DOCSLIB.ORG

The Function of Reason in Hume and Consequences for the Classical

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Function of Reason in Hume and Consequences for the Classical Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2004 If Reason Is Not Sovereign: The Function of Reason in Hume and Consequences for the Classical/Positivist Divide, Rational Choice Theory, Low Self-Control Theory, and the Criminal Propensity Construct Michael Jason Kissner Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE IF REASON IS NOT SOVEREIGN: THE FUNCTION OF REASON IN HUME AND CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CLASSICAL/POSITIVIST DIVIDE, RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY, LOW SELF-CONTROL THEORY, AND THE CRIMINAL PROPENSITY CONSTRUCT By MICHAEL JASON KISSNER A Dissertation submitted to the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2004 The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Michael Jason Kissner defended on November 10, 2004. _______________________ Daniel Maier-Katkin Professor Directing Dissertation _______________________ Barney Twiss Outside Committee Member _______________________ Cecil Greek Committee Member Approved: __________________________ Thomas Blomberg, Dean, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................Page iv INTRODUCTION............................................................................................Page 1 1. THE GREAT DIVIDE IN THEORETICAL CRIMINOLOGY....................Page 10 2. HUME’S EMPIRICISM AND CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY ..................Page 23 3. BECCARIA’S CRIMINOLOGICAL VIEWS .............................................Page 40 4. LOMBROSO’S POSITIVISTIC CRIMINOLOGY .....................................Page 60 5. CHOICE THEORY IN CONTEMPORARY CRIMINOLOGY...................Page 76 6. CLASSICAL CRIMINOLOGY AND LOW SELF CONTROL THEORY..Page 94 7. A THEORY OF CRIMINAL PROPENSITY GROUNDED IN EMOTIONAL DETERMINISM .................................................................Page 111 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................Page 126 REFERENCES ............................................................................................Page 128 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................Page 134 iii ABSTRACT This work shows that classical criminological doctrine has been misunderstood and that the consequences of this misunderstanding for contemporary criminological theory and research are grave. In particular, classical criminologists subscribe to a view of rationality that is strikingly different from that which is usually attributed to them. Classical criminologists deny that behavior is invariably rational, and hold that emotional considerations are determinative of the degree of rationality expressed in any given behavior. This view, called “emotional determinism”, is used to generate a theory of criminal propensity that can be empirically tested. The theory is intended as a replacement for Gottfredson and Hirschi’s 1990 low self-control theory, which, while influential, succumbs to the criticism that it is too heavily reliant on rational choice principles. Finally, the work suggests that the genuine distinction between classical and positivist criminologies consists in the fact that as empiricists classical criminologists are committed to holding that environmental forces can in principle be used to dissuade even the most committed of criminals. iv INTRODUCTION This work is about individual-level criminological theory1. It carefully examines the genesis of criminological theory in the so called “classical” and “positivist” schools of criminology and demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that contemporary criminological theorists are operating with seriously mistaken conceptions of the doctrines espoused by classical criminologists. The classical school has been systematically misinterpreted, and the consequences of this misinterpretation for contemporary criminological theory are grave. Because the genesis of criminological theory is steeped in British Empiricist ideas, this work is inherently philosophical as well as historical in character. An underlying motif of the work is that examination of the thought of great philosophers can yield fruitful theoretical ideas. Contemporary mainstream criminology divides the criminological tradition into two camps-the “classical” tradition and the “positivist” tradition. The former is customarily traced backed to the mid-eighteenth century writings of Beccaria, who was a utilitarian and an empiricist. The latter is traced backed to the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century writings of Lombroso, who is best known for his investigation of the relationship between biological factors and crime. Today, theories descending from the classical tradition are called “choice” theories. Theories descending from the “positivist” tradition are called “individual difference” or “propensity” theories. It is widely believed that there are paradigmatic differences between the two traditions, and hence between the theoretical descendants of those traditions. This belief is false. While there is a real difference between the two traditions, the difference is in principle empirically resoluble. Therefore, it is probably best not to characterize the difference as paradigmatic (Kuhn, 1970). The phrase “great divide” is used to designate the fiction, believed by nearly all contemporary criminologists, that there is a paradigmatic difference between the traditions. The remainder of the introduction briefly2 characterizes the divide and gives preliminary reasons for thinking that the great divide is an illusory construction. A concise rendition of the more salient consequences of the illusory divide is given as well. Finally, a thumbnail sketch of a conceptual replacement of the great divide that solves a host of problems bequeathed by the divide is outlined. Characterizing the Divide Most criminologists think that the classical tradition subscribes to free will, denies that there are individual motivational differences relevant to criminal behavior, is unscientific, and disavows the concept “cause”. Most criminologists think that the positivist tradition subscribes to determinism, upholds the idea of individual motivational differences relevant to criminal behavior, is scientific, and accepts the concept of cause. 1 Hereinafter, all references to “criminological theory” denote “individual-level” criminological theory unless otherwise indicated. 2 A more detailed characterization of the great divide is offered in Chapter 1. The discussion here is simply intended to orient readers. 1 These contrasts help constitute a great metattheoretical divide. It is easy to see that the above suppositions (alleged suppositions, as we shall see) of the two traditions are in stark contrast. The received view3 of the classical tradition ascribes to that tradition the belief that criminal behavior represents a freely chosen and rational response designed to maximize the pleasure/pain ratio of actors. The received view of the classical tradition ascribes to that tradition the belief that reason is sovereign over behavior, such that behavior invariably conforms with the dictates of reason. Combining the above ideas, the received view of the classical tradition ascribes to that tradition the view that criminal behaviors are simply rational solutions to self-interested pleasure/pain problems. The received view of the positivist position, on the other hand, holds that all behavior is caused by arational forces, and that the magnitude and/or intensity of these forces can vary across individuals and within the same individual over time. Freedom and the sovereignty of reason are denied by the received view of the positivist position. The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition) provides in pertinent part that “arational” means “not governed by the laws of reason” as well as “non-rational”. The positivist position is looked upon as holding that arational forces, or motivations, can issue from sociological, psychological, or biological sources. These considerations tend to make typical positivist theories “type of person” (Nagin and Paternoster, 1993) theories, or “propensity” theories. The typical positivist position says that criminal behavior represents the effects of an individually varying confluence of arational forces. For positivists, reason is not sovereign, the arational is. Theorists in this camp view crimes as the result of motivational propulsions operating on the organism, and any correspondence of criminal responses with rational views of self-interest is viewed as fortuitous in a causal sense. For positivists, behaviors are not performed because rational self-interest prescribes them; they are performed because arational forces propel them. These are strikingly different views of human behavior. The received view of the classical position essentially says that there is no need to worry about making people behave in rational, self-interested ways. This view holds that people invariably behave that way because it is human nature to do so. The foregoing suggests that received views of the two traditions differ sharply with respect to their estimation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Architectural Theory and Practice, and the Question of Phenomenology
    Architectural Theory and Practice, and the Question of Phenomenology (The Contribution of Tadao Ando to the Phenomenological Discourse) Von der Fakultät Architektur, Bauingenieurwesen und Stadtplanung der Brandenburgischen Technischen Universität Cottbus zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktor-Ingenieurs genehmigte Dissertation vorgelegt von Mohammadreza Shirazi aus Tabriz, Iran Gutachter: : Prof. Dr. Eduard Führ Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Karsten Harries Gutachter: Gastprofessor. Dr. Riklef Rambow Tag der Verteidigung: 02. Juni 2009 Acknowledgment My first words of gratitude go to my supervisor Prof. Führ for giving me direction and support. He fully supported me during my research, and created a welcoming and inspiring atmosphere in which I had the pleasure of writing this dissertation. I am indepted to his teachings and instructions in more ways than I can state here. I am particularly grateful to Prof. Karsten Harries. His texts taught me how to think on architecture deeply, how to challenge whatever is ‘taken for granted’ and ‘remain on the way, in search of home’. I am also grateful to other colleagues in L.S. Theorie der Architektur. I want to express my thanks to Dr. Riklef Rambow who considered my ideas and texts deeply and helped me with his advice at different stages. I am thankful for the comments and kind helps I received from Dr. Katharina Fleischmann. I also want to thank Prof. Hahn from TU Dresden and other PhD students who attended in Doktorandentag meetings and criticized my presentations. I would like to express my appreciation to the staff of Langen Foundation Museum for their kind helps during my visit of that complex, and to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagination: a Philosophical Examination of The
    1 The ‘Reality Oriented’ Imagination: a Philosophical Examination of the Imagination in ‘Mentalization’ and ‘Neuropsychoanalysis’. Annie Hardy Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University College London 2017 2 I, Annie Hardy, 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. 3 Abstract This thesis is concerned with the conceptualization of the imagination in contemporary psychoanalytic theory, focusing in particular on its connection with knowledge. I will propose that imaginative processes form the core of psychic ‘health’ by instantiating a state of mind in which the subject is genuinely open to ‘learning from experience’. At the centre of the investigation is a psychic process that I term the ‘reality oriented’ imagination: a form of conscious mental activity that facilitates an epistemological connection with both the internal and external worlds and renders the unobservable psychological experiences of others accessible. The concept of the ’reality oriented’ imagination significantly disrupts Freud’s portrayal of the imaginative processes as a form of wish-fulfilment in which the individual’s attention is drawn away from external reality and placed under the sway of the pleasure principle. Such differing presentations of the imagination across psychoanalytic models can arguably be understood by considering several major shifts in psychoanalytic theorizing since Freud’s time. I will propose that these changes can be characterised as an ‘epistemic turn’: a general movement in psychoanalysis towards framing the internal world as strategic rather than compensatory, and a corresponding understanding of psychopathological processes as a response to failures in understanding and prediction rather than instinctual conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Notices of the American Mathematical Society
    • ISSN 0002-9920 March 2003 Volume 50, Number 3 Disks That Are Double Spiral Staircases page 327 The RieITlann Hypothesis page 341 San Francisco Meeting page 423 Primitive curve painting (see page 356) Education is no longer just about classrooms and labs. With the growing diversity and complexity of educational programs, you need a software system that lets you efficiently deliver effective learning tools to literally, the world. Maple® now offers you a choice to address the reality of today's mathematics education. Maple® 8 - the standard Perfect for students in mathematics, sciences, and engineering. Maple® 8 offers all the power, flexibility, and resources your technical students need to manage even the most complex mathematical concepts. MapleNET™ -- online education ,.u A complete standards-based solution for authoring, nv3a~ _r.~ .::..,-;.-:.- delivering, and managing interactive learning modules \~.:...br *'r¥'''' S\l!t"AaITI(!\pU;; ,"", <If through browsers. Derived from the legendary Maple® .Att~~ .. <:t~~::,/, engine, MapleNefM is the only comprehensive solution "f'I!hlislJer~l!'Ct"\ :5 -~~~~~:--r---, for distance education in mathematics. Give your institution and your students cornpetitive edge. For a FREE 3D-day Maple® 8 Trial CD for Windows®, or to register for a FREE MapleNefM Online Seminar call 1/800 R67.6583 or e-mail [email protected]. ADVANCING MATHEMATICS WWW.MAPLESOFT.COM I [email protected]\I I WWW.MAPLEAPPS.COM I NORTH AMERICAN SALES 1/800 267. 6583 © 2003 Woter1oo Ma')Ir~ Inc Maple IS (J y<?glsterc() crademork of Woterloo Maple he Mar)leNet so troc1ema'k of Woter1oc' fV'lop'e Inr PII other trcde,nork$ (ye property o~ their respective ('wners Generic Polynomials Constructive Aspects of the Inverse Galois Problem Christian U.
    [Show full text]
  • Aim-Oriented Empiricism and the ‘Father’ of the Scientific Revolution: Metaphysics and Method in the Work of Galileo
    AIM-ORIENTED EMPIRICISM AND THE ‘FATHER’ OF THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION: METAPHYSICS AND METHOD IN THE WORK OF GALILEO A Thesis presented by Katherine R. Crawley for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of London University College, London July 1998 ProQuest Number: 10609111 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10609111 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With grateful acknowledgements and thanks to Nick Maxwell, for his unfailing support, and to Rob Iliffe, particularly for his valuable help with Chapter One. In addition I would like to express my gratitude to Geoff, Vicky, and Drew for all their love and encouragement. 2 ABSTRACT This thesis is concerned with that branch of the history of science which takes as its central problem the question of scientific progress, defined as the growth of knowledge and understanding about the world. It is an area of enquiry which has been suppressed, in recent years, by the development of historical methodologies which eschew all epistemological deliberations and their established ramifications.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic Vs Illogic: Why Mathematics Is Easy and Life Is Hard
    Logic vs illogic: why mathematics is easy and life is hard Eugenia Cheng University of Cambridge 1st March, 2004 Approximate text of a talk given to the Trinity Mathematical Society, Cambridge, on 1st March 2004 and to the University of Chicago Mathematics Club on 14th February 2005. Abstract Generations of even well-educated adults are under the delusion that mathematics is difficult, and that mathematicians must therefore be very clever. In this talk I will explode this myth and show that mathematics is in fact easy, and moreover that mathematics is precisely “that which is easy” for an appropriate sense of ‘easy’. We will take ‘easy’ to mean ‘attainable by logical thought processes’. As a corollary, or a converse, or a contrapositive or something, we will discuss the importance of illogical thought processes in non-mathematical life and the fact that life is thus difficult. Hence or otherwise we will deduce that mathematics is not life, nor can it nor should it be. 1 Introduction It is a fact universally acknowledged that mathematics is difficult. If you tell someone you’re a mathematician you invariably get one of two answers. Either “Oh, I never could understand maths” or “Wow, you must be really clever.” Of course, since mathematics is difficult it does follow that we mathematicians must all be very clever. As a mathematician, I am quite tempted to believe this. But is it true? What I’m going to do today is take the bold step – perhaps rash step – of exploding the Myth of Mathematics. A bit like the Masked Magician whose TV show explained how magic tricks work – with the result that he was vilified by the Magical community.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalized Epistemology, Or What the Strong Programme Can't Explain
    Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 36 (2005) 135–148 www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa Naturalized epistemology, or what the Strong Programme canÕt explain Karyn L. Freedman University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada, N1G 2W1 Received 26 September 2003; received in revised form 5 April 2004 Abstract In this paper I argue that the Strong ProgrammeÕs aim to provide robust explanations of belief acquisition is limited by its commitment to the symmetry principle. For Bloor and Barnes, the symmetry principle is intended to drive home the fact that epistemic norms are socially constituted. My argument here is that even if our epistemic standards are fully natu- ralized—even relativized—they nevertheless can play a pivotal role in why individuals adopt the beliefs that they do. Indeed, sometimes the fact that a belief is locally endorsed as rational is the only reason why an individual holds it. In this way, norms of rationality have a powerful and unique role in belief formation. But if this is true then the symmetry principleÕs emphasis on Ôsameness of typeÕ is misguided. It has the undesirable effect of not just naturalizing our cognitive commitments, but trivializing them. Indeed, if the notion of ÔsimilarityÕ is to have any content, then we are not going to classify as Ôthe sameÕ beliefs that are formed in accor- dance with deeply entrenched epistemic norms as ones formed without reflection on these norms, or ones formed in spite of these norms. My suggestion here is that we give up the sym- metry principle in favor of a more sophisticated principle, one that allows for a taxonomy of causes rich enough to allow us to delineate the unique impact epistemic norms have on those individuals who subscribe to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Brunsondiss.Pdf
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Liberal Arts PRAGMATISM AND THE PAST: CHARLES PEIRCE AND THE CONDUCT OF MEMORY AND HISTORY A Dissertation in Philosophy by Daniel J. Brunson © 2010 Daniel J. Brunson Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2010 The dissertation of Daniel J. Brunson was reviewed and approved* by the following: Vincent M. Colapietro Liberal Arts Research Professor of Philosophy Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Brady Bowman Assistant Professor of Philosophy Christopher Long Associate Professor of Philosophy Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies, College of Liberal Arts Jennifer Mensch Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Science, Technology, and Society William Pencak Professor of American History Nancy A. Tuana DuPont/Class of 1949 Professor of Philosophy Director, Rock Ethics Institute Director of Philosophy Graduate Studies *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School ii Abstract My dissertation is entitled Pragmatism and the Past: CS Peirce on the Conduct of Memory and History. I start from the longstanding criticism that pragmatism unduly neglects the past in favor of the future. As a response, I interpret Peirce‘s pragmatism and its associated doctrines in light of his accounts of memory, history, and testimony. In particular, I follow Peirce‘s own example of a deep engagement with the history of philosophy and related fields. For example, Peirce‘s account of memory is linked to the development of a notion of the unconscious, which brings in both his work as an experimental psychologist and his interaction with figures such as Helmholtz, Wundt and James.
    [Show full text]
  • Navigating Recalcitrant Emotions
    Navigating Recalcitrant Emotions Alex Grzankowski Journal of Philosophy Recalcitrant emotions conflict with our considered judgments. Faced with the rollercoaster deemed entirely safe, one might fear it nevertheless. After a vivid dream, someone might feel angry with her partner and yet judge that her partner did nothing wrong.1 Such pairs create a normative conflict—one should not both be afraid and judge that there is nothing dangerous, one should not be angry with one’s partner while judging that the partner did nothing wrong. Such pairs are structurally inconsistent in the sense that they exert a kind of rational pressure on one another that is relieved when one of the attitudes is revised.2 However, capturing this inconsistency has proven very difficult, and the various failures to capture it have guided much of the recent theorizing about the emotions. Cognitivism, for all its virtues, is believed to have been completely undermined by recalcitrant emotions, and the Perceptual theories that looked to take its place met with trouble not long after. Much of the nuance and in-fighting one finds in more recent Neo-Cognitivist theorizing revolves around making sense of the normativity of the emotions, and one gets the sense that the theorist who can account for cases of recalcitrance will have taken an important theoretical lead. The present essay offers a new approach to recalcitrant emotions, an approach that can be accepted by a great many theorists. It is correct that some views fall prey to the challenges posed by recalcitrant emotions (and we will diagnose why that is), but one interesting upshot of the view to be offered is that it provides a simple way of accounting for the phenomena that has room for wide adoption.
    [Show full text]
  • The Arationality of Perception: Comments on Susanna Siegel*
    Final version March 2018. Forthcoming in PPR symposium The Arationality of Perception: Comments on Susanna Siegel* ADAM PAUTZ Brown University Susanna Siegel’s The Rationality of Perception flies in the face of orthodoxy, proposing a revolution in our understanding of perceptual justification. It is both creative and rigorous. She first defends what she calls the Downgrade Thesis about perceptual justification. Then she suggests a bold explanation of Downgrade: experiences themselves can be rational or irrational. I will pursue a question about her foundational Downgrade Thesis. In closing, I will briefly address her bold proposed explanation of it. 1. A Question about the Downgrade Thesis The Downgrade Thesis (DT) concerns cognitive penetration, which Siegel calls “hijacking”. To avoid controversies about whether it actually occurs, let’s focus on a hypothetical case, the hijacked hallucination. Suppose you have an irrational expectation that there will be a red and round tomato on the table in the next room. You enter the room, and you magically have a perfect hallucination as of a red and round tomato on the table, in response to your prior expectation (see Figure 1 below). Suppose you also magically forget about your prior expectation. So you have no idea this is a hallucination originating from your expectation – in general, no idea anything is amiss. Do you have the ordinary level of justification for believing that a red and round thing is there? DT says No (14, 67). In this case, even though you have a vivid experience as of a red and round thing right there and you have no idea that your experience is nonveridical, you have less than the ordinary, base-line (propositional) justification for believing that a red and round thing is on the table, the level of justification you would get from a non- hijacked tomato-experience.
    [Show full text]
  • A Kantian Defense of Euthanasia
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Winter 2006 How Kant would choose to die: A Kantian defense of euthanasia Jennifer A. Bulcock University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Bulcock, Jennifer A., "How Kant would choose to die: A Kantian defense of euthanasia" (2006). Master's Theses and Capstones. 33. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/33 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOW KANT WOULD CHOOSE TO DIE: A KANTIAN DEFENSE OF EUTHANASIA BY JENNIFER A. BULCOCK BA, PHILOSOPHY & ENGLISH, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 2005 THESIS Submitted to the University o f New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master o f Arts In Justice Studies December 2006 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1439264 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Patterns of Knowledge Communities in the Social Sciences
    Patterns of Knowledge Communities in the Social Sciences ROBERTPAHRE ~STRACT THESTUDY OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES is dominated by philosophies and sociologists. These disciplines naturalIy take different approaches to the subject, the one epistemological and the other sociological. While recogniz- ing the role of society in shaping science, this article emphasizes the way that the epistemology of science influences scientific society. The epistemologi- cal status of various scientific discourses also shapes scientific communities. Discourses about methods have different effects on communities than dis- courses about theories; positivist discourses and nonpositivist discourses also shape communities differently. The best way to think about science and scientific communities is a dialogue between two hybrid approaches-i.e., a social epistemology and an epistemological sociology. Each presents some challenges to information science. INTRODUCTION Knowledge is found in communities built by individuals. Our efforts to systematize, categorize, or reorganize that knowledge must consider not only the individual knower but also the knowledge communities. In other words, studying knowledge presents a sociological problem in addition to an intel- lectual or philosophical one.’ For this reason, most contemporary studies of science treat science purely as a sociological issue. In contrast to this literature, it will be argued here that knowledge communities present not just a sociological problem. The substance of science, and what is labeled here as the “epistemology” of science,2affects the pattern by which scientific knowledge is organized. In particular, the epistemological status of a scientific discourse shapes the sociological struc- Robert Pahre, School of Public Policy, 408 Lorch Hall, 611Tappan Street, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 LIBRARYTRENDS, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Philosophy of Halakha (Jewish Law): the Justification of Halakhic Norms And
    Critical Philosophy of Halakha (Jewish Law): The Justification of Halakhic Norms and Authority Yonatan Yisrael Brafman Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2014 © 2014 Yonatan Yisrael Brafman All rights reserved ABSTRACT Critical Philosophy of Halakha (Jewish Law): The Justification of Halakhic Norms and Authority Yonatan Brafman Contemporary conflicts over such issues as abortion, same-sex marriage, circumcision, and veiling highlight the need for renewed reflection on the justification of religious norms and authority. While abstract investigation of these questions is necessary, inquiry into them is not foreign to religious traditions. Philosophical engagement with these traditions of inquiry is both intellectually and practically advantageous. This does not demand, however, that these discussions be conducted within a discourse wholly internal to a particular religious tradition; dialogue between a religious tradition and philosophical reflection can be created that is mutually beneficial. To that end, this dissertation explores a central issue in philosophy of halakha (Jewish law): the relation between the justification of halakhic norms and halakhic-legal practice. A central component of philosophy of halakha is the project of ta’amei ha-mitzvot (the reasons for the commandments). Through such inquiry, Jewish thinkers attempt to demonstrate the rationality of Jewish religious practice by offering reasons for halakhic norms. At its best, it not only seeks to justify halakhic norms but also elicits sustained reflection on issues in moral philosophy, including justification and normativity. Still, there is a tendency among its practitioners to attempt to separate this project from halakhic-legal practice.
    [Show full text]