DOCSLIB.ORG

A Weakly Pragmatic Defense of Authoritatively Normative Reasons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NIHILISM AND ARGUMENTATION: A WEAKLY PRAGMATIC DEFENSE OF AUTHORITATIVELY NORMATIVE REASONS Scott Simmons A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2020 Committee: Michael Weber, Advisor Verner Bingman Graduate Faculty Representative Christian Coons Molly Gardner Sara Worley ii ABSTRACT Michael Weber, Advisor Global normative error theorists argue that there are no authoritative normative reasons of any kind. Thus, according to the error theory, the normative demands of law, prudence, morality, etc. are of no greater normative significance than the most absurd standards we can conceive of. Because the error theory is a radically revisionary view, theorists who accept it only do so because they maintain the view is supported by the best available arguments. In this dissertation, I argue that error theory entails that it is impossible that there are successful arguments for anything, thus defenses of error theory are in tension with the view, itself. My argument begins with the observation that it is natural to think a successful argument is one that gives us an authoritative normative reason to believe its conclusion. Error theory entails that there are no authoritative reasons to believe anything. What are arguments for error theory even supposed to accomplish? Error theorists may respond that their arguments are solely intended to get at the truth. I argue that this reply fails. One problem is that it cannot make sense of why in practice even error theorists still want evidence for the premises of sound arguments. Error theorists may try to capture the importance of evidence by appeal to our social norms or goals. I argue that this answer is indistinguishable from the view that our social practices or goals generate authoritative normative requirements. Thus, attempts to defend the coherence of arguing for error theory are either unacceptably revisionary or they are inconsistent with error theory. While this result is a problem for error theory, it seems consistent with highly relativistic accounts of normative authority. In the future, I plan to explore whether my core arguments can be extended to defend authoritative, universal scope normative requirements (e.g. of prudence and morality). iii To Colin Anderson and Caroline Christoff, whose years of mentorship and friendship have shaped my life in more ways than any of us know. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many people for their support and guidance on this dissertation. I would like to thank my committee. Michael Weber helped me succinctly express and clarify my ideas. Christian Coons gave me powerful objections, and pressed me to never settle for less than my best work. Molly Gardner guided me in the development of the overall structure of this project and its individual chapters, and provided an endless fount of emotional support. Sara Worley gave me insightful feedback and critiques. A special thanks to Terence Cuneo. Before he joined my committee, Terence had already paved the way for this project. If I have succeeded in advancing this intellectual conversation, it is largely through his feedback and vision. Innumerable thanks are also in order to my communities, especially the Bowling Green State University Department of Philosophy. Thanks to my peers who helped me develop my writing and ideas. A special thanks to those of you who did so as part of our graduate student writing group: Ben Bryan, Alex Rosenberg, Jacob Sparks, Tatiana Gracyk, Marcus Schultz- Bergin, Vassiliki Leontis, and others. Our department colloquia offered an invaluable forum for feedback, and I thank all of you who attended one of my talks. Thanks to my senior peers for being both important role models and friends: Mark Wells, Jacob Sparks, David Faraci, Peter Jaworski, and others. While I thank everyone in the department for providing a fertile environment for philosophical discussion and growth, I want to call special attention to Stephen Dundon, Mark Herman, Colin Manning, and Will Lugar for providing such an environment at home, as my housemates. A special thanks also to Ryan Fischbeck for years of productive (and engaging) conversation. Thanks to Michael Bradie for his firm push for me to finish. Thanks to Margy DeLuca for all that she has done to make sure that this project (and myself) stay on track. Thanks to those philosophers who provided me with feedback at the 2019 session of the Rocky Mountain Ethics Congress. v My deepest gratitude to my beloved Rebecca Schleider, for the innumerable ways in which she has shown me what a true partnership is like. Rebecca has edited my work for me, served as a sounding board, and generally astounds me with her care and compassion. Finally, thanks to me family—Michael, Alice and David Simmons—for making this whole thing possible. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER ONE: A NEW DEFENSE OF THE INCOHERENCE OBJECTION TO METANORMATIVE ERROR THEORY ............................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Introducing the Incoherence Objection ................................................................ 7 1.3 Metanormative Error Theory ............................................................................... 10 1.3.1 The relationship between moral error theory and metanormative error theory..................................................................................................... 28 1.4 My strategy for defending the Incoherence Objection ........................................ 30 1.4.1 Argumentation and Reasons: why argumentative success depends on reason giving ............................................................................................. 34 1.4.1.1 Mere Persuasion & Argumentative Persuasion ..................... 37 1.4.1.2 True Persuasion & True Argumentative Persuasion .............. 38 1.4.1.3 Sound Argumentative Persuasion .......................................... 38 1.5 Soundness Suffices and the Problem of Dialectical Fallacies ............................. 43 1.5.1 Against biting the bullet on begging the question: Epistemic Agency and Philosophical Skepticism ........................................................................ 48 1.5.2 Why biting the bullet on begging the question is inconsistent with error theorist’s own perspective ..................................................................... 50 1.5.2.1 Defense of No Easy Defeaters ............................................... 51 1.6 Soundness Suffices and the Technology of Truth-Seeking ................................. 60 vii 1.7 Objection & Response: do my arguments beg the question against Soundness Suffices?................................................................................................... 68 1.8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 71 CHAPTER TWO: HOW SOUNDNESS SUFFICES UNDERMINES GENEALOGICAL DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................. 73 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 73 2.1.1 Premise 1 background: genealogical debunking arguments ................. 74 2.1.2 Premise 1 background: epistemic miracles ........................................... 78 2.1.3 Defense of P1: why genealogical debunking arguments are still of some argumentative merit in epistemic miracle worlds ................................ 82 2.1.3.1 P1 and epistemic humility ...................................................... 85 2.1.4 Premise Two: if Soundness Suffices is adequately motivated, then given Soundness Suffices, debunking arguments are not at all successful in actual epistemic miracle worlds ................................................................. 86 2.2 Objections & Replies ........................................................................................... 98 2.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 103 CHAPTER THREE: FORMALITY’S FINE AND THE TOO MANY NORMS PROBLEM ............................................................................................................................. 105 3.1 Formality’s Fine: another way to resist the Incoherence Objection .................... 105 3.2 Against Formality’s Fine ..................................................................................... 112 3.2.1 Formality’s Fine and the Too Many Norms Problem ........................... 114 3.2.1.1 Defense of P1 ......................................................................... 115 3.2.1.2 Defense of P2 ......................................................................... 120 viii 3.2.1.3 Conclusion One: The Too Many Norms Problem defended . 123 3.2.1.4 Defense of P3 ......................................................................... 124 3.2.1.4.1 First Parallel: normative privileging ....................... 126 3.2.1.4.2 Second Parallel: practicality and action guidance .. 127 3.2.1.4.3 Third Parallel: the possibilities of error and internalizing the wrong norms ............................................... 127 3.2.1.4.4 Fourth Parallel: strikingly similar mind- dependent accounts ...............................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Philosophy of A.J. Ayer, with Replies 55 1

    The Philosophy of A.J. Ayer, with Replies 55 1

    TABLE OF CONTENTS FRONTISPIECE iv INTRODUCTION vii FOUNDER'S GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LIBRARY OF LIVING PHILOSOPHERS ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii PREFACE XVll PART ONE: INTELLECTUAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A.J. AYER 1 Facsimile of Ayer's Handwriting 2 A.J. Ayer: My Mental Development 3 Still More of My Life 41 PART TWO: DESCRIPTIVE AND CRITICAL ESSAYS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF A.J. AYER, WITH REPLIES 55 1. Evandro Agazzi: Varieties of Meaning and Truth 57 2. James Campbell: Ayer and Pragmatism 83 REPLY TO JAMES CAMPBELL 105 3. David S. Clarke, Jr.: On Judging Sufficiency of Evidence 109 REPLY TO DAVID S. CLARKE, JR. 125 4. Michael Dummett: The Metaphysics of Verificationism 128 REPLY TO MICHAEL DUMMETT 149 5. Elizabeth R. Eames: A.J. Ayer's Philosophical Method 157 REPLY TO ELIZABETH R. EAMES 175 6. John Foster: The Construction of the Physical World 179 REPLY TO JOHN FOSTER 198 xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS 7. Paul Gochet: On Sir Alfred Ayer's Theory of Truth 201 REPLY TO PAUL GOCHET 220 8. Martin Hollis: Man as a Subject for Social Science 225 REPLY TO MARTIN HOLLIS 237 9. Ted Honderich: Causation: One Thing Just Happens After Another 243 REPLY TO TED HONDERICH 271 lO. Tscha Hung: Ayer and the Vienna Circle 279 REPLY TO TSCHA HUNG 301 1l. Peter Kivy: Oh Boy! You Too!: Aesthetic Emotivism Reexamined 309 REPLY TO PETER KIVY 326 12. Arne Naess: Ayer on Metaphysics, a Critical Commentary by a Kind of Metaphysician 329 REPLY TO ARNE NAESS 341 13. D.J. O'Connor: Ayer on Free Will and Determinism 347 REPLY TO D.J.
  • Analytic Transcendental Arguments

    Analytic Transcendental Arguments

    Analytic Transcendental Arguments Jonathan Bennett From: P. Bieri et al. (eds), Transcendental Arguments and Science (Reidel: Dordrecht, 1979), pp. 45–64. 1. Locke on the objective world nothing could follow about what exists other than myself. Can we strengthen the conclusion by strengthening the Someone who thinks that his own inner states are the basis premises? Could a more contentful belief about an outer for all his other knowledge and beliefs may wonder how world be defended as explaining certain further facts about anything can be securely built on this foundation. He need my inner states, e.g. about the order or regularity which not actually doubt that his own edifice is securely founded, they exhibit? Locke does argue like that, but unfortunately though he may pretend to have doubts about this in order he pollutes all his premises—which should be purely about to consider how they could be resolved if they did occur. inner states—with an admixture of statements about the This person is a ‘Cartesian sceptic’. which implies that he outer world; for instance, he uses the premise that men is not sceptical at all. He is untouched by such crude English with no eyes have no visual states. But that seems to be moves as Locke’s protest that ‘nobody can in earnest be so an accidental defect in Locke’s treatment. He could have sceptical’, or Moore’s holding up his hand as proof that there cleansed his premises, as Hume nearly did, so that they is a physical object. Such intellectual bullying is irrelevant spoke only of the order, coherence etc.
  • Argumentation Theory and Practical Discourse

    Argumentation Theory and Practical Discourse

    Ulrich's Bimonthly 1 Werner Ulrich's Home Page: Ulrich's Bimonthly Formerly "Picture of the Month" November-December 2009 Reflections on Reflective Practice (6b/7) HOME Part 6b: Argumentation theory and practical discourse – Habermas 2 Previous | Next WER NER ULRICH'S BIO We are still engaged in an effort to review the practical philosophies of For a hyperlinked overview of all issues of "Ulrich's PUBLICATIONS Aristotle, Kant, and Habermas, to see what we can learn from them for the Bimonthly" and the previous "Picture of the Month" series, READINGS ON CSH purpose of grounding reflective practice philosophically. The discussions of see the site map DOWNLOADS Aristotle and Kant were detailed but still found place within a single essay PDF file HARD COPIES each. The current discussion of Habermas, however, takes more space and I CRITICAL SYSTEMS have therefore decided to split it into three parts (see the right-hand note). HEURISTICS (CSH) Note: This is the second of three parts reviewing the Before we continue with the second part, it may help returning readers if I CST FOR PROFESSIONALS implications of the work of & CITIZENS briefly sum up where we stand; should you be new to the Bimonthly, I Habermas for reflective professional practice. The first A TRIBUTE TO C.W. CHURCHMAN recommend you read the previous Part 6a/7 to facilitate your reading of the part appeared in the Bimonthly of September-October 2009; LUG ANO SUMMER SCHOOL present Part 6b/7 (click on the "Previous" button at the top right of this page). the third and concluding part is planned for a later ULRICH'S BIMONTHLY Bimonthly.
  • Barry Stroud 1935-2019

    Barry Stroud 1935-2019

    BARRY STROUD 1935-2019 ized in frame of the WISDOM Journal. I am in great grief that we have lost such an important philosopher and member of our Editorial Board. Stroud passed away on Friday, August 9, 2019 of brain cancer1. He earned his B.A. from the University of Toronto and his Ph.D. from Harvard University2. While most popular for his work in epistemology and philosophical incredu- lity - just as his compositions on such logicians as David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein - Stroud's general heritage, fellow philosophers state, was his capacity to see the comprehensive view and get to the core of reasoning. Stroud was The loss of Barry Stroud affected the com- a provocative scholar. As a thinker, Stroud be- munity of philosophers in a very harsh way. One came an adult during when the overall Western of the great philosophers of the past half-century frame of mind was that philosophical inquiries was a key member of the editorial board at the could be replied by the sociologies, and he tested WISDOM journal. Stroud‟s cooperation with the those thoughts. WISDOM journal started the day the journal was Stroud's own work indicated another way: found, in 2013, with the help of his strong he connected without a moment's delay with in- friendship with academician Georg Brutian, the quiries in metaphysics, epistemology, the philos- Founder and Chief Editor of the periodi- ophy of our intellect, the hypothesis of signifi- cal WISDOM and founder-president of the Inter- cant worth, and more, declining to offer thought national Research Institute for Metaphilosophy, to any alleged limits between these subjects or to Transformational Logic and Theory of Argumen- concede to the supposed ability of those with a tation at Khachatur Abovian Armenian State specialist‟s command of them.
  • 1 the Disjunctive Conception of Experience As Material for A

    1 the Disjunctive Conception of Experience As Material for A

    The disjunctive conception of experience as material for a transcendental argument John McDowell University of Pittsburgh 1. In Individuals1 and The Bounds of Sense,2 P. F. Strawson envisaged transcendental arguments as responses to certain sorts of scepticism. An argument of the sort Strawson proposed was to establish a general claim about the world, a claim supposedly brought into doubt by sceptical reflections. Such an argument was to work by showing that unless things were as they were said to be in the claim that the argument purported to establish, it would not be possible for our thought or experience to have certain characteristics, not regarded as questionable even by someone who urges sceptical doubts. So the argument’s conclusion was to be displayed as the answer to a “How possible?” question. That has a Kantian ring, and the feature of such arguments that the formulation fits is the warrant for calling them “transcendental”. Barry Stroud responded to Strawson on the following lines.3 Perhaps we can see our way to supposing that if our thought or experience is to have certain characteristics it does have (for instance that experience purports to be of a world of objects independent of us), we must conceive the world in certain ways (for instance as containing objects that continue to exist even while we are not perceiving them). But it is quite another matter to suggest that by reflecting about how it is possible that our thought and experience are as they are, we could establish conclusions not just about how we must conceive the world but about how the world must be.
  • An Anthology of Philosophical Studies

    An Anthology of Philosophical Studies

    Introduction AN ANTHOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Edited by PATRICIA HANNA ADRIANNE L. MCEVOY PENELOPE VOUTSINA ATINER 2006 1 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies 2 Introduction Athens Institute for Education and Research 2006 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies Edited by Patricia Hanna Adrianne L. McEvoy Penelope Voutsina 3 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies PUBLISHED BY ATHENS INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 14 Solomou Street, 10683 Athens, Greece Tel. +30 210 36.34.210 Fax +30 210.36.34.209 Email: [email protected] URL: www.atiner.gr This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of the Athens Institute for Education and Research. First Published: 2006 ISBN: 978-960-6672-11-8 Typeset, printed and binding by Theta Co. 4 Introduction Table of Contents List of Contributors i Introduction 1 Voutsina, P. PART I EPISTEMOLOGY 1. Imagination in Descartes’ Skepticism 7 Scholl, A. 2. Descartes on Sensations and Ideas of Sensations 17 Cunning, D. 3. The Myth of Hume’s Compatibilism 33 Morris, E.W. 4. From Contextualism to Skepticism 43 Wilburn, R. 5. The Puzzle of Self-Knowledge 51 Voutsina, P. 6. Unconfined Rationality: A Normative yet Realistic Model of 59 Inference Morado, R. and Savion, L. PART II METAPHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 7. Language as Community Property: What’s Wrong with 75 Chomsky’s Individualism? Hanna, P. 8. What do Concepts Consist of? The Role of Geometric and 93 Proprioceptive Information in Categorization Dellantonio, S. and Pastore, L.
  • Developments in Argumentation Theory

    Developments in Argumentation Theory

    Developments in Argumentation Theory Frans H van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, University of Amsterdam Abstract In this paper, a survey is provided of the state of the art in argumentation theory. Some of the most significant approaches of the past two decades are discussed: Informal Logic, the formal theory of fallacies, formal dialectics, pragma-dialectics, Radical Argumentativism, and the modem revival of rhetoric. The survey is based not only on books, but also on papers published in professional joumals or included in conference proceedings. 1. Introduction Argumentation is a speech act complex aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. According to a prominent handbook definition, it is a verbal and social activity of reason carried out by a speaker or writer concerned with increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for a listener or reader; the con­ stellation of propositions brought to bear in this endeavour is intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before a rational judge.\ Argumentation theory is the name given to the (systematic results of the) study of this discourse phenomenon. Argumentation theory studies the production, analysis and evaluation of argumen­ tation with a view of developing adequate criteria for determining the validity of the point of departure and presentational layout of argumentative discourse. The constellation of propositions advanced in argumentation is often referred to by the term argument, particularly by logicians and philosophers. This may lead to confusion because (in English) the word 'argument' has various meanings. Apart from (a) a reason and (b) a logical inference of a conclusion from one or more premisses, 'argument' can also denote (c) a discussion and (d) a quarrel.
  • Moral Fallibility and Moral Smugness

    Moral Fallibility and Moral Smugness

    This is a repository copy of Gibbardian Humility: Moral Fallibility and Moral Smugness. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/93155/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Lenman, J.W. (2014) Gibbardian Humility: Moral Fallibility and Moral Smugness. Journal of Value Inquiry, 48 (2). 235 - 245. ISSN 0022-5363 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-014-9420-6 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 1 1 Gibbardian Humility: Moral Fallibility and Moral Smugness This is my version of a paper published in The Journal of Value Inquiry 48, 2014, pp. 235-245. DOI 10.1007/s10790-014-9420-6. Please refer to the latter when quoting or citing Abstract Andy Egan objects to quasi-realism that quasi-realists are committed to a form of smugness: when confronted with cases of fundamental disagreement, the quasi-realist must see him/herself as immune to moral error in a way that others are not.
  • What Should a Normative Theory of Argumentation Look Like?

    What Should a Normative Theory of Argumentation Look Like?

    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 11 May 18th, 9:00 AM - May 21st, 5:00 PM What should a normative theory of argumentation look like? Lilian Bermejo-Luque Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Bermejo-Luque, Lilian, "What should a normative theory of argumentation look like?" (2016). OSSA Conference Archive. 122. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/122 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Should a Normative Theory of Argumentation Look Like? LILIAN BERMEJO-LUQUE Department of Philosophy I University of Granada Edificio de Psicología. Campus de Cartuja, s/n. Granada 18071 Spain [email protected] Abstract: Even if we identify the goals of normative theories of argumentation with the goals of a theory of justification, we can either focus on the conditions for considering that a target-claim is justified, or on characterizing justification from the point of view of the practice of arguing. I analyze the rewards and shortcomings of both views and their corresponding criteriological and transcendental accounts of the sort of objectivity that good argumentation is able to provide. Keywords: criteriological conception, justification LNMA, rationality, reasonableness, reasons, transcendental conception, wrong kind of reasons problem 1. Introduction Is arguing well always something reasonable, rational or justified? I would like to answer this question by considering two ways of thinking of the relationship between argumentation and reasonableness/ rationality/ justification that mirror two very different views about what a theory of argumentation should look like.
  • Making Reality Bite: a Peircean Approach to Epistemology

    Making Reality Bite: a Peircean Approach to Epistemology

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Commons@Waikato Letting Reality Bite: A Peircean Approach to Teaching Undergraduate Epistemology Catherine Legg, University of Waikato 1) Introduction: Academic philosophers who have a research passion for Peirce and who suspect that he has the potential to revolutionize philosophy sometimes wonder how they might bring his ideas more into the teaching of undergraduates − where he frequently doesn’t feature at all, except in the US where a token coverage of his early papers seems to result largely from patriotism. Much could be said about specific Peircean ideas and theories which, if included in philosophy curricula, would expand and complicate the vision of philosophy to which students are exposed, and would most likely be greatly appreciated by many who feel troubled and undermined by a sense of narrowness in the current curriculum which they lack the resources to articulate.1 Just a few examples are Peirce’s understanding of pragmatism as a faith in the capacity of experimentation to deliver stable answers to our questions which − in ironic contrast to an understanding of pragmatism as a claim of ‘anything-goes’ − is in fact the most complete form of realism, his belief in final causes and its potential to resurrect ethical realism against positivism’s lingering nihilist onslaught, his distinctive objective idealism, so illuminatingly intermingled with his vision of (mathematical, logical and metaphysical) ‘continuity’, his belief in real chance, and his most elegant and ambitious theory of signs. Having said all this, however, in my opinion the most valuable legacy Peirce has given me as a teacher of undergraduate philosophy is not any of his theories but one of his instructions.
  • Law, Morality, and Everything Else: General Jurisprudence As a Branch of Metanormative Inquiry* David Plunkett and Scott Shapiro

    Law, Morality, and Everything Else: General Jurisprudence As a Branch of Metanormative Inquiry* David Plunkett and Scott Shapiro

    Law, Morality, and Everything Else: General Jurisprudence as a Branch of Metanormative Inquiry* David Plunkett and Scott Shapiro In this article, we propose a novel account of general jurisprudence by situating it within the broader project of metanormative inquiry. We begin by showing how general jurisprudence is parallel to another well-known part of that project, namely, metaethics. We then argue that these projects all center on the same task: explain- ing how a certain part of thought, talk, and reality fits into reality overall. Metalegal inquiry aims to explain how legal thought, talk, and reality fit into reality. General jurisprudence is the part of metalegal inquiry that focuses on universal legal thought, talk, and reality. The part of legal philosophy that is standardly known as general jurispru- dence is often glossed as the study of “the nature of law.” General juris- prudence isn’taboutthenatureofthelawoftheUnitedStates,theUnited Kingdom, or the Roman Empire; it is about the nature of law in general. In many contexts, this description helpfully conveys the gist of general juris- prudence. Taken literally, however, it is deeply misleading. * Earlier versions of this article were presented at Boston University, Dartmouth Col- lege, University of Girona, Luiss University, University of Michigan, The Ohio State Univer- sity, The University of Oxford, Stanford University, The University of Sydney, University College London, Uppsala University, and Yale University. Thanks to everyone who partic- ipated in those sessions. Thanks
  • New Directions for Transcendental Claims. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 93 (2)

    New Directions for Transcendental Claims. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 93 (2)

    Giladi, Paul (2016) New Directions for Transcendental Claims. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 93 (2). pp. 212-231. ISSN 0165-9227 Downloaded from: https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/621126/ Version: Accepted Version Publisher: Brill DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-09302006 Please cite the published version https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk 1 New Directions for Transcendental Claims Keywords: transcendental claims; transcendental arguments; epistemology; post-Kantian philosophy This paper aims to provide an account of the relationship between transcendental claims and the project of using transcendental argumentation that differs from the mainstream literature.1 By a ‘transcendental claim’, I mean a proposition which states that y is a necessary condition for the possibility of x.2 In much of the literature, such claims are said to have as their primary value the overcoming of various sceptical positions. I argue that whilst transcendental arguments may be narrowly characterised as anti-sceptical, transcendental claims do not have to be used in only this way, and in fact can be useful in several areas of philosophy outside the issue of scepticism, and so can be used by transcendental arguments more broadly conceived. I offer four examples of transcendental claims that are not used in narrow, anti-sceptical transcendental arguments. I argue that these broader arguments use transcendental claims but not in an anti-sceptical way. From this, I conclude that one can separate the project of making transcendental claims and the project of using transcendental arguments to defeat scepticism. Given the well-known difficulties transcendental arguments in this narrow sense seem to have had in defeating scepticism,3 distinguishing narrow transcendental arguments clearly from transcendental claims as such in this manner can provide a way for the latter to still serve an important role in philosophy, by showing how such claims can be used more broadly, regardless of any doubts one may have about the anti- sceptical value of such claims.