DOCSLIB.ORG

Genealogy As Conceptual Reverse-Engineering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi The Practical Origins of Ideas OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi The Practical Origins of Ideas Genealogy as Conceptual Reverse-Engineering MATTHIEU QUELOZ 1 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Matthieu Queloz 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, for commercial purposes, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. This is an open access publication, available online and distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. The pre-press of this publication was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of this licence should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020951579 ISBN 978–0–19–886870–5 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198868705.001.0001 Printed and bound in the UK by TJ Books Limited Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work. OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi For my parents OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi Contents Acknowledgements ix List of Abbreviations xi 1. Why We Came to Think as We Do 1 1.1 Bringing the Pragmatic Genealogical Tradition into View 4 1.2 A Systematic Account of the Method 8 1.3 Doing Systematic Philosophy by Doing History of Philosophy 17 2. The Benefits of Reverse-Engineering 20 2.1 From a Practical Point of View 20 2.2 Seven Virtues of Conceptual Reverse-Engineering 22 2.3 Explanation Without Reduction 31 2.4 Weakening and Strengthening Confidence 38 2.5 Responsible Conceptual Engineering 41 2.6 Genealogy’s Place in the Methodological Landscape 43 3. When Genealogy Is Called For 48 3.1 Fictionalizing and Historicizing 49 3.2 Self-Effacing Functionality 54 3.3 Nietzsche’s Challenge: Historical Inflection and Local Needs 59 4. Ideas as Remedies to Inconveniences: David Hume 71 4.1 Motivating Genealogy: Artificiality and the Circle Argument 73 4.2 A Remedy to Conflict Over External Goods 76 4.3 De-Instrumentalizing Justice 81 4.4 Promising: Enabling Reciprocal Cooperation Over Time 86 4.5 The Functions of the State of Nature 88 5. A Genetic History of Thought: Friedrich Nietzsche 100 5.1 Philosophers’ Dehistoricizing and Denaturalizing Tendencies 102 5.2 Concepts Conditioned by History and Functionality 106 5.3 Nietzsche’s Vindicatory English Genealogies 110 5.4 Hypertrophy: Taking a Good Thing Too Far 123 5.5 Thinking Historically 126 6. Loosening the Need-Concept Tie: Edward Craig 132 6.1 Fictional Starting Points 135 6.2 What Informants Need to Be 139 6.3 A Genealogy Showing There to Be No Room for Genealogy 141 6.4 The Art of Our Necessities Is Strange: De-Instrumentalization 146 6.5 Assessing and Synthesizing Competing Accounts of Concepts 149 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi viii 7. The Uses of Intrinsic Value: Bernard Williams 155 7.1 Truth: What Needs Defending? 156 7.2 The Point of Valuing the Truth Intrinsically 159 7.3 Reading Williams as a Cambridge Pragmatist 175 7.4 McGinn’s Three Challenges and Self-Effacing Functionality 178 7.5 A Pessimism of Strength: Williams’s Debt to Nietzsche 187 8. A Political and Ameliorative State of Nature: Miranda Fricker 193 8.1 Good Recipients of Information 194 8.2 De-Idealizing as Far as Necessary and as Little as Possible 197 8.3 Pairing Genealogical Explanation with a Theory of Error 199 8.4 Making Ameliorative Use of Pragmatic Genealogy 201 9. The Normative Significance of Pragmatic Genealogies 212 9.1 Genetic Fallacies and the Ways Around Them 213 9.2 Understanding Pointfulness and Avoiding Continuity Failures 221 9.3 The State of Nature as a Model of Local Problems 231 9.4 Contested Needs and the Conception of the Agent 236 10. Ideas Worth Having 243 10.1 Grounding Socratic in Pragmatic Inquiry 243 10.2 Pursuing Philosophy as a Humanistic Discipline 244 Bibliography 249 Index 275 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi Acknowledgements This book builds on a series of published articles, and I am grateful to the publishers for permission to draw on them here. Chapter 3 incorporates material that appeared as ‘From Paradigm-Based Explanation to Pragmatic Genealogy’, Mind, 129, no. 515 (2020), 683–714, by permission of Oxford University Press, Copyright © 2019. Chapter 5 draws on ‘Nietzsche’s Pragmatic Genealogy of Justice’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 25, no. 4 (2017), 727–49, by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd., Copyright © 2017, and ‘Nietzsche’s English Genealogy of Truthfulness’, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 103, no. 2 (2021), by permission of Walter de Gruyter, Copyright © 2021. Parts of Chapter 6 echo ‘Genealogy and Knowledge-First Epistemology: A Mismatch?’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 69, no. 274 (2019), 100–20, by permission of Oxford University Press, Copyright © 2019. Chapter 7 is based on ‘Williams’s Pragmatic Genealogy and Self-Effacing Functionality’, Philosophers’ Imprint, 18, no. 17 (2018), 1–20, by permission of Michigan Publishing, Copyright © 2018, while Chapter 9 builds on ‘How Genealogies Can Affect the Space of Reasons’, Synthese, 197, no. 5 (2020), 2005–27, by permission of Springer Nature, Copyright © 2018. The quotation from Sally Haslanger on page xiii is from ‘Social Meaning and Philosophical Method’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 88 (2014): 16–37. These articles grew out of a dissertation written under the auspices of Markus Wild and Martin Kusch. I am grateful to them for their unfailing support and generosity as well as for encouraging me to write this book, which would not be the same without their incisive comments and suggestions. Many of the ideas presented in the book took shape over years of stimulating discussion with Damian Cueni, who did a great deal to sharpen and enrich them along the way. I have also been fortunate to have such a supportive editor in Peter Momtchiloff and to receive such thoughtful comments from two anonymous readers for Oxford University Press. While working on this book, I have benefited on several occasions from the help and advice of Hanjo Glock, Simon Blackburn, and Amia Srinivasan, whose influence on my thinking has been profound. My debt to Miranda Fricker’s work will be evident in the many places where I discuss it, but not the generosity with which she provided comments on the third chapter and encouraged the project thereafter. The bulk of the book was written in the supportive atmosphere of the Philosophy Seminar of the University of Basel, and I am indebted to Anne OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi x Meylan, Basil Müller, Brigitte Hilmer, Christine Sievers, Deborah Mühlebach, Friederike Zenker, Gunnar Hindrichs, Hubert Schnüriger, Jan Müller, Jelscha Schmid, Julia Wentzlaff, Marie van Loon, Mario Schärli, Melanie Sarzano, Michael O’Leary, Muriel Leuenberger, Nico Müller, and Thomas Jacobi for discussions of early versions of the material. I am also grateful for the help I received from Alexander Fischer, Anna Lettieri-Beck, Bettina Huber, Dominik Renner, Emil Angehrn, Marc Sommer, Nadja Heller Higy, Pietro Snider, Samuel Tscharner, Simone Chambers, Susanne Kress, and Susanne Schmetkamp. A particular debt is to Rebekka Hufendiek, who, as a fellow explorer of geneal- ogies, accompanied the book from its inception. I owe the opportunity to explore the ideas that became this book to the Swiss National Science Foundation’s wonderful career-funding schemes. An Excellent Junior Researcher Grant of the Max Geldner Foundation then enabled me to concentrate on revising the manu- script for another year before finalizing it in the vibrant intellectual environment of Wolfson College, Oxford. It does take a village to write a book, and I have received help and suggestions at various junctures from Adrian Moore, Alexander Prescott-Couch, Andreas Cremonini, Andreas Müller, Andreas Urs Sommer, Andrew Huddleston, Anna Goppel, Ariane Schneck, Benedict Vischer, Brian Leiter, Cheryl Misak, Chris Janaway, Claus Beisbart, Constantine Sandis, Daniel James, David Owen, David Wörner, Dominique Kuenzle, Emma Tieffenbach, Francesco Testini, Friedemann Bieber, Georg Brun, Hallvard Lillehammer, Herman Cappelen, Jennifer Marušic, Joachim Schulte, Johannes Steizinger, John Brennan, John Skorupski, Joseph Schear, Katherina Kinzel, Katia Saporiti, Ken Gemes, Livia von Samson- Himmelstjerna, Lorenzo Greco, Manuel Dries, Marcel van Ackeren, Marco Toscano, Mario Brandhorst, Mark Wrathall, Markus Stepanians, Michael Hannon, Michel Meliopoulos, Mindaugas Gilautis, Nicholas Smyth, Nicole Rathgeb, Nikhil Krishnan, Olivier Massin, Patricia Williams, Paul de Font-Reaulx, Paul Roth, Paul Russell, Peter Kail, Philip Pettit, Philippe Queloz, Raphael van Riel, Robin McKenna, Ruth Millikan, and Scott Jenkins.
Recommended publications
  • EPISTEMOLOGY and PHILOSOPHY of MIND HISTORICAL Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements, No

    EPISTEMOLOGY and PHILOSOPHY of MIND HISTORICAL Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements, No

    PHILOSOPHY • EPISTEMOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY OF MIND HISTORICAL Historical Dictionaries of Religions, Philosophies, and Movements, No. 70 DICTIONARY OF BAERGEN Epistemology Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that investigates our beliefs, evidence, and claims of knowledge. It is one of the core areas of philosophy and is relevant to an DICTIONARY astonishingly broad range of issues and situations. Epistemological issues arise when HISTORICAL we recognize that there is a fact of the matter but we do not know what it is; when we wonder about the future, the past, or distant places; and when we seek answers in the sciences and even in our entertainment (for example, murder mysteries and comedies of misunderstanding). OF Epistemology Historical Dictionary of Epistemology provides an overview of this field of study and its theories, concepts, and personalities. It begins with a chronology of important events (from 385 BC to AD 2005) and is followed by an introduction, which gives a historical overview. The book contains more than 500 entries covering notable concepts, theo- ries, arguments, publications, issues, and philosophers and concludes with an exten- sive bibliography of historical and contemporary epistemological works. Students and those who want to acquaint themselves with epistemology will be greatly aided by this book. RALPH BAERGEN is a professor of philosophy at Idaho State University. For orders and information please contact the publisher SCARECROW PRESS, INC. A wholly owned subsidiary of ISBN-13: 978-0-8108-5518-2 The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. ISBN-10: 0-8108-5518-6 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200 Lanham, Maryland 20706 1-800-462-6420 • fax 717-794-3803 www.scarecrowpress.com RALPH BAERGEN HDEpistempologyLITH.indd 1 6/12/06 1:07:32 PM 06-236_01_Front.qxd 6/12/06 12:54 PM Page i HISTORICAL DICTIONARIES OF RELIGIONS, PHILOSOPHIES, AND MOVEMENTS Jon Woronoff, Series Editor 1.
  • The Principle of Inferential Justification, Scepticism, and Causal Beliefs Corbf, Josep E Paginas: 377

    The Principle of Inferential Justification, Scepticism, and Causal Beliefs Corbf, Josep E Paginas: 377

    _L PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES, 10 31 Skepticism, 2000 ! j The Principle of Inferential l ·1 Justification, Scepticism, I ' and Causal Beliefs Josep E. Corbi There is an argumentative route that begins with a platitude like: The Principle of Inferential J ustification (PIJ): "To be justi­ fied in believing one proposition P on the basis of another prop­ osition E, one must be (1) justified in believing E, (2) justified in believing that E makes probable P" .1 and ends up by challenging our capacity to justifiedly believing propositions concerning physical objects and past events. This is, at least, what Richard Fumerton claims, but, like Christopher Hookway,2 I doubt that there is such a route. The plausibility of PIJ in ordinary contexts relies, according to Hookway, on a number of assumptions like, for instance, the need to distinguish between salient information and background view of things. The problem is that Fumerton's sceptical route requires the application of PIJ not only to particular beliefs but to broad j_ 378 J osEP E. CoRBf epistemic classes of beliefs and, as Hookway tries to emphasize, this strategy is ultimately inconsistent with the need to maintain the aforementioned distinction and, in general, with the assump­ tions that rendered PIJ plausible in the first place. This worry is not, on the other hand, unconnected with the conviction that, contrary to what Fumerton claims, the notion of justification is inextricably associated with our needs to make normative judge­ ments. As Hookway puts it, " ... None who was not sensitive to our needs to make normative judgments could understand or share our concepts of rational belief or cruelty; they would not be able to)s·ee how the terms should be applied to wholly novel kinds of cas~s for they would lack the sense of what is !evaluatively simi­ lar' which is required for doing this." 3 In the coming pages, I seek to show how Hookway's challenge may find additional motivation in a reflection on the content of a certain kind of belief, namely: beliefs about particular causal pro­ cesses.
  • There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning

    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning

    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning 1. Empiricism and the Question of Empirical Reasons Empiricism may be defined as the view there is no a priori justification for any synthetic claim. Critics object that empiricism cannot account for all the kinds of knowledge we seem to possess, such as moral knowledge, metaphysical knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and modal knowledge.1 In some cases, empiricists try to account for these types of knowledge; in other cases, they shrug off the objections, happily concluding, for example, that there is no moral knowledge, or that there is no metaphysical knowledge.2 But empiricism cannot shrug off just any type of knowledge; to be minimally plausible, empiricism must, for example, at least be able to account for paradigm instances of empirical knowledge, including especially scientific knowledge. Empirical knowledge can be divided into three categories: (a) knowledge by direct observation; (b) knowledge that is deductively inferred from observations; and (c) knowledge that is non-deductively inferred from observations, including knowledge arrived at by induction and inference to the best explanation. Category (c) includes all scientific knowledge. This category is of particular import to empiricists, many of whom take scientific knowledge as a sort of paradigm for knowledge in general; indeed, this forms a central source of motivation for empiricism.3 Thus, if there is any kind of knowledge that empiricists need to be able to account for, it is knowledge of type (c). I use the term “empirical reasoning” to refer to the reasoning involved in acquiring this type of knowledge – that is, to any instance of reasoning in which (i) the premises are justified directly by observation, (ii) the reasoning is non- deductive, and (iii) the reasoning provides adequate justification for the conclusion.
  • Foucault's Darwinian Genealogy

    Foucault's Darwinian Genealogy

    genealogy Article Foucault’s Darwinian Genealogy Marco Solinas Political Philosophy, University of Florence and Deutsches Institut Florenz, Via dei Pecori 1, 50123 Florence, Italy; [email protected] Academic Editor: Philip Kretsedemas Received: 10 March 2017; Accepted: 16 May 2017; Published: 23 May 2017 Abstract: This paper outlines Darwin’s theory of descent with modification in order to show that it is genealogical in a narrow sense, and that from this point of view, it can be understood as one of the basic models and sources—also indirectly via Nietzsche—of Foucault’s conception of genealogy. Therefore, this essay aims to overcome the impression of a strong opposition to Darwin that arises from Foucault’s critique of the “evolutionistic” research of “origin”—understood as Ursprung and not as Entstehung. By highlighting Darwin’s interpretation of the principles of extinction, divergence of character, and of the many complex contingencies and slight modifications in the becoming of species, this essay shows how his genealogical framework demonstrates an affinity, even if only partially, with Foucault’s genealogy. Keywords: Darwin; Foucault; genealogy; natural genealogies; teleology; evolution; extinction; origin; Entstehung; rudimentary organs “Our classifications will come to be, as far as they can be so made, genealogies; and will then truly give what may be called the plan of creation. The rules for classifying will no doubt become simpler when we have a definite object in view. We possess no pedigrees or armorial bearings; and we have to discover and trace the many diverging lines of descent in our natural genealogies, by characters of any kind which have long been inherited.
  • The Political Sociology and Anthropology of Evil: Tricksterology

    The Political Sociology and Anthropology of Evil: Tricksterology

    “Because evil is a term fraught with religious overtones, it tends to be under- theorized in our largely secular contemporary culture. Yet something like evil continues to exist, arguably more forcefully today than ever, so the authors of this timely and important book assert. They argue boldly that understanding the continued presence of evil in the modern world requires reconceiving evil through the mythical figure of the trickster, a cross-cultural symbol that repre- sents the perennial temptation to ignore the inherent limits of human thought and action. A wide ranging study that draws on multiple disciplinary sources, Horvath and Szakolczai illustrate forcefully how contemporary efforts to maximize productivity across all sectors of our social order violates the ethos of limits, and only liberates further the forces of destruction. In an age of increasingly mindless (and therefore runaway) processes, we would do well to heed the message of this significant study.” – Gilbert Germain, Professor of Political Thought at the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada “A complex and timely meditation on the nature of evil in human societies, reaching back into the distant past – while not all will agree with its methods or conclusions, this book offers provocative ideas for consideration by anthro- pologists, philosophers, and culture historians.” – David Wengrow, Professor of Comparative Archaeology, University College London, UK “This book offers an original and thought-provoking engagement with a problem for which we still lack adequate perspectives: the disastrous experience of advanced modernity with what we can provisionally call demonic power.” – Johann Arnason, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, La Trobe University, Australia “Horvath and Szakolczai provide a remarkable service in bringing the neglec- ted figure of the trickster into the spotlight.
  • Cheryl Misak Is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. She Is the Author of Cambridge Pragmafis

    Cheryl Misak Is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. She Is the Author of Cambridge Pragmafis

    Cheryl Misak is professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto. She is the author of Cambridge Pragmasm: From Peirce and James to Ramsey and Wigenstein (2016). Her biography of Frank Ramsey (Frank Ramsey: A Sheer Excess of Powers) will be published by Oxford University Press in 2019. Edited by Sam Dresser. 1,200 words | source: aeon.co | License: CC‐BY‐ND 4.0 | 07 August, 2018 | download/print PDF Charles Sanders Peirce c. 1880. Photo by Gey Images hat is it for something to be true? One might think that the answer is obvious. A true belief gets reality right: our words correspond to objects and relaons in the world. But making sense of that idea involves one in ever more difficult workarounds to intractable problems. For instance, how do we account for the statement ‘It did not rain in Toronto on 20 May 2018’? There don’t seem to be negave facts in the world that might correspond to the belief. What about ‘Every human is mortal’? There are more humans – past, present and future – than individual people in the world. (That is, a generalisaon like ‘All Fs’ goes beyond the exisng world of Fs, because ‘All Fs’ stretches into the future.) What about ‘Torture is wrong’? What are the objects in the world that might correspond to that? And what good is it explaining truth in terms of independently exisng objects and facts, since we have access only to our interpretaons of them? Pragmasm can help us with some of these issues. The 19th‐century American philosopher Charles Peirce, one of the founders of pragmasm, explained the core of this tradion beaufully: ‘We must not begin by talking of pure ideas, – vagabond thoughts that tramp the public roads without any human habitaon, – but must begin with men and their conversaon.’ Truth is a property of our beliefs.
  • Disagreement Without Transparency: Some Bleak Thoughts 11 Entailed by That Set

    Disagreement Without Transparency: Some Bleak Thoughts 11 Entailed by That Set

    PART I The Debate between Conciliatory and Steadfast Theorists A. Steadfastness 1 Disagreement Without Transparency Some Bleak Thoughts 1 J o h n H a w t h o r n e a n d A m i a S r i n i v a s a n 1 Dashed hopes The question at the centre of this volume is: what ought one to do, epistemically speaking, when faced with a disagreement? Faced with this question, one naturally hopes for an answer that is principled, general, and intuitively satisfying. We want to argue that this is a vain hope. Our claim is that a satisfying answer will prove elusive because of non-transparency : that there is no condition such that we are always in a position to know whether it obtains. When we take seriously that there is nothing, including our own minds, to which we have assured access, the familiar project of formulating epistemic norms is destabilized. In this paper, we will show how this plays out in the special case of disagreement. But we believe that a larger lesson can ultimately be extracted from our discussion: namely, that non-transparency threatens our hope for fully satisfying epistemic norms in general. To explore how non-transparency limits our prospects for formulating a satisfying disagreement norm, we will put forward what we call the Knowledge Disagreement Norm (KDN). This norm falls out of a broadly knowledge-centric epistemology: that is, an epistemology that maintains that knowledge is the telos of our epistemic activity. We will then explore the ways in which KDN might be thought to be defective.
  • Two Uses of Genealogy: Michel Foucault and Bernard Williams 90 1

    Two Uses of Genealogy: Michel Foucault and Bernard Williams 90 1

    the practices which we might use genealogy to inquire into. Of course, 1 these two thinkers each used genealogy in very different senses insofar as I Chapter 5 Nietzsche's genealogy was an attempt to undermine and subvert certain! modern moral practices whereas Williams' was an attempt to vindicate i Two uses of genealogy: Michel Foucault and and strengthen certain modern moral notions concerning the value ofl Bernard Williams practices of truthfulness. Although the minimal conclusion that Foucault's genealogy differs I Colin Koopman from Nietzsche's and Williams' genealogy may not be all that surprising" what is nonetheless revealing is an exploration of the specific terms oni which these varying conceptions of genealogy can be differentiated. Such! an exploration particularly helps us recognize the complex relationship I The notion CMn1lWn to all the work that I have done . .. is that of problematization. between genealogy and critique. It is my claim that Foucault's project dif-i -Michel Foucault, 1984, 'The Concern/or Truth' fers from more normatively ambitious uses of genealogy and that muchI i light is shed on the way in which Foucault used genealogy as a critical appa­ ratus by explicating this difference. Foucault used genealogy to develop a i Michel Foucault's final description of his genealogical and archaeological form of critique that did not rely on the traditional normative ambitions inquiries in terms of the concept of 'problematization' is, most commen­ which have motivated so much of modern philosophy. Foucault, perhaps
  • Philosophical Genealogy: a User's Guide

    Philosophical Genealogy: a User's Guide

    Philosophical Genealogy: A User's Guide MPhil Stud Victor Braga Weber University College London 2019 1 I, Victor Braga Weber, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. Victor Braga Weber, August 28, 2019 2 Abstract In what way might our past effect our current philosophical outlook? More particularly, is there any philosophical value in investigating the contexts from which our philosophical outlooks originate? Analytic philosophy has historically responded antagonistically to the suggestion that looking to our past for answers is valuable. Yet some philosophers argue that the search for the origins of our philosophical outlook can be a source of great (meta-)philosophical insight. One such strand are the so-called genealogists. The purpose of this thesis is to understand what the promise of philosophical genealogy is, and whether it can be fulfilled. A challenge for my project is that the term ‘genealogy’ has been used to describe very different kinds of things (Section I). As such, I propose to develop a taxonomy of conceptions of genealogy (Section II), identify what the distinctive features of its members are (Section III), and what kind of insight they can give us (Section IV). In the final section (Section V), I return to the question of whether there is any non-trivial claim we can make about what features are shared by the disparate conceptions I identify. I argue that there is, but not at the level of a common philosophical method.
  • Herman Cappelen

    Herman Cappelen

    CSMN & IFIKK GEORG MORGENSTIERNES HUS HERMAN UNIVERSITY OF OSLO [email protected] CAPPELEN PRIMARY POSITIONS CHAIR PROFESSORSHIP, PHILOSOPHY 2020- University of Hong Kong PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2015-2020 University of Oslo PROFESSOR AND ARCHÉ CHAIR 2007 – 2015 University of St Andrews CUF LECTURER, FELLOW AND TUTOR IN PHILOSOPHY 2006-2007 Somerville College and University of Oxford ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2003 – 2005 Vassar College, New York ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1996 – 2003 Vassar College, New York LONG-TERM AFFILIATED POSITIONS PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY (0.2 TIME) 2015-2020 University of St Andrews RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CSMN AT OSLO 2007 – 2017 University of Oslo 1 QUALIFICATIONS PhD In Philosophy. 1996 University of California, Berkeley Dissertation: “The Metaphysics of Words and the Semantics of Quotation”. Advisors: C. Chihara, S. Neale, and J. Searle BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. 1989 Balliol College, Oxford MAJOR RESEARCH GRANTS • ConsciousBrainConcepts – 16 million NOK (PI: J. Storm, with collaborators from medicine, philosophy and psychology) (2019- 2022) • Toppforsk for Conceptual Engineering, 25 million NOK (with Øystein Linnebo and Camilla Serck-Hanssen and Rachel Sterken). (2016-21) • CSMN, Phase II: approximately 60 million NOK over 5 years from the Norwegian Research Council (with 7 other applicants). • Rethinking Mind and Meaning: £250,000 from AHRC (PI: Juan Gomez).(2014-16) • Intuitions and Philosophical Methodology: £990.000 from AHRC (PI: Jessica Brown) (2008-12) • Contextualism and Relativism: £990.000, from AHRC (PI: Crispin Wright).(2007-10) • CSMN Phase I: approximately 60 million (NOK) over 5 years from the Norwegian Research Council (with 7 other applicants).( 2007-12) • Shared Content: Awarded 4.5 million (NOK), from The Norwegian Research Council.
  • The Practical Origins of Ideas

    The Practical Origins of Ideas

    OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi The Practical Origins of Ideas Genealogy as Conceptual Reverse-Engineering MATTHIEU QUELOZ 1 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Matthieu Queloz 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, for commercial purposes, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. This is an open access publication, available online and distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. The pre-press of this publication was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of this licence should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020951579 ISBN 978–0–19–886870–5 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198868705.001.0001 Printed and bound in the UK by TJ Books Limited Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
  • ! ! ! Alienistmagazine5.Indd

    ! ! ! Alienistmagazine5.Indd

    1 2 3 4 5 Michael Rowland, from the series SPACE COW (2019) 6 7 8 Political power comes into being through the “grant,” by an absolutist authority, of “individual agency” – of socalled freedom of will – which requires a certain theatre, a performance on the part of the subject acknowledging that such a freedom is indeed within the grant of power in the fi rst place. This performance takes the form of an exchange in which a capital authority over life & death is abrogated into political subjectivity. By such dialectical sleight of hand, power indeed asserts its claim over, & obtains at a discount, the feudal rights to the freedom of the individual, & to the idea of freedom as such. Whatever thus presents itself as exempted or excluded from the domain of the political, is so solely upon this foundation. For this reason we must seek the alienation of the subject not in some social imposition from which it may one day be freed by a political act, but in its very ontology. The individual subject is itself nothing other than the signifi er of a constitutive alienation & the embodiment of an insidious contract from which there is no release. This is the true meaning of subjectivity, compromised at birth, weaned upon the most Oedipal of bad faiths. It bears the sign of the asymmetry of power inscribed upon its brow & dreams constantly of becoming its opposite. And from this stems every impulse & logic of resistance. 9 10 THE ALIENIST TENDENCY A breach has been made with the past, bringing into perspective new aspects of alienation: the morphology of a dead technical civilisation in the fi ctional process of resurrection! And we are returning again to the “honesty of thought & feeling”? This holographic world is being shaken out of its torpor by a four-billion- year-old technology.