DOCSLIB.ORG

UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Intention and Normative Belief Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8725w3wp Author Chislenko, Eugene Publication Date 2016 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Intention and Normative Belief By Eugene Chislenko A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Hannah Ginsborg, Co-Chair Professor R. Jay Wallace, Co-Chair Professor Hubert Dreyfus Professor Tania Lombrozo Spring 2016 Copyright by Eugene Chislenko 2016 Abstract Intention and Normative Belief by Eugene Chislenko Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy University of California, Berkeley Professor Hannah Ginsborg and Professor R. Jay Wallace, Co-Chairs People can be malicious, perverse, compulsive, self-destructive, indifferent, or in conflict with their own better judgment. This much is obvious—but on many traditional views, it seems puzzling or even impossible. Many philosophers, from Plato and Aristotle to Kant, Davidson, and others, have thought that we act only “under the guise of the good,” doing only what we see as good, or best, or what we ought to do. These “guise-of-the-good” views offered a way to make sense of the attribution and explanation of action, while maintaining a generous view of human nature as essentially pursuing the good. But are they not hopelessly narrow and naïve? It seems clear that we often do what we do not see as good, and even what we see as bad. The classical view seems to paint an impoverished picture of human life, leaving out widespread and important forms of activity. It now seems natural to give up on such a view, and to look for a more viable alternative. In this dissertation I argue that, far from being narrow and naïve, even an ambitious “guise-of-the-good” view can offer a compelling picture of action in all its variety. In Chapter 1 I introduce the appeal, variety, and difficulties of such views, and suggest a strategy for investigating them: start with a simple, ambitious “guise-of-the-good” view, and see why and in what ways it must be weakened. The ambitious view I begin with is the view that intentions are themselves normative beliefs—that my intention to go to the store is a belief that I ought to go. I call this view the Identity View. In the rest of the dissertation, I argue that it does not need to be weakened at all. The Identity View can address a range of apparently powerful counterexamples and theoretical challenges, while offering a compelling conception of the nature and the details of our intentions. A central kind of counterexample is action and intention in which we intend to do what we believe we should not do: eat dessert, for example, or insult a friend. Such ‘akratic’ action seems widespread, and difficult to account for on a guise-of-the-good view. The Identity View has an added consequence: if intentions are themselves normative beliefs, it seems we will also have beliefs we believe we should not have. Akratic beliefs can seem especially difficult to describe convincingly, partly since, according to many people, they are not even possible. I 1 consider these beliefs in Chapters 2 and 3. The first of these chapters argues that the leading arguments against the possibility of akratic belief assume what they purport to show, and are derivative expressions of an underlying puzzlement about how belief can be akratic. The second addresses the puzzlement directly, by offering a conception of akratic belief, together with a range of examples of it. I argue that the marks by which we normally attribute belief—marks such as responsiveness to evidence, felt conviction, recall in relevant circumstances, reporting to others, and use in further reasoning—can be recognized, with some complications, in akratic cases as well. Chapter 4 turns to akratic action and intention. Here, it is widely accepted that akratic cases are possible, but this possibility itself seems inconsistent with views like the Identity View, on which we can only intend what we do believe we ought to do. But the implication of the Identity View is not that we cannot intend to do what we believe we ought not do. Instead, the implication is that, when we intend to do what we believe we ought not do, we must also believe that we ought to do it. I argue that akratic actions can be understood as cases of conflicting normative beliefs, in which we act on one belief while still holding the other, often more strongly or reflectively. These cases are, at the same time, cases of conflicting intentions. In the second half of the chapter, I defend the attribution of this much conflict in akratic cases. An account of akratic belief and action is only the first step toward a defense of a guise- of-the-good view. The full range of troubling cases is much broader. We sometimes seem to act intentionally without having any belief about whether we ought to take the alternative we intend to take. At other times, it seems, we can believe we ought to do something—get out of bed, or donate to charity—and have no intention to do it. In these cases, either the intention or the corresponding belief seems entirely absent, rather than in conflict. In Chapters 5 and 6, I offer a response to these other counterexamples. The first, an apparent lack of normative belief, arises in cases of indifference, like that of Buridan’s Ass, and in cases of apparently incommensurable or incomparable values. I argue in Chapter 5 that, even when we see no reason to favor one particular alternative over others, we can decide to act nonintentionally—to “just pick” an alternative and take it. We can believe we ought to act nonintentionally, and such a belief can account for our intentions in such cases. Drawing on empirical studies in psychology, I argue in Chapter 6 that the second kind of case, known as accidie, is best understood through an analogy to fatigue, in which an intention is in fact present but hindered by a psychological obstacle. Typical cases of this kind are ones in which we fail to act on an intention, rather than failing to intend to do something. Although it can be stated in one short sentence, the Identity View is the heart of a general theory of intention. It offers a way of understanding what intention is: an intention is a particular kind of belief. Chapter 7 begins to develop that theory, considering a set of more general issues about the nature of intention and belief. By addressing a series of apparent disanalogies between intention and belief with respect to ‘direction of fit’, voluntary control, and reasoning, I try to spell out what thinking of intention as normative belief entails, and why the view is believable. Together, these chapters offer a systematic defense of the classical thought that human motivation has an essential evaluative element. Even when confused, conflicted, or exhausted, we intend to act as we believe we should. 2 Preface Moral philosophy is an escape from dogmatism. It does not just insist that we be kind, eat healthy, and save lives if we can. It asks why we should do any of the things that have been thought to be good or right. To do moral philosophy is, partly, to ask whether and how it can answer the questions it is meant to address. Reflecting about moral questions usually turns at some point to reflecting about human nature. Plato’s consideration of justice brought him to think about the nature and parts of the soul. Aristotle’s inquiry into the characteristics of a good life led him to think about the characteristic activity of human beings. Hume and Kant took on a systematic investigation of willing, reasoning, and desire as part of their moral theory. Moral philosophy incorporates moral psychology, and helps make it interesting. These two kinds of reflection are related. One way to ask whether and how moral questions can be answered is to look for a source of value, goodness, or obligation in the nature of thought or action. The hope is that an adequate moral psychology can lead to an adequate moral philosophy, by helping to show which answers to moral questions are legitimate, and why. We can call an attempt to reach a conclusion about how one should act from a view about the nature of action or thought a “foundational argument” in moral philosophy. Foundational arguments are not new. Kant argued that “A free will and a will under moral laws are one and the same”(1997, 4:447)—that to govern oneself is to be governed by morality. As Korsgaard (2009, 32) puts it: “The laws of logic govern our thoughts because if we don’t follow them we just aren’t thinking…The laws of practical reason govern our actions because if we don’t follow them we just aren’t acting, and acting is something that we must do.” For Kant and Korsgaard, particular laws, or principles, have an inescapable claim on us. If we ask why we must follow them, there is a compelling answer. We must follow these principles, because that is what it is to act. There is widespread skepticism about the prospects of foundational arguments. The notion of action, or of thought, can seem not clear enough, or not restrictive enough, for action or thought to have any interesting basic features.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Implications of Neurobiology on the Study and Interpretation of Scripture
    READING THE BODY, READING SCRIPTURE: THE IMPLICATIONS OF NEUROBIOLOGY ON THE STUDY AND INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE David Cave This paper considers what the neurobiological reading of the body implies for the reading of scripture. By ‘the neurological reading of the body’ I refer to how modern science and culture draw upon cognitive science and genetics to explain and to understand what it means to be human. And by the ‘reading of scripture’ I refer to the practice of the various religious traditions to understand our humanity based on claims of inspired and revealed insights, said to come from some agency transcendent to our naturalized mind and body. I contend that within a naturalistic system these two readings are not mutually exclusive but interrelate such that the reading of one informs and illumines the reading of the other. Among many quarters, the reading of the body has come to rival, even replace, the reading of scripture (and here I refer to scripture broadly understood, of no particular religious tradition) for defining and guiding us in what it means to be a human being. In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, columnist David Brooks, in “The Neural Buddhists,” comments on the widespread interest in neuroscience and genetics and surmises that its proponents will not so much undermine a belief in God as undermine the claims of scripture. He says, “The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public cul- ture . and yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a side- show.
    [Show full text]
  • Transition Booklet
    Religious Studies Year 11-12 Bridging Project Welcome to Religious Studies at A Level! Now that you’ve decided to study Religious Studies at A level, you’ll need to do a bit of preparation. This pack contains activities and resources to prepare you to start your A level in September. It is aimed to be used throughout the rest of the summer term and over the summer holidays to ensure you are ready to start your course in September. When you arrive to your first lesson in September you should also bring a folder, lined paper, dividers and plastic wallets. This course is split into 3 components: 1. Study of a Religion (Hinduism) 2. Ethics 3. Philosophy The resources include: A task for each of the three components. Including research, podcasts, reviews, questions and videos. There is also some suggested tasks to complete and books you could read. 1. Study of a Religion The religion you will be studying is Hinduism. Please read through this article https://www.hinduamerican.org/blog/12-things-you- need-to-know-about-hinduism/ from the article add a list of key terms and definitions you think will be useful for the course. You could also watch the following BBC documentary on Gandhi. Watch all 3 episodes and make notes on what Gandhi believed and why he was so important to the development of modern India. https://youtu.be/TQNbHVjC0sQ 2. Ethics Use the following website to choose a podcast that interests you. Listen to the podcast and write a review below. Think about the ethical issues that arise and arguments for and against the issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Rights and the Roles of Virtues, Perfectionism, and Cultural Progress
    The Law of Education: Educational Rights and the Roles of Virtues, Perfectionism, and Cultural Progress R. GEORGE WRIGHT* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 385 II. EDUCATION: PURPOSES, RECENT OUTCOMES, AND LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR REFORM ................................................................ 391 A. EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND RIGHTS LANGUAGE ...................... 391 B. SOME RECENT GROUNDS FOR CONCERN IN FULFILLING EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ............................................................. 393 C. THE BROAD RANGE OF AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES FOR THE LEGAL REFORM OF EDUCATION ............................................................... 395 III. SOME LINKAGES BETWEEN EDUCATION AND THE BASIC VIRTUES, PERFECTIONISM, AND CULTURAL PROGRESS ..................................... 397 IV. VIRTUES AND THEIR LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ...................................................................... 401 V. PERFECTIONISM AND ITS LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ...................................................................... 410 VI. CULTURAL PROGRESS OVER TIME AND ITS LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM .............................................. 417 VII. CONCLUSION: EDUCATION LAW AS RIGHTS-CENTERED AND AS THE PURSUIT OF WORTHY VALUES AND GOALS: THE EXAMPLE OF HORNE V. FLORES ............................................................................................ 431 I. INTRODUCTION The law of education
    [Show full text]
  • Anscombe, Foot, and Contemporary Virtue Ethics
    J Value Inquiry (2010) 44:209–224 DOI 10.1007/s10790-010-9218-0 Virtue Ethics without Right Action: Anscombe, Foot, and Contemporary Virtue Ethics John Hacker-Wright Published online: 5 March 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 1 Introduction Working out a criterion of morally right action is central to developing virtue ethics.1 Most advocates of virtue ethics believe that achieving such a criterion is crucial to vindicating virtue ethics as a normative theory. Yet the centrality of this task marks a departure from the views of at least some of the philosophers credited with the revival of virtue ethics in the twentieth century, especially from the views of G.E.M. Anscombe and Philippa Foot. Anscombe especially has sharp criticisms of the way philosophers handle the concept of morally right action along with related concepts like moral obligation. Yet the work of contemporary virtue ethicists such as Rosalind Hursthouse, Michael Slote, and Christine Swanton features little discussion of Anscombe’s criticisms or the reasons that the other virtue revivalists avoided providing a criterion of moral rightness. The dominant assumption appears to be that the earlier virtue revivalists neglect establishing a criterion of morally right action because their concern is to give priority to the evaluation of an agent over his acts as a corrective to the exclusive attention given to act-evaluation in the moral philosophy of the time. For Anscombe and Foot, at least, the concern to give priority to agent-evaluation is not among their motives for advocating a return to virtues.2 Instead, they believe that moral philosophers from the modern period forward have given the terms ‘‘right’’ and ‘‘ought’’ an artificial and incoherent sense.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Bernard Williams's Criticism of Aristotelian Naturalism
    UNDERSTANDING BERNARD WILLIAMS’S CRITICISM OF ARISTOTELIAN NATURALISM Michael Addison A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of MPhil at the University of St Andrews 2015 Full metadata for this item is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/9315 This item is protected by original copyright Understanding Bernard Williams’s Criticism of Aristotelian Naturalism. Michael Addison This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of MPhil at the University of St Andrews 19th November 2015 Abstract: In Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (henceforth ELP) Williams claims that holding a naturalistic Aristotelian ethical theory is no longer an option for us—we cannot believe what Aristotle believed about human beings. It is the purpose of this thesis to understand what Williams means by this claim and to evaluate whether or not it constitutes a pressing argument against Aristotelian naturalism. The modern Aristotelian (represented here by Martha Nussbaum, Philippa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse) seems to be untouched by the claim as presented—they do not have to hold Aristotle’s view of human nature. The Aristotelian approaches human nature, not from an “outside” perspective, like the scientist, but from an “inside” perspective—from the point of view of an ethically engaged agent. The method does not seek to use a theory-independent notion of human nature to vindicate the Aristotelian claim that the properly functioning human being is virtuous. Rather, the Aristotelian is engaged in a project of using the notions of virtue that we already possess, to paint a picture of the kind of lives that we can all identify with, and endorse as properly functioning.
    [Show full text]
  • Anscombe Reading Aristotle*
    Enrahonar. An International Journal of Theoretical and Practical Reason 64, 2020 63-79 Anscombe reading Aristotle* Susana Cadilha Universidade Nova de Lisboa – IFILNOVA [email protected] Reception date: 4-11-2019 Acceptance date: 2-12-2019 Abstract Under one particular reading of it, Anscombe’s ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ is considered a seminal text in the revival of virtue ethics. Seen thus, Anscombe is implying that it is possible to do ethics without using concepts such as ‘moral ought’ or ‘moral obligation’, the perfect example being Aristotelian ethics. On the other hand, Anscombe claims that it is not useful at present to engage in moral philosophy since she finds that ‘philosophically there is a huge gap… which needs to be filled by an account of human nature, human action, …and above all of human “flourishing”’ (Anscombe, 1958: 18). The gap Anscombe refers to appears where there should be a ‘proof that an unjust man is a bad man’. My aim in this paper is to discuss the various ways in which Anscombe’s theses can be interpreted, recalling two other philosophers for whom Aristotelian virtue ethics was also essential: P. Foot and J. McDowell. I will argue that Anscombe did not expect Aristotelian ethics to answer the problems modern ethics poses. Keywords: ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’; Aristotelian ethics; virtue ethics; moral naturalism; Philippa Foot; John McDowell Resum. Anscombe llegint a Aristòtil Fent-ne una lectura particular, «Modern Moral Philosophy» (La filosofia moral moder- na) d’Anscombe es considera un text fundador en el renaixement de l’ètica de la virtut. Vist així, Anscombe insinua que és possible fer ètica sense emprar conceptes com «deure moral» o «obligació moral»; l’exemple perfecte n’és l’ètica aristotèlica.
    [Show full text]
  • Maynooth Philosophical Papers Issue 5 (2008)
    MAYNOOTH PHILOSOPHICAL PAPERS ISSUE 5 (2008) An Anthology of Current Research from the Department of Philosophy, NUI Maynooth Issue Editor: Simon Nolan General Editor: Michael Dunne This issue of Maynooth )hilosophical apers is dedicated to the memory of !r#$%&&#r J#)n ,%ary M123 Associate Professor of Philosophy at NUI, Maynooth who died on April 12th, 2009. ISBN 978 0 901519 627 © 2009 The Department of Philosophy, National University of Ireland — Maynooth, and the Individual Authors +4567568 rrd by Dr Michael Dunne i u dr nrdun ii Michael Dunne Aodh Mac Aingil (Hugo Cavellus, 1571–1626) on Doubt, Evidence and Certitude 1 Patrick Gorevan Philippa Foot’s ‘Natural Goodness’ 9 Mette Lebech Stein’s Phenomenology of the Body: The constitution of the human being between description of experience and social construction 16 Cyril McDonnell Why Punish the Guilty? Towards a Philosophical Analysis of the State’s Justification of Punishment 21 Simon Nolan Teaching and Learning in the Summa theologiae of Gerard of Bologna (d. 1317) 35 Wayne Waxman Universality and the Analytic Unity of Apperception in Kant: a reading of CPR B133-4n 42 178731+ Susan Byrne Remarks on Ludwig Wittgenstein and Behaviourism 49 John Haydn Gurmin A Bibliography of English Language Commentaries on the Philosophy of Edith Stein 57 Conleth Loonan The De mixtione elementorum of Thomas Aquinas 75 9#r%:#rd It is my great pleasure as general editor of the Maynooth hilosophical apers to write the foreword to this year’s edition of our journal which is the fifth volume in the series. My heartfelt thanks and warmest congratulations to all of the contributors, both staff and students, and especially to the volume editor, Fr Simon Nolan, for doing such a wonderful job in bringing together this valuable collection of papers.
    [Show full text]
  • Philippa Foot's Ethical Naturalism
    http://dx.doi.org/10.15801/je.1.101.201505.101 Philippa Foot’s Ethical Naturalism Philippa Foot’s Ethical Naturalism: A Defense Chung, Hun(PhD, Philosophy, Cornell University)* 1 Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to defend Philippa Foot’s ethical naturalism from D.Z. Phillips and H.O. Mounce’s criticisms. The paper as a whole consist of two main parts. In Part I, I will introduce and explain Foot’s ethical naturalism. In Part II, I will defend Foot’s ethical naturalism from Phillips and Mounce’s several criticisms. Key words - Philippa Foot; Ethical Naturalism; Emotivism; Non-Cognitivism; Phillips and Mounce * Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, University of Arizona (from Aug 2015) Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology PhD Candidate in Political Science, University of Rochester Main Areas: Ethics, Political Philosophy, Rational Choice Theory (viz. Decision, Game, Social Choice Theory), Philosophy of Science/Social Science, Comparative Politics 101 Journal of Ethics, Vol. 101 (May 30, 2015). INTRODUCTION: OUTLINE OF THE ENTIRE PAPER The purpose of this paper is to defend Philippa Foot’s ethical naturalism; the theoretical stance that claims that moral and certain evaluative terms are, not just externally or contingently, but also internally and logically related to appropriate facts and objects. The paper as a whole consists of two main parts: Part I: Foot’s Project: Defending Ethical Naturalism; and Part II: A Reply to Phillips and Mounce’s Reply. The main objective of the first part, which is titled “Foot’s Project: Defending Ethical Naturalism”, is to introduce and explain, in rather detail, Foot’s metaethical stance that she expressed in her early papers; “Moral Argument” and “Moral Beliefs”.
    [Show full text]
  • Dirty Hands: the One and the Many Charles Blattberg Professor Of
    Dirty Hands: The One and the Many Charles Blattberg Professor of Political Philosophy Université de Montréal The problem of “dirty hands” has appeared in the literature of political philosophy only relatively recently. No doubt this is connected to the fact that, as Alasdair MacIntyre points out, far more has been written on the theme of moral dilemmas in the past fifty years or so than in all the time from Plato until then.1 Talk of dirty hands, after all, is the application of this theme to politics. Listen to what Hoederer, in Sartre’s play of the same name, has to say about it: How you cling to your purity, young man! How afraid you are to soil your hands! All right, stay pure! What good will it do? Why did you join us? Purity is an idea for a yogi or a monk. You intellectuals and bourgeois anarchists use it as a pretext for doing nothing. To do nothing, to remain motionless, arms at your sides, wearing kid gloves. Well, I have dirty hands. Right up to the elbows. I’ve plunged them in filth and blood. But what do you hope? Do you think you can govern innocently?2 Hoederer’s last question can apply not only to the matter of ongoing governance but also to crisis situations such as the “ticking time bomb” scenario, which has become prominent in the literature. Imagine you’re a well-meaning elected political leader and your security forces have captured a terrorist. He knows the location of a recently planted bomb but he refuses to divulge it.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Problems for Aristotelian Naturalism in Contemporary Moral Philosophy
    SOFIA MIGUENS* IS THERE A SINGLE WAY FOR ALL HUMANS TO BE HUMAN? SOME PROBLEMS FOR ARISTOTELIAN NATURALISM IN CONTEMPORARY MORAL PHILOSOPHY Abstract Aristotelian naturalists may have diverging interpretations of Aristotle’s idea that the good life for a human being is a life of activity in accordance with the virtues. Such is the case of John McDowell (McDowell 1998) and Philippa Foot (Foot 1978). One important question here is whether Aristotelian naturalism in moral philoso- phy commits one to the idea of a good, or goods, which are natural to humans qua humans. Naturalism is a very widespread position in contemporary analytic philoso- phy yet not always very clearly spelled out. In order to search for clarity regarding what one means by naturalism, I explore several strands of McDowell’s case for sec- ond-nature naturalism as a position in moral philosophy. I then assess an argument put forward against it by Bernard Williams in Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Williams 1985). Building on a suggestion by Alan Thomas in Value and Context –1 The nature of moral and political knowledge (Thomas 2006) and complementing * Associate Professor at the Department of Philosophy and researcher at the Institute of Philosophy, University of Porto. Director of Modern and Contemporary Philosophy Bureau and Principal Investigator of the Mind, Language and Action Group (MLAG). Research interests: Philosophy of Mind and Language, Epistemology and Cognitive Science, Moral Philosophy. Filosofia. Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 34 (2017) 167-186 167 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21747/21836892/fil34a7 SOFIA MIGUENS it with a view of rationality inspired by S.Stich (The Fragmentation of Reason, Stich 1990) I end with a proposal on how to keep Aristotelianism in moral philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS Professor Dermot Moran Phd, Dlitt
    Dermot Moran Conference Presentations 1979–2016 CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS Professor Dermot Moran PhD, DLitt, MRIA Full Professor of Philosophy (Chair of Metaphysics & Logic) University College Dublin Updated Saturday, June 11, 2016 [214 Conference Presentations since 1979] 2016 1. Dermot Moran, Workshop on Phenomenology of Anxiety, Marie Curie, Newman House, Dublin [4th November 2016] 2. Dermot Moran, Exexutive Committee Member, 55th Annual SPEP Conference, Utah Valley University, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA [20-23 October 2016] 3. “Hermeneutics of the Body,” Invited Speaker, North American Society for Philosophical Hermeneutics (NASPH), 55th Annual SPEP Conference, Utah Valley University, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA [20 October 2016] 4. Dermot Moran, Keynote Speaker, Conference on Plotinus and Neoplatonism: Continuing Influence and Contemporary Relevance, Rochester Institute of Technology, 16-18 October 2016 [16 October 2016] 5. Dermot Moran, Committee Member, Meeting of Programme Committee, 24th World Congress of Philosophy, Peking University, Beijing 3-5 September 2016 6. Dermot Moran, Plenary Speaker, World Congress in Philosophy: “The Philosophy of Aristotle”, School of Philosophy, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, 9-15 July 2016. 7. Dermot Moran, Phenomenology Summer School in Venice, DIPARTIMENTO DI FILOSOFIA E BENI CULTURALI/ Venice, Italy, 10-15 July 2016 [http://www.phenomenologyinvenice.com] 8. Dermot Moran, Commentator on Jacob Rump, ‘Sense and Significance in the Later Husserl’, 46th Meeting of the Husserl Circle, Loyola University Chicago, 15-18 June 2016 [Wed 15 June 2016] 9. Dermot Moran, President, Steering Committee Meeting, Comité Directeur, Réunion, Université Houphouët-Boigny d'Abidjan-Cocody, Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Africa [Friday 3rd & Saturday 4 June 2016] 1 Dermot Moran Conference Presentations 1979–2016 10.
    [Show full text]
  • PHILIPPA FOOT Philippa Ruth Foot 1920–2010
    PHILIPPA FOOT Philippa Ruth Foot 1920–2010 I PHILIPPA RUTH FOOT was born on 3 October 1920, the second daughter of William Bosanquet, who had done mathematics at Cambridge and became the manager of a steelworks in Yorkshire, and Esther Cleveland, daughter of President Grover Cleveland. She was educated mainly at home in the country by governesses, and not well. She said, many years later, that, ‘unsurprisingly’, she had been left ‘extremely ignorant’, and when the last one, ‘who actually had a degree’, suggested to her that she should go to Oxford, she had to work for it. She spent a year with an established Oxford entrance coach and took a correspondence course to acquire the necessary entrance Latin; the result was a place at Somerville College, where she went to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics (PPE) in 1939. She graduated with First Class Honours in 1942, and, like many of her female contemporaries, immediately looked for ‘war work’. After a year working in Oxford for the Nuffield Social Reconstruction Survey, she moved to work in London where she remained until the end of the war. There she married the historian M. R. D. Foot in June 1945 and, with him, returned to Oxford later that year where she took up a teaching posi- tion at Somerville (the marriage was dissolved in 1960). She became their first Tutorial Fellow in Philosophy in 1949, Vice-Principal in 1967, and, although she resigned her fellowship in 1969, she retained, as a Senior Research Fellow and then Honorary Fellow, very close links with the College and Somervillians, past and present, until the end of her life.
    [Show full text]