interview with Timothy Williamson 16 By Paal Antonsen (Trinity College Dublin) Articles Searle, Materialism, and the Mind-Body Problem 30 By Erik Sorem (UCD Dublin) David Lewis’s Neglected Challenge: It’s Me or God 55 By Andrew Stephenson (Merton College, Oxford & Stiftung Maximilia- neum, Munich) Book Reviews Derrida From Now On, Michael Naas 73 By Paul Earlie (Balliol College Oxford & Ecole Normale Sup´erieure) Gilles Deleuze: The Intensive Reduction, Constantin Boundas (ed.) 80 By Andrea Janae Sholtz (Southwestern University) The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies, Michel Serres 88 By Jacob Vivian Pearce (University of Melbourne) Ideology: Comparative and Cultural Status, Mostafa Rejai (ed.) 96 By Ariane Fischer (Temple University, Philadelphia) Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Chrysostomos Mantzavinos (ed.) 104 By Andrew Turner (University of Nottingham) About the Contributors 112 Editorial Welcome to the third volume of Perspectives: International Post- graduate Journal of Philosophy. This journal is an annual, peer re- viewed, postgraduate publication featuring interviews, articles and book reviews from both the analytic and continental traditions of philosophy. The third volume of Perspectives is the first volume produced since the departure of its founding editors—Anna Nicholson, Luna Dolezal and Sheena Hyland—from practical editing duties. We wish them a fond farewell and hope that we have done justice to the spirit of the project they started with the current issue. This year has been a transitional period for Perspectives in more than one sense. Perspectives has, up to this point, been published in both print and online form. Printing a journal is expensive. The money for printing the first two volumes of Perspectives had been secured through application and re-application to grant schemes within the university and subsidised by the School of Philosophy here in UCD Dublin. Depending on annual grant re-applications is a precarious way to fund a periodical. It was perhaps inevitable that there would come a year when all funding applications were rejected, but this year the event was dramatically precipitated by the collapse of the Irish property bubble, followed by the effective collapse of the banks and then the government. The EU and the IMF stepped in to deal with the crisis of un- payable debts through a huge injection of more unpayable debt. This has been referred to as a bail out and not a bail in for reasons that no one can really understand. Unemployment, emigration, house repos- sessions and bankruptcy are on the rise. There have been huge cuts across the state sector and those institutions heavily dependent on state funding—such as the universities—have also suffered. Some- where on the fringe of this economic mess stretching from Greece to 6 Editorial Wall Street is a small postgraduate philosophy journal called Per- spectives with no money to print its third volume. The impossibility of securing funding to print the third volume of Perspectives is cause for some slight regret. It is frustrating not to be able to continue on with a project precisely as before and at the very time when we first feel most responsible for it. Philosophy is a rather intangible practice and being able to hold a physical manifestation of all that hard work helps one to maintain a little sanity. The current issue is ready to be published and we have decided to proceed with its publication in online form despite our inability to fund a print run at this time. Making this decision involved con- fronting the question of whether we feel it to be absolutely necessary to maintain a print run in addition to online publication. In con- fronting this question we decided that this issue represents far too much work by contributors, peer reviewers and ourselves to be put indefinitely on hold while we wait for the economy to improve or finish us off completely. The financial situation may improve and Perspectives may make a return to the printed form in future issues. While we do not believe a print run to be absolutely necessary, the question remains of whether a return to print would be desirable. We are not sure that we could unambiguously recommend a future return to print even if the chance to do so should present itself. There are disadvantages as well as advantages to maintaining a print run of the journal and these must be evaluated in relation to what Perspectives is and what it is trying to achieve. Perspectives is an independent journal that has been set up to publish peer reviewed postgraduate philosophical research. Is there a need for a journal to publish postgraduate philosophy? Postgradu- ates are certainly capable of publishing philosophy at a professional peer reviewed standard. A PhD thesis is required to meet this cri- teria and while it may be more challenging for masters students to reach the same standard, this does not mean that they are incapable of doing so. 7 Perspectives: International Postgraduate Journal of Philosophy Yet, if postgraduates are capable of producing philosophy of a professional standard then why not encourage them to publish in a professional philosophy publication rather than a postgraduate one? We know that there are some postgraduates that will only submit their work to professional philosophy journals. Such students feel an obligation to do so. They feel an imperative to strategically max- imise their career capital before they hit the academic job market by publishing as much work as possible in journals that are as pres- tigious as possible. From this point of view, there is no place for a postgraduate journal because a postgraduate journal will always be less prestigious than a professional journal. This kind of thinking would imply that it is counter productive for Perspectives to continue to identify itself as a postgraduate philosophy journal. It implies that it would be better for Perspectives to reposition itself as a philosophy journal that would remain open to submissions from postgraduates but no longer characterise itself as a postgraduate philosophy journal. It seems to us that the attitude of strategic maximisation risks effacing not only the role of a postgraduate journal like Perspectives but also the meaning of philosophy in general. That people would study philosophy at all is incomprehensible from such a point of view. Strategic maximisers study things like medicine, engineering, business and law. Strategic maximisers do not study philosophy and yet philosophy remains a popular subject for undergraduate and postgraduate study. We must grasp a factor other than strategic maximisation to begin to come to terms with the phenomenon of philosophy. Philosophy is interesting. It has cultural value. It expands intel- lectual horizons. It gives people perspectives. 8 Editorial The cultural value of philosophy creates the demand to study the subject. The demand to study the subject perpetuates philosophy as a profession. It is not a very big profession. Only a tiny frac- tion of people that ever study philosophy will be paid to teach it at university level and studying philosophy doesn’t feed directly into any other career paths (at least in Ireland where there is no oppor- tunity to teach philosophy as a secondary school subject). This is a real source of anxiety for postgraduate students who have already devoted a not-inconsiderable part of their lives and socio-economic capital to the cultural value of philosophy before they find them- selves approaching the job market that could flip them from being what is effectively a paying customer of a university to an employee of one, or push them out into the cold. We know that there would be life after philosophy but we imagine it to be considerably less interesting. Anxiety about the future can suddenly induce an un- characteristic proclivity towards strategic maximisation in the being of postgraduate philosophers. We appreciate the anxiety postgraduate philosophy students can feel about their future employability. At the same time we want them to remember why they started doing philosophy in the first place and the value of what they are doing at the moment. It is only in the cultivation of this impulse that professional philosophy becomes a social and economic possibility. Postgraduates spend weeks, months, years, writing in an area that interests them and we want to give them a chance to share the work that they can be most proud of with people that share those interests. It matters to them and it matters to us. A postgraduate philosophy journal offers a transitional space for publication. A space where people can submit work to be consid- ered on its own merits, without the concern that an editor may be biased against publishing their work because they are an early stage researcher. Perspectives seeks to facilitate the publication of postgraduate research but we do not indiscriminately publish postgraduate writ- ing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mark Schroeder [email protected] 3709 Trousdale Parkway Markschroeder.Net
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ USC School of Philosophy 323.632.8757 (mobile) Mudd Hall of Philosophy Mark Schroeder [email protected] 3709 Trousdale Parkway markschroeder.net Los Angeles, CA 90089-0451 Curriculum Vitae philosophy.academy ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ EDUCATION Ph.D., Philosophy, Princeton University, November 2004, supervised by Gideon Rosen M.A., Philosophy, Princeton University, November 2002 B.A., magna cum laude, Philosophy, Mathematics, and Economics, Carleton College, June 2000 EMPLOYMENT University of Southern California, Professor since December 2011 previously Assistant Professor 8/06 – 4/08, Associate Professor with tenure 4/08 – 12/11 University of Maryland at College Park, Instructor 8/04 – 1/05, Assistant Professor 1/05 – 6/06 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RESEARCH INTERESTS My research has focused primarily on metaethics, practical reason, and related areas, particularly including normative ethics, philosophy of language, epistemology, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, the philosophy of action, agency, and responsibility, and the history of ethics. HONORS AND AWARDS Elected to USC chapter of Phi Kappa Phi, 2020; 2017 Phi Kappa Phi Faculty
    [Show full text]
  • To Appear in Synthese Probability and Proximity in Surprise
    Page 1 of 19 To appear in Synthese Probability and Proximity in Surprise Tomoji Shogenji1 Abstract This paper proposes an analysis of surprise formulated in terms of proximity to the truth, to replace the probabilistic account of surprise. It is common to link surprise to the low (prior) probability of the outcome. The idea seems sensible because an outcome with a low probability is unexpected, and an unexpected outcome often surprises us. However, the link between surprise and low probability is known to break down in some cases. There have been some attempts to modify the probabilistic account to deal with these cases, but they are still faced with problems. The new analysis of surprise I propose turns to accuracy (proximity to the truth) and identifies an unexpected degree of inaccuracy as reason for surprise. The shift from probability to proximity allows us to solve puzzles that strain the probabilistic account of surprise. Keywords Qualitative hypothesis ∙ Quantitative hypothesis ∙ Probabilistic hypothesis ∙ Inaccuracy ∙ Scoring rules ∙ Expected inaccuracy 1. Introduction This paper proposes an analysis of surprise formulated in terms of proximity to the truth, to replace the probabilistic account of surprise. It is common to link surprise to the low (prior) probability of the outcome.2 The idea seems sensible because an outcome with a low probability is unexpected, and an unexpected outcome often surprises us. However, the link between surprise and low probability is known to break down in some cases. There have been some attempts to modify the probabilistic account to deal with these cases, but as we shall see, they are still faced with problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconsidering Relativism and Intentionalism in Interpretation: Donald Davidson, Hermeneutics, and Pragmatism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Helsingin yliopiston digitaalinen arkisto Reconsidering Relativism and Intentionalism in Interpretation: Donald Davidson, Hermeneutics, and Pragmatism Kalle Puolakka Department of Aesthetics University of Helsinki Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Helsinki in lecture hall 5, on the 9th of October, 2009 at 12 o’clock Supervised by: Professor Arto Haapala Faculty of Arts University of Helsinki Reviewed by: Professor Jerrold Levinson Department of Philosophy University of Maryland, USA Professor Sami Pihlström Collegium for Advanced Studies University of Helsinki Discussed with: Professor Jerrold Levinson Department of Philosophy University of Maryland, USA ______________________________ © 2009, Kalle Puolakka ISBN 978-952-92-6090-4 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-5718-2 (PDF) http://ethesis.helsinki.fi Helsinki University Print Helsinki 2009 2 Acknowledgements Tracking all the comments, suggestions, discussions, and other kinds of factors, which have molded one’s PhD thesis, a work that takes several years to complete, to its final form, is a perplexing undertaking. The first instances to spring to one’s mind are surely those whose value and relevance one immediately realized. Then there are those which did not seem that relevant at first, but which gradually began to gnaw one’s thinking, and which, ultimately, proved in some cases to be even more important than the first kinds of cases. No less valuable are the numerous smaller remarks one receives during the process, which perhaps did not move mountains, but without which the final work would, nevertheless, have been much poorer.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Arguments to Think That Faith Does Not Entail Belief
    THREE ARGUMENTS TO THINK THAT FAITH DOES NOT ENTAIL BELIEF BY DANIEL HOWARD-SNYDER Abstract: On doxastic theories of propositional faith, necessarily, S has faith that p only if S believes that p. On nondoxastic theories of propositional faith, it’sfalse that, necessarily, S has faith that p only if S believes that p. In this article, I defend three arguments for nondoxastic theories of faith and I respond to published crit- icisms of them. 1. Introduction Pistology is on the rise. The study of the nature and value of faith was once the domain of biblical scholars, theologians, and the occasional philosopher of religion. Not anymore. Epistemologists, moral psychologists, and classicists, along with many philosophers of religion, have gotten into the act, in no small part because faith has become more readily seen as a widespread human phenomenon, rather than just a religious one, something at the center of human flourishing, not just religious flourishing – aviewthe ancient Greeks and Romans held, a view in recovery today (Morgan, 2015; Preston-Roedder, 2018; Tsai, 2017). This renewed scholarly interest in faith thought of as a psychological atti- tude, state, orientation, or trait that can have secular contents or objects, not just religious ones, parallels recent social trends. One example: in his farewell speech, Barack Obama uses the faith lexicon seven times, but only once with religious content. He speaks of ‘faith in reason and enterprise, and the pri- macy of right over might,’ of ‘faith in America and in Americans,’ of ‘faith … in the power of ordinary Americans to bring about change,’ and the like.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]
  • August 9, 2001 Word Count: 7015 Words Abstract There Is A
    PRESENTISM AND QUANTUM GRAVITY1 August 9, 2001 word count: 7015 words Abstract There is a philosophical tradition of arguing against presentism, the thesis that only presently existing things exist, on the basis of its incompatibility with fundamental physics. I grant that presentism is incompatible with special and general relativity, but argue that presentism is not incompatible with quantum gravity, because there are some theories of quantum gravity that utilize a fixed foliation of spacetime. I reply to various objections to this defense of presentism, and point out a flaw in Gödel’s modal argument for the ideality of time. This paper provides an interesting case study of the interplay between physics and philosophy. 1I have given talks based on previous versions of this paper at Princeton University, the American University of Beirut, California Polytechnic State University, and the University of Kentucky. I thank the audiences at these presentations for helpful discussion. I also thank Gordon Belot, Mauro Dorato, Brian Kierland, Steven Savitt, Bas van Fraassen, Steve Weinstein, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments. 1 1. Introduction. I am a presentist: I believe that only presently existing things exist.2 Contrast presentism with eternalism: the eternalist believes that past, present, and future things all exist. Assuming that there are three spatial dimensions, the eternalist believes that the universe is four- dimensional, and while there are different events in different regions of this so-called “block universe”, the universe as a whole does not change. The presentist, in contrast, believes that the universe is three-dimensional. I am also a Heraclitean: I believe that change is a fundamental aspect of reality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Relativism.Indb
    Richard Schantz, Markus Seidel The Problem of Relativism in the Sociology of (Scientific) Knowledge P h i l o s o p h i s c h e A n a l y s e P h i l o s o p h i c a l A n a l y s i s Herausgegeben von / Edited by Herbert Hochberg • Rafael Hüntelmann • Christian Kanzian Richard Schantz • Erwin Tegtmeier Band 43 / Volume 43 Richard Schantz, Markus Seidel The Problem of Relativism in the Sociology of (Scientific) Knowledge Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. North and South America by Transaction Books Rutgers University Piscataway, NJ 08854-8042 [email protected] United Kingdom, Ireland, Iceland, Turkey, Malta, Portugal by Gazelle Books Services Limited White Cross Mills Hightown LANCASTER, LA1 4XS [email protected] Livraison pour la France et la Belgique: Librairie Philosophique J.Vrin 6, place de la Sorbonne; F-75005 PARIS Tel. +33 (0)1 43 54 03 47; Fax +33 (0)1 43 54 48 18 www.vrin.fr 2011 ontos verlag P.O. Box 15 41, D-63133 Heusenstamm www.ontosverlag.com ISBN 978-3-86838-126-9 2011 No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: the Later Years
    Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Later Years The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation McDonough, Jeffrey K. 2016. Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Later Years. Philosophical Review 125, no. 1: 1–34. doi:10.1215/00318108-3321711. Published Version doi:10.1215/00318108-3321711 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:30780190 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Later Years Jeffrey K. McDonough 0. Introduction In the opening paragraphs of his now classic paper “Leibniz and the Foundations of Physics: The Middle Years,” Daniel Garber suggests that Leibniz must seem something of a paradox to contemporary readers (1985, 27). On the one hand, Leibniz is commonly held to have advanced a broadly idealist metaphysics according to which the world is ultimately grounded in mind-like monads whose properties are exhausted by their perceptions and appetites. On such a picture, physical bodies would seem to be nothing more than the perceptions or thoughts (or contents thereof) enjoyed by immaterial substances.1 On the other hand, it is generally recognized (if perhaps less clearly) that Leibniz was also a prominent physicist in his own day and that he saw his work in physics as supporting, and being supported by, his metaphysics.2 But how, in light of his idealism, could that be? How could Leibniz think that his pioneering work in physics might lend support to his idealist metaphysics, and conversely that his Earlier versions of this essay were presented to audiences at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Yale University, Brown University, and Dartmouth College.
    [Show full text]
  • An Aristotelian Interpretation of Practical Wisdom: the Case of Retirees
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Business - Papers Faculty of Business January 2019 An Aristotelian interpretation of practical wisdom: the case of retirees Peter R. Massingham University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/buspapers Recommended Citation Massingham, Peter R., "An Aristotelian interpretation of practical wisdom: the case of retirees" (2019). Faculty of Business - Papers. 1640. https://ro.uow.edu.au/buspapers/1640 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] An Aristotelian interpretation of practical wisdom: the case of retirees Abstract This paper aims to improve understanding of the concept of practical wisdom. The theoretical lens used is Aristotle's practical rationality or 'phronesis'. Researchers argue that practical wisdom should be used as an organising framework for professional knowledge. Aristotle believed that practical wisdom as the highest intellectual virtue. Phronesis is the complicated interactions between general (theory) and practical (judgement). The contribution of this paper is to discuss the properties of practical wisdom and how they interact based on an interpretation of retirees' knowledge. The paper summarises in-depth face- to-face interviews with nine retirees, i.e., nine separate case studies. A structured interview guideline based on a conceptual framework derived from literature was used to examine the nature of retirees' practical wisdom. People with wisdom make better decisions. Whereas episteme's technical knowledge may address complicated tasks, techne's wisdom enables people to resolve truly complex tasks. Techne provides personal judgement which enables the professional to judge their actions from an external and internal perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • [Draft of 15 January2021 for Maria Baghramian, J. Adam Carter and Richard Rowland (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Disagreement, London:Routledge]
    1 [Draft of 15 January2021 for Maria Baghramian, J. Adam Carter and Richard Rowland (eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Disagreement, London:Routledge] Disagreement in Metaphysics Timothy Williamson 1. Introduction At first sight, metaphysics looks as well-stocked as any other field of theoretical inquiry with disagreement, of a generically familiar kind. One side asserts what the other denies. Physicalists assert that everything is physical, anti-physicalists that not everything is physical. Each side supports its position with theoretical considerations. Physicalists invoke the explanatory success of natural science, and the unifying power of a physicalist world-picture; anti-physicalists argue that natural science relies on mathematics, built up from set theory, which posits non-physical pure sets. Theists argue that there is a god, atheists that there is none. And so on. Metaphysics concerns the deepest, most general nature of reality. We should expect its questions to be hard. A community of metaphysicians who all agree with each other sounds like a herd of closed-minded conformists. Not everyone takes that view. According to Amie Thomasson, ‘the complete failures of convergence, recondite nature of many debates, and lack of clarity about the epistemology of metaphysics have led to renewed suspicions about metaphysical disputes’ (Thomasson 2017: 1). The term ‘renewed’ points to a long history of such suspicions, going back at least to Hume and Kant. Thomasson’s own deflationism about metaphysics owes much to the anti- metaphysical stance of the logical positivist Rudolf Carnap. For some reason, ontology—the branch of metaphysics which asks ‘What is there?’— is especially liable to provoke suspicion (Yablo 1998, Eklund 2006, Chalmers, Manley, and Wasserman 2009, Thomasson 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • CURRICULUM VITAE Timothy Williamson
    CURRICULUM VITAE Timothy Williamson Positions: Wykeham Professor of Logic at the University of Oxford and Fellow of New College Oxford A. Whitney Griswold Visiting Professor, Yale University Born: Uppsala, Sweden, 6 August 1955 Nationality: British Address: New College, Oxford OX1 3BN, U.K. E-mail: timothyDOTwilliamsonATphilosophyDOToxDOTacDOTuk Positions held 1980-88 Lecturer in Philosophy, Trinity College, Dublin. 1988-94 Fellow and Praelector in Philosophy, University College, Oxford; C.U.F. Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Oxford. 1995-2000 Professor of Logic and Metaphysics, University of Edinburgh. 2000- Wykeham Professor of Logic, University of Oxford, and Fellow of New College Oxford 1990, 1995 Visiting Fellow, Department of Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences, A.N.U. 1994 Visiting Professor, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, M.I.T. 1995 Visiting Erskine Fellow, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Canterbury. 1998-99 Visiting Professor, Department of Philosophy, Princeton University. 2004 Visiting scholar, Centre for Advanced Study at the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. 2013-15 Nelson Visitor, Department of Philosophy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 2016-17 Visiting professor, Yale University. 2018- A. Whitney Griswold Visiting Professor, Yale University 2 2 Distinctions Fellow of the British Academy (elected 1997) Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (elected 1997) Foreign member of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters (elected 2004) Foreign honorary
    [Show full text]
  • Forthcoming in Erkenntnis INTERNALISM AND
    Page 1 Forthcoming in Erkenntnis INTERNALISM AND EXTERNALISM IN MELIORATIVE EPISTEMOLOGY Tomoji Shogenji ABSTRACT This paper addresses the meta-epistemological dispute over the basis of epistemic evaluation from the standpoint of meliorative epistemology. Meliorative epistemology aims at guiding our epistemic practice to better results, and it comprises two levels of epistemic evaluation. At the social level (meliorative social epistemology) appropriate experts conduct evaluation for the community, so that epistemic evaluation is externalist since each epistemic subject in the community need not have access to the basis of the experts’ evaluation. While at the personal level (meliorative personal epistemology) epistemic evaluation is internalist since each member of the community must evaluate the reliability of the (apparent) experts from the first-person perspective. I argue that evaluation at the social level should be the primary focus of meliorative epistemology since meliorative personal epistemology does not provide informative epistemic norms. It is then pointed out that epistemic evaluation at the social level can be considered internalist in the extended sense (social internalism) in that every component of the evaluation needs to be recognized by some members of the community at some points. As a result, some familiar problems of internalist epistemology, such as regress and circularity of epistemic support, carry over to meliorative social epistemology. 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most heavily contested issues in recent epistemology is the meta- epistemological dispute over the proper basis of epistemic evaluation. The internalist camp favors the restriction that the basis of epistemic evaluation must be conditions internal to the epistemic subject, while the externalist camp rejects this restriction.
    [Show full text]