DOCSLIB.ORG

Realistic Fictionalism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Realistic Fictionalism Realistic Fictionalism Christopher Jay UCL (Submitted for the degree of PhD, Summer 2011) I, Christopher Jay, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own, except where indicated. __________________________________ (14/09/2011) 2 Abstract Realistic Fictionalism, argues for two main claims: First, that there is no conceptual or logical incoherence in the idea of a fictionalist theory of some discourse which accommodates a form of realism about that discourse (a claim which has been made in passing by various people, but which has never been adequately explored and assessed); and Second, that just such a fictionalist theory promises to be the best theory of our ordinary moral commitments, judgements and deliberation. In Part I, I explore the spirit of fictionalism and argue that thinking of fictionalism as closely tied to an analogy between its target discourse and fiction is liable to be misleading and is not mandatory. It emerges that the fictionalist’s strategy requires just a semantic thesis (representationalism) and a thesis about the sort of ‘acceptance’ appropriate for some practice involving their target discourse (nondoxasticism). I offer a theory of what ‘acceptance’ is, which treats belief as a mode of acceptance and distinguishes the nondoxastic modes of acceptance from belief in a principled and independently plausible way. And I argue that the coherence of realistic fictionalism is preserved by the fact that a person (the realistic fictionalist) can perfectly coherently both believe and nondoxastically accept the same claims. In Part II, I employ the theory of acceptance developed in Part I to propose a fictionalist model of how our ordinary moral commitments often are and generally ought to be. I then give an argument to the conclusion that, in respect of the relation between moral commitment and action guiding at least, it would be better if our moral commitments were to be nondoxastic. I then argue that realistic fictionalism offers a better way of explaining why we ought to have any moral commitments at all than a non-realist fictionalist theory could. 3 Contents Abstract 3 Acknowledgements 6 Introduction: Introduction 9 1. Introduction 9 2. Some Key ‘Isms 14 3. The Character-Centred Fictionalist Model 24 4. The Thesis 31 Part I Chapter One: The Spirit of Fictionalism 34 1. Introduction 34 2. Fiction, Truth and Acceptance 36 3. Different Types of Fictionalism 45 4. Fictionalism and Truth in Fiction 53 5. Conclusion 55 Chapter Two: Fictionalism for Realists 58 1. Introduction 58 2. Fictionalism 60 3. Daly’s Trilemma 68 4. The Crowding Out Objection 70 5. No Crowding Out 72 6. Conclusion 83 Chapter Three: The Varieties of Acceptance 84 1. Introduction 84 2. Acceptance and Belief 86 3. A Theory of Acceptance 91 4. Horwich’s Objection 103 5. Fictionalism and Pragmatic Norms 111 6. Not Just Practicalities 114 7. Conclusion 116 Part II Chapter Four: The Nondoxastic Character of Moral Commitment 120 1. Introduction 120 2. The Character of Moral Commitment 124 3. Evidence 132 4. Excursus: A Literary Illustration 147 5. Conclusion 151 4 Chapter Five: The Good in the Nondoxastic 153 1. Introduction 153 2. Must Nondoxastic Commitments be Flimsy? 155 3. Fictionalisms: Hermeneutic, Revolutionary, and Evaluative 156 4. The Subjective Warrant Argument 162 5. Realistic Fictionalism and the Subjective Warrant Argument(s) 188 6. Conclusion 192 Chapter Six: Vindicating Realism 194 1. Introduction 194 2. Error Theory and the Challenge to Ordinary Commitments 198 3. How a Vindication Can Be the Wrong Sort of Vindication 202 4. The Wrong Sort of Vindication of Morality 208 5. An Adequate Vindication of Morality 214 6. Conclusion 229 Conclusion: Conclusion 231 References 236 5 Acknowledgments The Philosophy department at UCL is a wonderful place to do research, and my time there writing this thesis has been filled with friendliness and lots of stimulating discussion, from which I have learned an immeasurable amount. This thesis would not be even as good as it is now were it not for the people and atmosphere there. The debt I owe to Mark Kalderon’s published work on fictionalism will be obvious from what I have written, but what I really want to thank him for is his support and advice in his capacity as supervisor throughout my writing it. He has been always pragmatic, frequently critical (but always constructively), and the source of a great many ideas and suggestions. And not only has it been exciting working on fictionalism with the person whose book, Moral Fictionalism, awakened me to both the topic and the possibility of a novel position within it worth exploring, it has been a valuable lesson in how to do philosophy to work at close quarters with a philosopher whose interests and expertise range so widely and so deeply. I have also had the privilege of discussing drafts of some portions of the written work included here (or related work) with Marcus Giaquinto and with Jonathan Wolff. I want to thank them both for their encouragement and for their comments. Much of my view, and of the way in which I develop it here, is the result of conversations I have had with others (sympathetic or sceptical) in the UCL department and within the University of London philosophy community, in a variety of contexts: I thank Luc Bovens, George Hull, Rory Madden, Mike Martin, Lucy O’Brien, Moises Vaca Paniagua, David Papineau, Ian Rumfitt and Barry Smith; and in particular I thank Craig French for his continuing interest in what I am doing and his eye for detail, and Lee Walters for his insights and for championing my cause. Both have been invaluable intellectual allies. I must also mention a Friday afternoon on which I had conversations with first Maarten Steenhagen and then Amber Corfield-Moore which finally (after several failed attempts to adequately formulate my view of the nondoxastic character of moral commitment) put me in a position to say what my positive view is. I have also benefitted from conversation, outside London, with Ralph Wedgwood. And, for as long as I have been thinking about philosophy, I have been challenged and prompted by Hayder Al-Mohammad, as much on the topics of this thesis as on anything. It is indicative of the spirit of friendly cooperativeness I have so much enjoyed at UCL that the (now annual) summer Work In Progress (WIP) seminars, at which the graduate community discuss each others’ work, are so well attended and useful. In a 2010 WIP we discussed a paper of mine on 6 the themes of this thesis (though of which only a few paragraphs have survived into the final work), and in 2011 the WIP discussed a penultimate draft of Chapter Four. I very much want to thank everyone who attended those discussions, and particularly Tom Avery, Henry Clarke, Amber Corfield-Moore, Craig French, Alex Geddes, Dave Holly, George Hull, Ben Martin, Jonny McIntosh, Ed Nettel, Tim Short, Maarten Steenhagen, Lee Walters and no doubt some others whose contributing I have failed in my duty to recall for their help. Versions of Chapter Two were presented at graduate conferences in Manchester (Open Minds IV) and Leeds (CMM Graduate Metaphysics Conference) in the summer of 2009, and I am grateful to Phil Brown, Phil Letts, David Liggins, Jon Robson (my commentator at Leeds), Jason Turner, Robbie Williams, and several others at those institutions for their questions and feedback. I am certain that I owe debts of gratitude for ideas and discussions which I have not managed to record here. If I have forgotten (because I failed to adequately record) the names of some who have helped me it is because I am slovenly and decadent, and not because I am ungrateful. I have enjoyed the financial support of both the AHRC (who fully funded my doctoral research in 2008-10, having already funded my MPhil) and the Royal Institute of Philosophy (whose Bursary has supported the final year of my research). I am very grateful to those institutions, and to those at UCL who were instrumental in securing their support. My family have always encouraged me, and for that I am enormously grateful. I hope the fact that I have finally managed to complete my education after all this time will be as much a source of pride to them as their support (both financial and moral) has been appreciated by me. It is customary on occasions such as this for the author to say that they could not have written the work without the love and support of their partner. I consider it no great compliment to mine to saddle her with partial responsibility for the existence of this work, but without Amber Corfield- Moore’s love and support its author would be incalculably less happy and less utterly delighted to be alive. I hope that truthful compliment does something approaching adequate justice to the gratitude I owe her, though I know that it does not. 7 And the man that has anything bountifully laughable about him, be sure there is more in that man than you perhaps think for. Ishmael, in Moby Dick (Herman Melville) 8 – Introduction – Introduction Where [‘The Myth of the Seven’] speaks of ‘making as if you believe that S’, I would now say ‘being as if you believe that S, but not really believing it except possibly per accidens’ (See Yablo, 2002a). Related to this, mathematical objects may exist for all I know. I do not rule it out that ‘2 + 3 = 5’ is literally true in addition to being metaphorically true, making it a twice-true metaphor along the lines of ‘no man is an island’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Fictionalism: Morality and Metaphor"
    - 1 - Fictionalism: Morality and metaphor Richard Joyce Penultimate draft of paper appearing in F. Kroon & B. Armour-Garb (eds.), Philosophical Fictionalism (Oxford University Press, forthcoming). 1. Introduction Language and reflection often pull against each other. Ordinary ways of talking appear to commit speakers to ontologies that may, upon reflection, be deemed problematic for a variety of empirical, metaphysical, and/or epistemological reasons. The use of moral discourse, for example, appears to commit speakers to the existence of obligation, evil, desert, praiseworthiness (and so on), while metaethical reflection raises a host of doubts about how such properties could exist in the world and how we could have access to them if they did. One extreme solution to the tension is to give up reflection—to become like those “honest gentlemen” of England, as Hume described them, who “being always employ’d in domestic affairs, or amusing themselves in common recreations, have carried their thoughts very little beyond those objects” (Treatise 1.4.7.14). Hume sounds a touch envious of the unreflective idyll, but the very fact that he is penning a treatise on human nature shows that this is not a solution available to him; and, likewise, the very fact that you are reading this chapter shows that it’s unlikely to be a solution for you. Another extreme solution to the tension is to give up language—not in toto, of course, but selectively: to stop using those elements of discourse that are deemed to have unacceptable commitments. How radical this eliminativism is will depend on the nature of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • "Fictionalism in Metaethics"
    - 1 - Fictionalism in metaethics Richard Joyce Penultimate draft of paper appearing in D. Plunkett & T. McPherson (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Metaethics (forthcoming). 1. Introduction Looking back, it is clear that humans have held massively mistaken beliefs about virtually every aspect of the world: the place of the Earth in the universe, the physical nature of everyday objects, where living things come from and how they reproduce, what happens to us when we die, and so forth. We are pretty good at getting things wrong. Often these errors can be corrected while the key concepts are revised rather than rejected. We didn’t decide that the Earth, stars, animals, death, etc., don’t exist; rather, we rectified our false beliefs about them and carried on talking about these topics (now, hopefully, more truly). Sometimes, however, the errors are so entrenched that the concepts in question seem beyond salvaging. Regarding angels, vitalistic life force, karmic reincarnation, tapu, supernatural divination, phlogiston, astrology, and so on, we didn’t simply undertake an internal correction to the concepts in question, but rather decided that the whole conceptual framework in question was faulty. It will be widely agreed that humans have held massively mistaken beliefs about morality. These mistakes may pertain to the substantive content of morality (believing that women should be subservient to men, for example) or to the general nature of morality (believing that God’s will determines moral properties, for example). (One might try to reduce the extent of moral error by plumping for a form of radical relativism, but then one would have to ascribe false beliefs about morality to all those absolutists.) Many philosophers maintain (or hope) that these mistakes in moral thinking are of the former variety, such that our moral concepts can be patched up and we can carry on talking (now, hopefully, more truly) about right and wrong, virtue and vice, obligations and responsibilities, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a New Theory of Modal Fictionalism
    Dombrovszki, A.: Towards a New Theory of Modal Fictionalism. In: Ostium, roč. 13, 2017, č. 4. Abstract: In our everyday discourse, most of us use modal statements to express possibility, necessity, or contingency. Logicians, linguists, and philosophers of language tend to use the possible world discourse to analyse the semantics of this kind of sentences. There is a disadvantage of this method: in the usual Quinean meta-ontology it commits the users to the existence of possible worlds. Even though there are many theories on metaphysics of these possible worlds, I will focus on the fictionalist approach, which aims to suspend the undesired ontological commitment. Therefore it is an anti-realist theory. The fictionalist strategy is based on the idea that according to our common- sense ontology, fictions and fictional entities do not exist, and one can treat the possible world discourse as a fiction, and the possible worlds as fictional entities. However, in the last two decades, realist theories about fictions and fictional entities have arisen, especially the abstract artefact theory. In this paper I try to revise the fictionalist approach to modality by keeping the main idea that possible worlds are fictional entities, while accepting that fictional entities are abstract artefacts. The result is a new realist theory of modal fictionalism. Keywords: analytic philosophy, metaphysics, philosophy of language, fictionalism, modality, possible worlds The aim of this paper is to provide a revised version of the so-called fictionalist approach to modality.[1] Proponents of this view hold that realist theories about possible worlds, and therefore the whole possible world discourse is just a useful fiction, and – at least I suppose that – possible worlds are fictional entities.
    [Show full text]
  • Realism and Anti-Realism in Mathematics
    REALISM AND ANTI-REALISM IN MATHEMATICS The purpose of this essay is (a) to survey and critically assess the various meta- physical views - Le., the various versions of realism and anti-realism - that people have held (or that one might hold) about mathematics; and (b) to argue for a particular view of the metaphysics of mathematics. Section 1 will provide a survey of the various versions of realism and anti-realism. In section 2, I will critically assess the various views, coming to the conclusion that there is exactly one version of realism that survives all objections (namely, a view that I have elsewhere called full-blooded platonism, or for short, FBP) and that there is ex- actly one version of anti-realism that survives all objections (namely, jictionalism). The arguments of section 2 will also motivate the thesis that we do not have any good reason for favoring either of these views (Le., fictionalism or FBP) over the other and, hence, that we do not have any good reason for believing or disbe- lieving in abstract (i.e., non-spatiotemporal) mathematical objects; I will call this the weak epistemic conclusion. Finally, in section 3, I will argue for two further claims, namely, (i) that we could never have any good reason for favoring either fictionalism or FBP over the other and, hence, could never have any good reason for believing or disbelieving in abstract mathematical objects; and (ii) that there is no fact of the matter as to whether fictionalism or FBP is correct and, more generally, no fact of the matter as to whether there exist any such things as ab- stract objects; I will call these two theses the strong epistemic conclusion and the metaphysical conclusion, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Fictionalism for Cheap
    FICTIONALISM IN METAPHYSICS. EDITED BY MARK ELI KALDERON. OXFORD: CLARENDON PRESS, 2005. PP I-X, 1-354. Zoltán Gendler Szabó Yale University Anti-realists about a particular region of discourse think the subject matter is either non- existent or non-objective. Typically they provide a semantic exposition of their view. Non-factualists argue that the declarative sentences within the discourse are not truth-apt. Deflationists concede that they are, but claim that their content is not representational. Indeterminists accept that the sentences have representational contents, but not contents that can determine truth-values. Reductionists propose contents yielding determinate truth-values, but insist that those contents are not what we would naively think they are. All such views face an uphill battle against the realist who thinks that “if the theory seems to say, for example, that every person has a guardian angel in heaven, then the theory is true only if the angels in heaven really exist.”1 Fictionalists are a new breed of anti-realists who don’t fight these semantic battles. They subscribe to a full-blown realist construal of the disputed discourse, but maintain that the point of accepting claims within the relevant discourse is not to commit ourselves to the truth of those claims. If we were clearheaded about what the discourse is for, we would accept those claims without believing them. Hermeneutic fictionalists think we are in fact clearheaded; revolutionary fictionalists think we should be.2 1 Gideon Rosen, ‘Problems in the History of Fictionalism.’ In Kalderon (2005): 14. 2 The hermeneutic/revolutionary distinction is from Burgess (1983).
    [Show full text]
  • "Moral Fictionalism"
    - 1 - Moral fictionalism* Richard Joyce Penultimate draft of the paper appearing in M.E. Kalderon (ed.), Fictionalism in Metaphysics (OUP: 2005) 287-313 Were I not afraid of appearing too philosophical, I should remind my reader of that famous doctrine, supposed to be fully proved in modern times, “That tastes and colours, and all other sensible qualities, lie not in the bodies, but merely in the senses.” The case is the same with beauty and deformity, virtue and vice. This doctrine, however, takes off no more from the reality of the latter qualities, than from that of the former; nor need it give any umbrage either to critics or moralists. Though colours were allowed to lie only in the eye, would dyers or painters ever be less regarded or esteemed? There is a sufficient uniformity in the senses and feelings of mankind, to make all these qualities the objects of art and reasoning, and to have the greatest influence on life and manners. And as it is certain, that the discovery above-mentioned in natural philosophy, makes no alteration on action and conduct; why should a like discovery in moral philosophy make any alteration? David Hume, “The Sceptic” in Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary (1742) 1. IF THERE’S NOTHING THAT WE MORALLY OUGHT TO DO, THEN WHAT OUGHT WE TO DO? On the very last page of his book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, John Mackie (1977) suggests that moral discourse—which he has argued is deeply error-laden—can continue with the status of a “useful fiction.” I presume that most people will agree, for a variety of reasons, that morality is in some manner useful.
    [Show full text]
  • Nietzsche's and Pessoa's Psychological Fictionalism
    Nietzsche’s and Pessoa’s Psychological Fictionalism Antonio Cardiello* & Pietro Gori** Keywords Nietzsche; Pessoa; Vaihinger; Mead; Fictionalism; Subjectivity; Neo-Kantianism. Abstract In a note to G.R.S. Mead’s Quests Old and New, where he Found a section devoted to Hans Vaihinger’s main ideas, Fernando Pessoa reFlects on the consequences oF the Fictionalist approach to both our perception oF the I and the value oF consciousness. These questions correspond to some statements that we Find in Nietzsche’s writings, which in particular Vaihinger reFers to in his Die Philosophie des Als-ob. Our aim is thus to compare Nietzsche’s and Pessoa’s view oF the I and consciousness, and to deal with their psychology by making reFerence to Vaihinger’s Fictionalism. Palavras-chave Nietzsche; Pessoa; Vaihinger; Mead; Ficcionalismo; Subjectividade; Neokantismo. Resumo Num apontamento relacionado com a leitura de Quests Old and New de G.R.S. Mead, que revisita as teses principais de Hans Vaihinger, Fernando Pessoa reFlecte sobre as consequências de uma abordagem Ficcionalista quanto à percepção do eu e ao valor da consciência. As questões que Pessoa coloca encontram correspondência com os escritos de Nietzsche a quem Vaihinger se reFere, em particular, no seu livro Philosophie des Als-ob. O nosso intuito é o de aproFundar a comparação entre a concepção do eu e da consciência em Nietzsche e Pessoa, reconstruindo as posições de ambos nos moldes do Ficcionalismo de Vaihinger. * IFILNOVA – Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas – Universidade Nova de Lisboa. ** IFILNOVA – Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas – Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Cardiello & Gori Psychological Fictionalism Sou nada..
    [Show full text]
  • Fictionalism and the Incompleteness Problem
    Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-015-1000-1 Fictionalism and the incompleteness problem Lukas Skiba1 Received: 27 April 2015 / Accepted: 18 December 2015 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Modal fictionalists face a problem that arises due to their possible-world story being incomplete in the sense that certain relevant claims are neither true nor false according to it. It has recently been suggested that this incompleteness prob- lem generalises to other brands of fictionalism, such as fictionalism about composite or mathematical objects. In this paper, I argue that these fictionalist positions are particularly threatened by a generalised incompleteness problem since they cannot emulate the modal fictionalists’ most attractive response. I then defend mathematical and compositional fictionalism by showing that the reasons for which the incomplete- ness problem has been thought to affect them are mistaken. This leads to the question of whether there are other fictionalist positions to which the problem does in fact generalise. I give a general account of the features of a fictionalist position that gen- erate the incompleteness problem and argue that whenever a fictionalist position does exemplify these features then the problem can be addressed in analogy to the modal fictionalists’ preferred response. Keywords Fictionalism · Possible worlds · Mathematical objects · Composite objects · Fictional incompleteness 1 Modal fictionalism and the incompleteness problem Modal realists endorse all instances of the following schema (R-Mod) φ ↔[φ]T where φ is an ordinary modal sentence and [φ]T is φ’s regimentation in the realists’ B Lukas Skiba [email protected] 1 Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UK 123 Synthese possible-world language.
    [Show full text]
  • Field on Nominalism 1. What Is Field's Fictionalism? Realist (Or
    Field on Nominalism 1. What is Field’s fictionalism? Realist (or mathematical idealist): someone who literally believes mathematical theories taken at face value Fictionalist: someone who doesn’t (although the fictionalist may in some nonliteral sense believe mathematical theories taken at face value, and literally believe mathematical theories on some devious reinterpretation) Questions for fictionalist (p.2): (i) are mathematical theories true on some non- face-value interpretation? (semantic fictionalism) (ii) does this interpretation give the ‘real meaning’ of the theories? (hermeneutic fictionalism). Field: (ii) is an uninteresting verbal question; a fictionalist does not need to be committed to (i). What does a fictionalist who ‘accepts’ a mathematical claim C literally believe? That C follows from standard mathematics; or better (footnote 3) that it follows from standard mathematics together with some purely nonmathematical facts. (p. 5) Is there any real difference between platonism and fictionalism? 2. Conservativeness A mathematical theory S is conservative if, for any purely nonmathematical sentence A, and any body of such sentences N, A is a consequence of N+S only if A is a consequence of N. 3. Justification for belief in mathematical entities (i) Claims like ‘2 + 2 = 4’ are analytic truths (p. 4) Reply: no they’re not; existence-claims are never analytic. (ii) The specifically mathematical methods we (mathematicians, elementary school kids,...) actually use for coming by mathematical beliefs are good methods: they confer justification on the beliefs we arrive at by using them. Interpretation 1: the methods are things like the algorithms for addition and multiplication, deduction from the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms for set theory, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysical Accounts of Modality
    Metaphysical accounts of modality A comparative evaluation of Lewisian and neo-Aristotelian modal metaphysics David Chua Philosophy honours thesis Supervisor: Nicholas J.J. Smith The University of Sydney 12|10|2012 Metaphysical accounts of modality: An evaluation of Lewisian and neo-Aristotelian modal metaphysics ~Table of Contents ~ Introduction .................................................................................................. 3 1 Evaluating David Lewis’ genuine modal realism (GMR) ......................... 7 I. A plenitude of possibilities. ........................................................................................... 9 II. Not that ontologically crazy. ...................................................................................... 10 III. Genuine reduction. .................................................................................................... 10 1.1 GMR requires revision of moral beliefs ................................................... 12 I. Can egocentric desires ground morality? .................................................................... 13 II. GMR still generates moral dilemmas. ....................................................................... 14 III. Duplicate worlds to the rescue? ............................................................................... 20 IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 22 1.2 GMR gives unsatisfactory truthmakers for de re modality ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Fictionalism, the Frege-Geach Problem, and Reasonable Inference
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by SAS-SPACE Moral Fictionalism, the Frege-Geach Problem, and Reasonable Inference Mark Eli Kalderon 5 May 2007St Andrews Metaethics Workshop § T C CHANGE SLIDE Go through outline of talk CHANGE SLIDE It is my sincerest hope that if there is one thing that people take away from Moral Fictionalism, it is the recognition that standard noncognitivism involves a syndrome of three, logically distinct claims. Standard noncognitivists claim that moral judgment is not belief or any other cognitive attitude but is, rather, a noncognitive attitude more akin to desire; that this noncognitive attitude is expressed by our public moral utterances; and, hence, that our public moral utterances lack a distinctively moral subject matter and so are not answerable to the moral facts. Notice, however, that these are logically distinct claimsthe rst is a psychological claim, the second and third, positive and negative semantic claims, respectively. We can regiment the familiar technical vocabulary as follow: CHANGE SLIDE • Cognitivists claim that moral acceptance is best explained by moral belief while noncognitivists claim that moral acceptance is best explained by attitudes other than moral belief. This dierence is partly a dierence in the nature of the attitudes involved in moral commitment whether they are cognitive or noncognitive and partly a dierence in the content of these attitudes whether the cognitive attitudes involved, if any, have moral propositions as their objects. Let noncognitivism, then, be the claim that the acceptance of a moral sentence is a some attitude other than belief in a moral proposition.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy in Practice Volume 12 — Spring 2018
    Philosophy in Practice Volume 12 — Spring 2018 California State uniVerSity, loS angeleS Department of philoSophy Philosophy in Practice VOLUME 12 – SPRING 2018 Cover Art: Photo of mural at Union Station, Los Angeles © Copyright 2018 by CSULA Philosophy Department. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a data base or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Individual copyright reverts to the authors upon further publication of their articles. CONTENTS Acknowledgments ..................................iv Faculty ...........................................v Professor Spotlight: Mark Balaguer ...................vii Articles: Persistent Beliefs Troy Polidori ............................... 1 Modal Fictionalism and the Problem of Incompleteness David Fonth ............................... 16 Logical Pluralism and its Collapse Problems Taylor A. Dunn ............................ 36 The Low-Entropy Past Still Requires Explanation Katelyn Rogers ............................ 46 Anarchy and Disclosure Bryan Knittle .............................. 59 Introspection and Cognitive Phenomenology Drew Patterson ............................ 81 An Aristotelian Approach to Quantum Mechanics Gil Sanders ................................94 Privacy: A Last Resort Fernando Cierra ...........................107 Simone de Beauvoir: Una Cuenta Para El
    [Show full text]