DOCSLIB.ORG

Can Social Constructivism Save Scientific Mysterianism and Nativism from the Charges of Inconsistency?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Can Social Constructivism Save Scientific Mysterianism and Nativism from the Charges of Inconsistency? Prolegomena 18 (1) 2019: 73–85 doi: 10 .26362/20190104 Can Social Constructivism Save Scientific Mysterianism and Nativism from the Charges of Inconsistency? PameLA Ann J . BoongaLing Department of Philosophy – University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines pamela_ann .jose@upd .edu .ph ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE – RECEIVED: 05/03/19 ACCEPTED: 18/05/19 abstract: In this paper, I argue that Colin McGinn provides an unacceptable ac- count of consciousness due to the inconsistencies between (1) the conjunction of the metaphysical assumptions of his nativism and the epistemic assumptions of his mysterianism and (2) his conception of identity . I also maintain that, although John Searle’s social constructivism may provide the most feasible counter-argument to these charges of inconsistency, Searle’s position cannot save McGinn’s account of consciousness due to the inadequacies of Searle’s version of external realism . As I see it, the only means to address the problems in McGinn’s and Searle’s views is by revising their version of external realism . I demonstrate that this is only possible if they adopt an external realist position that dispenses with direct realism and adopts physicalism . I maintain that this is the only means by which we can prove the ex- istence of consciousness while at the same time accommodating its a priori and a posteriori character . key words: Direct realism, external realism, Nicholas Maxwell, Colin McGinn, na- tivism, physicalism, scientific mysterianism, John Searle, social constructivism . Introduction In the initial part of this paper, I argue that Colin McGinn’s account of con- sciousness is untenable due to the inconsistencies between his mysterianist and nativist views . These inconsistencies can be traced to (1) the conflict in the conjunction of the metaphysical assumptions of his nativism and the epistemic assumptions of his mysterianism and (2) his conception of iden- tity . In the next section, I provide a counter-argument to my position which highlights the role of constitutive rules in science . This counter-argument 74 Prolegomena 18 (1) 2019 attempts to salvage McGinn’s position by placing it vis-à-vis John Searle’s social constructivism 1. Consciousness understood as a biological and mental process plays a pivotal role in understanding how collective intentionality brings about institutional facts in Searle’s overall philosophy . The possible counter-argument to my position emphasizes that language is both a byprod- uct of evolutionary processes and collective intentionality . If such is the case, language involves constitutive rules . Our scientific representations of brute reality2 are made possible by language . In effect, McGinn’s characterization of consciousness as a primitive object can be seen as a byproduct of the con- stitutive rules in science . Hence, it is reasonable to posit that consciousness exists as a primitive object in our scientific models of physical reality . Though this route seems promising, Searle’s (2010) characterization of consciousness and its byproducts is also problematic since his direct realism cannot support his view that external realism should serve as the default background of our epistemic inquiries . I also demonstrate that the same problem ensues from McGinn’s adherence to external realism . Within this context, I conclude my discussion by suggesting a gen- eral framework for external realism which does not rely on direct realism . I demonstrate that a cogent form of external realism can be established if we understand it in terms of the methodology of naturalism and its under- lying hypothesis regarding the external world, physicalism . At this point, I introduce Nicholas Maxwell’s (2011) view that science works on an a priori conjectural assumption regarding the unity of its theories . I maintain that if we follow Maxwell’s position, we can provide proof via inference to the best explanation that consciousness exists both as a biological and mental state and that the functions of consciousness provide us evidential grounds to ac- cept its existence . The aforementioned claims merit an exposition and analysis for at least three reasons . First, it provides an initial attempt to piece together McGinn’s (1996, 2017) views about consciousness since The Character of Mind until Philosophical Provocations . This is of import since McGinn’s views regarding consciousness and its objects is considered to be one of the most well-known positions in contemporary philosophy of mind (Van Gulick 2014) . Second, majority of the analyses regarding McGinn’s position focus on the tenability 1 I recognize that Searle himself does not label his position as a form of social construc- tivism . Nevertheless, his explanation of social facts can be considered as a weak form of social constructivism since he maintains that, although there is a mind-independent world, we are still involved in the construction of social reality . 2 I will be using the terms “brute reality”, “physical reality”, “concrete reality”, and “em- pirical world”, interchangeably in this paper, although McGinn specifically uses the term “con- crete reality” . Simply put, these terms as they are used in this paper refer to mind-independent reality . P . A . J . BoongaLing: Can Social Constructivism Save Scientific Mysterianism… 75 of his scientific mysterianism and/or on the scientific evidence supporting his nativism . This paper, on the other hand, returns to the fundamentals of philosophical analysis by looking at the tenability of the conjunction of the underlying metaphysical and epistemic assumptions of McGinn’s views in terms of their consistency with one another . In other words, I am providing an analysis of the foundational assumptions of McGinn’s philosophy and along with that the tenability of accounts of consciousness (e .g ., Searle’s) that rely on direct realism as a premise of external realism . Finally, this paper is of import for it supplies an alternative view on how external realism can still provide a foundation for our accounts of consciousness, by equating it with a version of naturalism that accommodates the a priori/a posteriori distinction . This is important because, in most cases, how we connect the biological proc- esses we associate with consciousness relies on its a priori characterization . On McGinn’s Mysterianism and Nativism In this section, I will lay down the basic assumptions behind McGinn’s ac- count of consciousness . In the process, I will also point out the inconsistencies in his position, these being an inconsistency in the conjunction of his meta- physical and epistemic assumptions (henceforth I1) and an inconsistency in his conception of identity (henceforth I2) . Let me begin by laying down the basic assumptions of McGinn’s (1996, 2000, 2011, 2015, 2017) mysterian- ism and nativism . His position can be presented in the following way: (P1) Consciousness is a primitive entity that is fully unknowable to us because its essential nature is beyond our full cognitive grasp (Sci- entific mysterianism) . (P2) To be a primitive entity is to be a basic entity relative to other objects, wherein such an entity is characterized by its irreducibility to other objects as well as its universality and indispensability in a system . (P3) Due to (P1) and (P2), one of the reasons why we cannot have full cognitive access to consciousness is because its individuations can never be based on metaphysical criteria, since identity is not an explanatory relation but merely a logical one . (P4) Our genetic makeup has given us an innate sensory system, in- nate primitive sensory concepts, and innate abstract and empirical knowledge which allows us to access and/or know consciousness and its objects (Nativism) . (P5) Since consciousness is a byproduct of our genetic makeup, then consciousness along with its objects is not mental but material in nature (Panmaterialism) . 76 Prolegomena 18 (1) 2019 (P6) From (P5), it follows that it shares the properties of other material objects and the primary quality that it shares with other material objects is that it is a form of energy which differs from other forms of matter, for it is of the sentient kind . The merits of McGinn’s position are easy to point out . The combination of (P1), (P4), and (P5) above offers us a very charitable account not only of our faculties but also of the disciplines that we have created to account for how we access and understand ourselves and the external world . It is charitable since it recognizes that even if there are limitations to our cognitive capacities, these limitations still allow us to determine the basic stuff that we are made of . McGinn’s position is also attractive for its simplicity . It limits the objects in his system to the bare minimum . That is, everything is reduc- ible to matter . In line with this, he also recognizes the efficacy and predictive accuracy of our current best scientific methods, as well as the utility of our current best scientific representations in helping us to arrive at a philosophi- cal account of consciousness and its objects . Despite these merits, I maintain that McGinn’s position is also fraught with inconsistencies . These can be traced to I1 and I2 . Let us begin by dem- onstrating I1 . I1 is a byproduct of the inconsistency between (P2), (P4), (P5), and (P6) above . We can derive McGinn’s metaphysical assumptions from (P2), (P5), and (P6) . Combined, they lead him to maintain that there is a mind-independent world whose components are all reducible to matter . It also leads him to claim that, although we may not know the exact configu- rations of matter, there is an initial distinction we can make regarding this substance: It is either of the sentient or insentient kind (McGinn 2011: 178) . We know this to be the case since consciousness, which he characterizes as a primitive object, is indispensable to a system . Hence, it is indispensable in the external world itself .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sociology of Religion, Lundscow, Chapter 7, Cults
    Sociology of Religion , Sociology 3440-090 Summer 2014, University of Utah Dr. Frank J. Page Office Room 429 Beh. Sci., Office Hours: Thursday - Friday, Noon – 4:00-pm Office Phone: (801) 531-3075 Home Phone: (801) 278-6413 Email: [email protected] I. Goals: The primary goal of this class is to give students a sociological understanding of religion as a powerful, important, and influential social institution that is associated with many social processes and phenomena that motivate and influence how people act and see the world around them. The class will rely on a variety of methods that include comparative analysis, theoretical explanations, ethnographic studies, and empirical studies designed to help students better understand religion and its impact upon societies, global-international events, and personal well-being. This overview of the nature, functioning, and diversity of religious institutions should help students make more discerning decisions regarding cultural, political, and moral issues that are often influenced by religion. II. Topics To Be Covered: The course is laid out in two parts. The first section begins with a review of conventional and theoretical conceptions of religion and an overview of the importance and centrality of religion to human societies. It emphasizes the diversity and nature of "religious experience" in terms of different denominations, cultures, classes, and individuals. This is followed by overview of sociological assumptions and theories and their application to religion. A variety of theoretical schools including, functionalism, conflict theory, exchange theory, sociology of knowledge, sociobiology, feminist theory, symbolic interactionism, postmodern and critical theory will be addressed and applied to religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Wittgenstein, Routledge
    CRITICAL NOTICE Wittgenstein Routledge Philosophers William Child, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, 2011, pp. 288, £ 16.99 ISBN: 13: 978-0-415-31206 (paperback) Reviewed by Derek A. McDougall Routledge’s current Wittgenstein list is certainly comprehensive. Quite apart from its considerable number of collections of essays, recent additions include Blind Obedience: The Structure and Content of Wittgenstein’s Later Philosophy from Meredith Williams in 2009, and the two volumes in their Routledge Philosophy Guidebook series, one on the Tractatus by Michael Morris from 2008, and the eagerly awaited (circa 2011) revised verson of Marie McGinn’s 1997 book on the Philosophical Investigations, not to mention a third from Andy Hamilton about On Certainty (due 2012). Now in yet another series comes William Child, adding his name to the extensive list of commentators who have been invited to have their say on what Wittgenstein’s work is all about. In addition to its coverage of the Tractatus, the Investigations, and the transitional period, the book has three extra chapters, each of over twenty pages on Wittgenstein’s Life and Works (Chapter 1), Knowledge and Certainty (Chapter 7) and Religion and Anthropology (Chapter 8.) The book ends with a slightly shorter chapter on Legacy and Influence. It is also attractively priced in a paperback version unusually published simultaneously with the hardback and e-book editions. The book inevitably invites comparison with other recent offerings on the entire philosophy from Chon Tejedor (Starting With Wittgenstein, Continuum 2011), from Severin Schroeder (Wittgenstein: The Way Out of The Flybottle, Polity 2006), from Anthony Kenny (Wittgenstein, Blackwell, revised ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergentism As an Option in the Philosophy of Religion: Between Materialist Atheism and Pantheism
    SURI 7 (2) 2019: 1-22 Emergentism as an Option in the Philosophy of Religion: Between Materialist Atheism and Pantheism James Franklin University of New South Wales Abstract: Among worldviews, in addition to the options of materialist atheism, pantheism and personal theism, there exists a fourth, “local emergentism”. It holds that there are no gods, nor does the universe overall have divine aspects or any purpose. But locally, in our region of space and time, the properties of matter have given rise to entities which are completely different from matter in kind and to a degree god-like: consciousnesses with rational powers and intrinsic worth. The emergentist option is compared with the standard alternatives and the arguments for and against it are laid out. It is argued that, among options in the philosophy of religion, it involves the minimal reworking of the manifest image of common sense. Hence it deserves a place at the table in arguments as to the overall nature of the universe. Keywords: Emergence; pantheism; personal theism; naturalism; consciousness 1. INTRODUCTION The main options among world views are normally classifiable as either materialist atheism, pantheism (widely understood) or personal theism. According to materialist atheism, there exists nothing except the material universe as we ordinarily conceive it, and its properties are fully described by science (present or future). According to personal theism, there exists a separate entity (or entities) of a much higher form than those found in the 2019 Philosophical Association of the Philippines 2 Emergentism as an Option in the Philosophy of Religion material universe, a god or gods.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitting on Consciousness: Honderich Versus Mcginn
    J. Andrew Ross Hitting On Consciousness Honderich Versus McGinn Ted Honderich, 74, formerly Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at the University of London, recently published a short book on consciousness (Honderich, 2004). Colin McGinn, 57, his former colleague at University College London and now a profes- sor of philosophy at the University of Miami, Florida, reviewed it (McGinn, 2007a). The review is quite long and detailed, but the first sentences set the tone. McGinn on Honderich: This book runs the full gamut from the mediocre to the ludicrous to the merely bad. It is painful to read, poorly thought out, and uninformed. It is also radically inconsistent. The review elicited a long and pained reply from Honderich, who posted his review of the review on his website (Honderich, 2007). Honderich on McGinn on Honderich: If I were to join McGinn in his habits, the word ‘shoddy’would come to mind about this performance. … McGinn does not make me dream of changing a comma. Other philosophers joined in a chattering chorus of responses, some on either side and much of it recorded in a thread on Brian Leiter’s cel- ebrated philosophy blog (Leiter, 2007). All this prompted McGinn to rally to his own defence (McGinn, 2007b). McGinn on Honderich on McGinn on Honderich: To repeat, I found Honderich’s book to be quite the worst thing I’ve ever read — an insult to the reader, no less — so I was duty-bound to pan it. And I did give my reasons. Correspondence: [email protected] Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15, No.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Research Paper Series
    Legal Research Paper Series NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY By Rita K. Lomio and J. Paul Lomio Research Paper No. 6 October 2005 Robert Crown Law Library Crown Quadrangle Stanford, California 94305-8612 NON HUMAN ANIMALS AND THE LAW: A BIBLIOGRPAHY OF ANIMAL LAW RESOURCES AT THE STANFORD LAW LIBRARY I. Books II. Reports III. Law Review Articles IV. Newspaper Articles (including legal newspapers) V. Sound Recordings and Films VI. Web Resources I. Books RESEARCH GUIDES AND BIBLIOGRAPHIES Hoffman, Piper, and the Harvard Student Animal Legal Defense Fund The Guide to Animal Law Resources Hollis, New Hampshire: Puritan Press, 1999 Reference KF 3841 G85 “As law students, we have found that although more resources are available and more people are involved that the case just a few years ago, locating the resource or the person we need in a particular situation remains difficult. The Guide to Animal Law Resources represents our attempt to collect in one place some of the resources a legal professional, law professor or law student might want and have a hard time finding.” Guide includes citations to organizations and internships, animal law court cases, a bibliography, law schools where animal law courses are taught, Internet resources, conferences and lawyers devoted to the cause. The International Institute for Animal Law A Bibliography of Animal Law Resources Chicago, Illinois: The International Institute for Animal Law, 2001 KF 3841 A1 B53 Kistler, John M. Animal Rights: A Subject Guide, Bibliography, and Internet Companion Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000 HV 4708 K57 Bibliography divided into six subject areas: Animal Rights: General Works, Animal Natures, Fatal Uses of Animals, Nonfatal Uses of Animals, Animal Populations, and Animal Speculations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Sceptical Guide to Meaning and Rules Defending Kripke’S Wittgenstein Martin Kusch, Acumen, Chesham, 2006, Pp 320, £ 18.99 ISBN-10: 1-84465-065-0 (Paperback)
    CRITICAL NOTICE A Sceptical Guide to Meaning and Rules Defending Kripke’s Wittgenstein Martin Kusch, Acumen, Chesham, 2006, pp 320, £ 18.99 ISBN-10: 1-84465-065-0 (paperback) Reviewed by Derek A. McDougall When we look at Wittgenstein’s remarks on rule-following, however, it turns out that he is committing himself to something different from, and much stronger than, the claim that there cannot be logically private languages. What the rule-following considerations entail is that language is essentially public. The argument for this, to recapitulate, is that language use is a rule-governed activity, and that rules are constituted by agreement within a language community...But then if language use is a rule-following activity, and such activity is essentially a matter of public agreement, as Wittgenstein argues, it follows that language is essentially, that is logically, public. (1) If A.C. Grayling had said this specifically about Kripke’s Wittgenstein, rather than in the context of his elementary introduction to Wittgenstein’s philosophy, it would still have been an equally appropriate thing for him to say, for he goes on to argue that on the view to which he is objecting, there cannot be a ‘Robinson-Crusoe-from-birth’ since this would be a denial of Wittgenstein’s claim that it is only within a linguistic community that an individual could be said to be capable of using a language at all. But since there is on Grayling’s view nothing in this notion of a born-Crusoe with which he would care to disagree, he understandably concludes that there must be something wrong with any claim of Wittgenstein’s that would deny its obvious legitimacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Emotivism and Deflationary Truth
    270 PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY EMOTIVISM AND DEFLATIONARY TRUTH KYLE S. SWAN Abstract: The paper investigates different ways to understand the claim that non-cognitivists theories of morality are incoherent. According to the claim, this is so because, on one theory of truth, non-cognitivists are not able to deny objective truth to moral judgments without taking a substantive normat- ive position. I argue that emotivism is not self-defeating in this way. The charge of incoherence actually only amounts to a claim that emotivism is incompatible with deflationary truth, but this claim is based upon a mistake. It relies upon a problematic understanding of both emotivism and the defla- tionary theory of truth. Philosophers concerned to resist any of the varieties of non-cognitivist moral theories have typically relied heavily upon the embeddedness prob- lem, which Peter Geach has articulated.1 According to these theories, normative claims do not express genuine propositions. However, this cannot explain, and, is at odds with, the way people talk. Moral claims, for example, display the same syntax as non-moral claims, which do express genuine propositions. So moral claims are uttered as if they are about facts, but emotivism denies that they are factual. This is a problem for non-cognitivist theories because it seems to follow that they must be committed to rejecting the validity of instances of modus ponens that include as one of the components a normative claim. An alternative to this traditional way for philosophers to resist non- cognitivism has been advanced by Paul Boghossian and, even more recently, Ronald Dworkin.
    [Show full text]
  • Kripkenstein and Non-Reductionism About Meaning-Facts
    Kripkenstein and Non-Reductionism about Meaning-Facts by Florian Demont A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of MPhil Department of Philosophy School of Social Sciences The University of Birmingham May 2009 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract In 1982 Saul A. Kripke proposed a reconstruction of the central insights of Ludwig Wittgenstein's remarks on rule-following. The reconstruction prominently featured a sceptical challenge which soon was recognised as a new and very radical form of scepticism. According to the challenge there is no fact of the matter which constitutes meaning. As there is no such fact, the first-person authority people intuitively seem to have concerning what they mean is also baseless. In response to the sceptic, many solutions have been proposed. This thesis is about one family of solutions, according to which facts about meaning are sui generis and can neither be reduced to other facts about the world nor to non-semantic facts about the human mind. The non-reductionist proposals by Colin McGinn and Crispin Wright will be assessed in detail and arguments against both will be introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • The Naturalistic Epistemology of Hume and Wittgenstein
    Macalester Journal of Philosophy Volume 19 Article 8 Issue 1 Spring 2010 10-7-2010 The aN turalistic Epistemology of Hume and Wittgenstein Dawit Dame Macalester College Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/philo Recommended Citation Dame, Dawit (2010) "The aN turalistic Epistemology of Hume and Wittgenstein," Macalester Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 19: Iss. 1, Article 8. Available at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/philo/vol19/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at DigitalCommons@Macalester College. It has been accepted for inclusion in Macalester Journal of Philosophy by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Macalester College. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 115 The Naturalistic Epistemology of Hume and Wittgenstein Dawit Dame Introduction David Hume is well known for his skepticism on a wide range of topics, such as causation, the existence of a world external to the mind and the existence of an enduring self. As a result of this, the negative aspect of Hume’s philosophy often clouds the extent to which he wants to ground his epistemology in positive natural facts about humans. Wittgenstein never read Hume and nowhere is it evident that Hume had any influence on Wittgenstein’s works. Perhaps the only influence Hume had on Wittgenstein is simply being a philosopher of a certain tradition that Wittgenstein primarily sought to question. Wittgenstein like Hume, however, is committed the view that human knowledge, philosophical or otherwise, is ultimately grounded in natural facts about human beings. In this paper I will identify and discuss Hume’s and Wittgenstein’s naturalism and argue that both Wittgenstein and Hume seek to ground human knowledge on empirical natural facts about humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Sociology of Religion
    Sociology of Religion Sociology 3440-090, Online Spring 2014, University of Utah Dr. Frank J. Page Office Room 429 Beh. Sci., Office Hours: Monday – Thursday, Noon – 4:00-pm Office Phone: (801) 531-3075 Home Phone: (801) 278-6413 Email: [email protected] I. Goals: The primary goal of this class is to give students a sociological understanding of religion as a powerful, important, and influential social institution that is associated with many social processes and phenomena that motivate and influence how people act and see the world around them. The class will rely on a variety of methods that include comparative analysis, theoretical explanations, ethnographic studies, and empirical studies designed to help students better understand religion and its impact upon societies, global-international events, and personal well- being. This overview of the nature, functioning, and diversity of religious institutions should help students make more discerning decisions regarding cultural, political, and moral issues that are often influenced by religion. II. Topics To Be Covered: The course is laid out in three parts. The first section begins with a review of conventional and theoretical conceptions of religion and an overview of the importance and centrality of religion to human societies. It emphasizes the diversity and nature of "religious experience" in terms of different denominations, cultures, classes, and individuals. This is followed by overview of sociological assumptions and theories and their application to religion. A variety of theoretical schools including, functionalism, conflict theory, exchange theory, sociology of knowledge, sociobiology, feminist theory, symbolic interactionism, postmodern and critical theory will be addressed and applied to religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Can We Solve the Mind--Body Problem?
    Can We Solve the Mind--Body Problem? Colin McGinn Mind, New Series, Volume 98, Issue 391 (Jul., 1989), 349-366. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-442328198907%292%3A98%3A39 1%3C349%3ACWSTMP%3E2.O.C0%3B2-3 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. Mind is published by Oxford University Press. Please contact the publisher for further permissions regarding the use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/oup.html. Mind 01989 Oxford University Press JSTOR and the JSTOR logo are trademarks of JSTOR, and are Registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For more information on JSTOR contact [email protected]. 02003 JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/ Fri Mar 28 10:50:42 2003 Can We Solve the Mind-Body Problem? COLIN McGINN How it is that anything so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as a result of initiating nerve tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin, where Aladdin rubbed his lamp in the story .
    [Show full text]
  • Davidson For
    The Relevance of Radical Interpretation* Jonathan Ellis There is an interesting parallel to be drawn between the method of Davidson’s philosophy and what Davidson’s philosophy is about, or purports to show. Throughout his writings, considerations of language and interpretation are what consistently and ultimately yield his varied and bold views on the mental. Perhaps the most central of those views—and here is the parallel—is that mental states, or thought in general, emerge only in the context of communication and interpretation. The mind is born of interpretation, or language, as Davidson’s own philosophy of mind is born of his philosophy of language. Drawing the parallel reveals what I think is a persistent bias in Davidson’s work. Asking for the source of that parallel can lead one on a journey through Davidson’s assorted writings in pursuit of the origin, and thus foundation, of those views of the mental which are to spring so directly from his remarks on interpretation. What that inquiry reveals, what the parallel calls attention to is a consistent confidence on Davidson’s part in the primacy and possibility of interpretation of the mental. An appreciation of the dependence of Davidson’s arguments upon a prior view about interpretation is important. Many philosophers would not endorse such a view, which is perhaps one reason that exploring interpretation continues to be an uncommon approach for investigations into the nature of the mind. The very relevance of interpretation for understanding the nature of the mind—or at least the deep relevance Davidson sees in it—turns on a prior and controversial view.
    [Show full text]