DOCSLIB.ORG

Kant's Science of the Moral World and Moral Objectivity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kant's Science of the Moral World and Moral Objectivity Kant's Science of the Moral World and Moral Objectivity The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Palatnik, Nataliya. 2015. Kant's Science of the Moral World and Moral Objectivity. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:23845444 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Kant’s Science of the Moral World and Moral Objectivity A dissertation presented by Nataliya Palatnik To The Department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Philosophy Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts August 2015 © 2015 by Nataliya Palatnik All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Professor Christine M. Korsgaard Nataliya Palatnik Kant’s Science of the Moral World and Moral Objectivity Abstract Critics of Kant's moral philosophy often object that it cannot account for moral requirements that are both genuinely objective and contentful. Notwithstanding the long history of this dispute, Kantians have been unable to put these objections to rest. I argue that we can answer these objections and fully understand Kantian moral objectivity only if we consider Kant’s moral philosophy in light of his methodological and architectonic concerns. My dissertation takes up this task by providing a new account of Kant’s conception of moral theory as a philosophical science: Kant’s moral philosophy, I argue, appropriates the central features of the then revolutionary method of Newtonian natural science for the investigation of practical cognition. Just as Newtonian science begins with a priori (largely mathematical) principles and then gradually "comes down to" particular concrete physics, so too Kantian moral philosophy begins with general a priori moral principles that then gradually translate into a system of particular requirements. The objectivity of the content of our practical thought develops as the background conditions of moral deliberation become progressively more inter-subjectively justifiable. This progress is possible only through co-deliberation and collective action demanded by the duty to make morality fully efficacious in our shared social world, that is, the duty to promote the highest good. iii My account highlights the attractiveness of Kant’s conception of the relationship between a priori and empirical aspects of practical thought, between theory and practice, and enables its systematic defense against objections by later German Idealists, particularly by Hegel. I argue that Hegel’s polemic against Kant's account of morality is fundamentally a disagreement about the nature of philosophical science and its method, and adjudicating between their views requires adjudicating the methodological dispute itself. I offer a systematic assessment of the methodological grounds of Hegel’s approach and of his critique of Kant’s moral philosophy. I argue that (1) Hegel’s approach does not, on the whole, present a viable alternative to Kant’s moral theory and (2) Hegel’s challenge can be met, but only by appealing to developmental or genetic aspects of Kant’s conception of moral objectivity grounded in his views on the proper method and form of a philosophical science. I show that these aspects of Kant’s thought, generally overlooked by commentators and Kantian theorists, are indispensable to his moral theory and provide a basis for a fruitful engagement with contemporary issues in moral philosophy, such as questions about the nature and role of imperfect duties. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….…..……...vi Note on Citations…….………………...……………………………………………..…viii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1: KANT’S CONCEPTION OF PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCE AND NEWTONIAN METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 8 1. Kant’s critical method and the Newtonian revolution in natural science........... 11 2. Kant’s critical method is “broadly Newtonian” ........................................................ 28 CHAPTER 2: KANT’S SCIENCE OF THE MORAL WORLD AND NEWTONIAN METHODOLOGY ..........48 1. Kant’s Newtonian approach to the science of morals: the Groundwork ............ 49 2. Kant’s re-conception of Newtonian method and construction of the good: the Critique of Practical Reason................................................................................................. 60 CHAPTER 3: KANT’S METHODOLOGICAL “NEWTONIANISM” VS. GOETHE’S METHOD AND CONCEPTION OF SCIENCE .............................................................................................................. 82 1. Kant’s Newtonian methodology – possible questions of fit ............................... 84 2. Goethe’s polemic against Newtonian methodology................................................... 99 3. Goethe’s method and conception of science.............................................................. 108 CHAPTER 4: HEGEL’S GOETHEAN METHOD AND FORM OF PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCE ..................126 1. Hegel on the object of philosophy and the need for a proper philosophical method........................................................................................................................................ 128 2. Hegel’s philosophical method and Goethean “objective thinking” ................... 137 3. Hegel’s critique of “finite” methods of Analysis and Synthesis .......................... 156 CHAPTER 5: HEGEL’S PHILOSOPHICAL SCIENCE OF RIGHT, ITS METHOD, AND ITS PLAUSIBILITY ..................................................................................................................................................... 164 1. Hegel’s philosophical science of right and Goethean “objective thinking”.... 165 2. The development of the Idea of right and the system of Ethical Life.................. 181 3. The logic of Ethical Life and the aim of the philosophical science of right..... 201 CHAPTER 6: THE IDEAL OF THE HIGHEST GOOD AND OBJECTIVITY OF MORAL JUDGMENT........225 1. The Kingdom of Ends, the Highest Good and why we have a duty to promote it ……………………………………………………………………………………………..227 2. The Objective Reality of the Moral Law and the Possibility of the Highest Good........................................................................................................................................... 239 3. The Highest Good as the Regulative Principle of Practical Reason.................. 244 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................255 BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................265 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, Matt Boyle, Stephen Engstrom, and especially my principal advisor Chris Korsgaard for dedicating so much time to my project, for reading many drafts of my work and offering incisive criticisms and constructive comments that helped make this a better dissertation than otherwise it would have been. I am very grateful for their support. I am also very grateful to my teachers and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, especially Julius Sensat, Bill Bristow, Michael Liston, and Bob Schwartz for their generosity in reading and commenting on various parts of my dissertation and for their encouragement. I have been very fortunate to be a member of a community of very talented philosophy graduate students. I would like to thank them all. On a personal note, my deepest gratitude goes to Edward Zilberman and Teresa Baranovsky, and, of course, to Eugene Palatnik. It is impossible for me to thank them enough for their love and support throughout the years. vi To my sons Aleksandr and Benjamin for their love and encouragement, and to my grandfather Mark for his inspiring humanism and enlightened spirit, I was, I am, I will be Your Friend vii Note on Citations Works by Kant Page references to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason use the numbers of the first 1781 (A) and second 1787 (B) editions. All references to Kant’s other major writings and lectures are given by abbreviated title (listed below) and by the page numbers of the appropriate volume of Kant’s gesammelte Schriften, edited by Königlich Preussische akademie der Wissenschaften (29 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1902—). Citations of Kant’s other works give, without abbreviated title, the volume and page from this edition. A Anthropology From a Pragmatic Point of View, trans. Mary J. Gregor, Martinus Hijhoff. G Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Mary J. Gregor. IUH Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose, trans. Allen W. Wood. JL Jasche Logic, trans. J. Michael Young. KpV Critique of Practical Reason, trans. Mary J. Gregor. KrV Critique of Pure Reason, trans. Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. KU Critique of the Power of Judgment, trans. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews. MdS Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Mary J. Gregor. MFNS Metaphysical Foundations of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Augustine on Knowledge
    Augustine on Knowledge Divine Illumination as an Argument Against Scepticism ANITA VAN DER BOS RMA: RELIGION & CULTURE Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Research Master Thesis s2217473, April 2017 FIRST SUPERVISOR: dr. M. Van Dijk SECOND SUPERVISOR: dr. dr. F.L. Roig Lanzillotta 1 2 Content Augustine on Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 1 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 4 Preface .................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 7 The life of Saint Augustine ................................................................................................................... 9 The influence of the Contra Academicos .......................................................................................... 13 Note on the quotations ........................................................................................................................ 14 1. Scepticism ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Would ''Direct Realism'' Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction?
    NOU^S 38:2 (2004) 197–232 Would ‘‘Direct Realism’’ Resolve the Classical Problem of Induction? MARC LANGE University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I Recently, there has been a modest resurgence of interest in the ‘‘Humean’’ problem of induction. For several decades following the recognized failure of Strawsonian ‘‘ordinary-language’’ dissolutions and of Wesley Salmon’s elaboration of Reichenbach’s pragmatic vindication of induction, work on the problem of induction languished. Attention turned instead toward con- firmation theory, as philosophers sensibly tried to understand precisely what it is that a justification of induction should aim to justify. Now, however, in light of Bayesian confirmation theory and other developments in epistemology, several philosophers have begun to reconsider the classical problem of induction. In section 2, I shall review a few of these developments. Though some of them will turn out to be unilluminating, others will profitably suggest that we not meet inductive scepticism by trying to justify some alleged general principle of ampliative reasoning. Accordingly, in section 3, I shall examine how the problem of induction arises in the context of one particular ‘‘inductive leap’’: the confirmation, most famously by Henrietta Leavitt and Harlow Shapley about a century ago, that a period-luminosity relation governs all Cepheid variable stars. This is a good example for the inductive sceptic’s purposes, since it is difficult to see how the sparse background knowledge available at the time could have entitled stellar astronomers to regard their observations as justifying this grand inductive generalization. I shall argue that the observation reports that confirmed the Cepheid period- luminosity law were themselves ‘‘thick’’ with expectations regarding as yet unknown laws of nature.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy Causal Reasoning
    Forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy Causal Reasoning: Philosophy and Experiment* James Woodward History and Philosophy of Science University of Pittsburgh 1. Introduction The past few decades have seen much interesting work, both within and outside philosophy, on causation and allied issues. Some of the philosophy is understood by its practitioners as metaphysics—it asks such questions as what causation “is”, whether there can be causation by absences, and so on. Other work reflects the interests of philosophers in the role that causation and causal reasoning play in science. Still other work, more computational in nature, focuses on problems of causal inference and learning, typically with substantial use of such formal apparatuses as Bayes nets (e.g. , Pearl, 2000, Spirtes et al, 2001) or hierarchical Bayesian models (e.g. Griffiths and Tenenbaum, 2009). All this work – the philosophical and the computational -- might be described as “theoretical” and it often has a strong “normative” component in the sense that it attempts to describe how we ought to learn, reason, and judge about causal relationships. Alongside this normative/theoretical work, there has also been a great deal of empirical work (hereafter Empirical Research on Causation or ERC) which focuses on how various subjects learn causal relationships, reason and judge causally. Much of this work has been carried out by psychologists, but it also includes contributions by primatologists, researchers in animal learning, and neurobiologists, and more rarely, philosophers. In my view, the interactions between these two groups—the normative/theoretical and the empirical -- has been extremely fruitful. In what follows, I describe some ideas about causal reasoning that have emerged from this research, focusing on the “interventionist” ideas that have figured in my own work.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning
    There Is No Pure Empirical Reasoning 1. Empiricism and the Question of Empirical Reasons Empiricism may be defined as the view there is no a priori justification for any synthetic claim. Critics object that empiricism cannot account for all the kinds of knowledge we seem to possess, such as moral knowledge, metaphysical knowledge, mathematical knowledge, and modal knowledge.1 In some cases, empiricists try to account for these types of knowledge; in other cases, they shrug off the objections, happily concluding, for example, that there is no moral knowledge, or that there is no metaphysical knowledge.2 But empiricism cannot shrug off just any type of knowledge; to be minimally plausible, empiricism must, for example, at least be able to account for paradigm instances of empirical knowledge, including especially scientific knowledge. Empirical knowledge can be divided into three categories: (a) knowledge by direct observation; (b) knowledge that is deductively inferred from observations; and (c) knowledge that is non-deductively inferred from observations, including knowledge arrived at by induction and inference to the best explanation. Category (c) includes all scientific knowledge. This category is of particular import to empiricists, many of whom take scientific knowledge as a sort of paradigm for knowledge in general; indeed, this forms a central source of motivation for empiricism.3 Thus, if there is any kind of knowledge that empiricists need to be able to account for, it is knowledge of type (c). I use the term “empirical reasoning” to refer to the reasoning involved in acquiring this type of knowledge – that is, to any instance of reasoning in which (i) the premises are justified directly by observation, (ii) the reasoning is non- deductive, and (iii) the reasoning provides adequate justification for the conclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION 1. Medical Humanism and Natural Philosophy
    INTRODUCTION 1. Medical Humanism and Natural Philosophy The Renaissance was one of the most innovative periods in Western civi- lization.1 New waves of expression in fijine arts and literature bloomed in Italy and gradually spread all over Europe. A new approach with a strong philological emphasis, called “humanism” by historians, was also intro- duced to scholarship. The intellectual fecundity of the Renaissance was ensured by the intense activity of the humanists who were engaged in collecting, editing, translating and publishing the ancient literary heri- tage, mostly in Greek and Latin, which had hitherto been scarcely read or entirely unknown to the medieval world. The humanists were active not only in deciphering and interpreting these “newly recovered” texts but also in producing original writings inspired by the ideas and themes they found in the ancient sources. Through these activities, Renaissance humanist culture brought about a remarkable moment in Western intel- lectual history. The effforts and legacy of those humanists, however, have not always been appreciated in their own right by historians of philoso- phy and science.2 In particular, the impact of humanism on the evolution of natural philosophy still awaits thorough research by specialists. 1 By “Renaissance,” I refer to the period expanding roughly from the fijifteenth century to the beginning of the seventeenth century, when the humanist movement begun in Italy was difffused in the transalpine countries. 2 Textbooks on the history of science have often minimized the role of Renaissance humanism. See Pamela H. Smith, “Science on the Move: Recent Trends in the History of Early Modern Science,” Renaissance Quarterly 62 (2009), 345–75, esp.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth in Economic Subjectivism
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Truth in Economic Subjectivism Zuniga, Gloria L. October 1998 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5568/ MPRA Paper No. 5568, posted 04 Nov 2007 UTC Journal of Markets & Morality 1, no. 2(October 1998), 158-168 Markets & Morality 159 Copyright © 1998 Center for Economic Personalism The first is an epistemic sense of ‘subjective’ that provides an acco unt of choice given the constraint of limited resources despite unlimited wants. The second is an ontological sense of subjective that describes the eco- nomic character of things as dependent on human acts of valuing. Truth in Economic Subjectivism Carl Menger advanced this account of the subjective theory of value in his Principles of Economics, first published in 1871. The significance of his co ntributio n lies in the transcatego rical description of social phenomena. Gloria L. Zúñiga While most accounts reduce value either to the mind or to some intrinsic Doctoral Candidate in Philosophy pro perty o f things, Menger demo nstrated that all so cial phenomena was State University of New York at Buffalo composed of varying combinations of beliefs and entities, judgments and facts, mind and matter. In order to achieve such a transcatego rial acco unt of value, Menger first provided an epistemic account of economic valua- tion by grounding his analysis on the experience of the valuing individual. Second, he provided a description of exact laws of economic phenomena, The Problem of Subjectivism thus advancing an ontology of economic objects. The achievement
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Philosophy, Robert Kane, and the Concept of Free Will
    Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics Experimental Philosophy, Robert Kane, and the Concept of Free Will J. Neil Otte University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Biography J. Neil Otte is presently in the Ph.D. program at the University at Buffalo (SUNY) and works in moral psychology, cognitive science, and the history of philosophy. For six years, he was an adjunct lecturer in philosophy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. In the last three years, he has been an organizer of the Buffalo Annual Experimental Philosophy Conference, an organizer for a conference on sentiment and reason in early modern philosophy, and has worked as an ontologist for the research foundation, CUBRC. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Gunnar Björnsson, Gregg Caruso, and Oisín Deery for their supportive comments and conversation during the Free Will Conference at the Insight Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroscience in Fall of 2014, as well as conference organizer Jami Anderson. Publication Details Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics (ISSN: 2166-5087). March, 2015. Volume 3, Issue 1. Citation Otte, J. Neil. 2015. “Experimental Philosophy, Robert Kane, and the Concept of Free Will.” Journal of Cognition and Neuroethics 3 (1): 281–296. Experimental Philosophy, Robert Kane, and the Concept of Free Will J. Neil Otte Abstract Trends in experimental philosophy have provided new and compelling results that are cause for re-evaluations in contemporary discussions of free will. In this paper, I argue for one such re-evaluation by criticizing Robert Kane’s well-known views on free will. I argue that Kane’s claims about pre-theoretical intuitions are not supported by empirical findings on two accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Idea of Mimesis: Semblance, Play, and Critique in the Works of Walter Benjamin and Theodor W
    DePaul University Via Sapientiae College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences 8-2012 The idea of mimesis: Semblance, play, and critique in the works of Walter Benjamin and Theodor W. Adorno Joseph Weiss DePaul University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd Recommended Citation Weiss, Joseph, "The idea of mimesis: Semblance, play, and critique in the works of Walter Benjamin and Theodor W. Adorno" (2012). College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations. 125. https://via.library.depaul.edu/etd/125 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Idea of Mimesis: Semblance, Play, and Critique in the Works of Walter Benjamin and Theodor W. Adorno A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy October, 2011 By Joseph Weiss Department of Philosophy College of Liberal Arts and Sciences DePaul University Chicago, Illinois 2 ABSTRACT Joseph Weiss Title: The Idea of Mimesis: Semblance, Play and Critique in the Works of Walter Benjamin and Theodor W. Adorno Critical Theory demands that its forms of critique express resistance to the socially necessary illusions of a given historical period. Yet theorists have seldom discussed just how much it is the case that, for Walter Benjamin and Theodor W.
    [Show full text]
  • Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations
    PSPXXX10.1177/0146167214551152Personality and Social Psychology BulletinDay et al. 551152research-article2014 Article Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Shifting Liberal and Conservative 1 –15 © 2014 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc Attitudes Using Moral Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Foundations Theory DOI: 10.1177/0146167214551152 pspb.sagepub.com Martin V. Day1, Susan T. Fiske1, Emily L. Downing2, and Thomas E. Trail3 Abstract People’s social and political opinions are grounded in their moral concerns about right and wrong. We examine whether five moral foundations—harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity—can influence political attitudes of liberals and conservatives across a variety of issues. Framing issues using moral foundations may change political attitudes in at least two possible ways: (a) Entrenching: Relevant moral foundations will strengthen existing political attitudes when framing pro-attitudinal issues (e.g., conservatives exposed to a free-market economic stance) and (b) Persuasion: Mere presence of relevant moral foundations may also alter political attitudes in counter-attitudinal directions (e.g., conservatives exposed to an economic regulation stance). Studies 1 and 2 support the entrenching hypothesis. Relevant moral foundation-based frames bolstered political attitudes for conservatives (Study 1) and liberals (Study 2). Only Study 2 partially supports the persuasion hypothesis. Conservative-relevant moral frames of liberal issues increased conservatives’ liberal attitudes. Keywords morality, moral foundations, ideology, attitudes, politics Received July 1, 2013; revision accepted August 19, 2014 Our daily lives are steeped in political content, including 2012). Understanding the effectiveness of morally based many attempts to alter our attitudes. These efforts stem from framing may be consequential not only for politics but also a variety of sources, such as political campaigns, presidential for better understanding of everyday shifts in other opinions.
    [Show full text]
  • Art As a Form of Negative Dialectics: 'Theory' in Adorno's Aesthetic Theory Author(S): WILLIAM D
    Art as a Form of Negative Dialectics: 'Theory' in Adorno's Aesthetic Theory Author(s): WILLIAM D. MELANEY Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1997), pp. 40-52 Published by: Penn State University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25670205 . Accessed: 10/12/2011 23:11 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Speculative Philosophy. http://www.jstor.org WILLIAM D. MELANEY Art as a Form ofNegative Dialectics: Theory' inAdorno's Aesthetic Theory Adorno's dialectical approach to aesthetics is inseparable from his concep as a tion of art socially and historically consequential source of truth.None theless, his dialectical approach to aesthetics is perhaps understood better in terms of his monumental work, Aesthetic Theory (1984), which attempts to relate the speculative tradition in philosophical aesthetics to the situation of art in twentieth-century society, than in terms of purely theoretical claims. In an effort to clarify his aesthetic position, I hope to demonstrate both that Adorno embraces theKantian thesis concerning art's autonomy and that he criticizes transcendental philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry
    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont Scripps Senior Theses Scripps Student Scholarship 2019 A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry Karina Bucciarelli Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses Part of the Epistemology Commons, Feminist Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Bucciarelli, Karina, "A Feminist Epistemological Framework: Preventing Knowledge Distortions in Scientific Inquiry" (2019). Scripps Senior Theses. 1365. https://scholarship.claremont.edu/scripps_theses/1365 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scripps Student Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scripps Senior Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PREVENTING KNOWLEDGE DISTORTIONS IN SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY by KARINA MARTINS BUCCIARELLI SUBMITTED TO SCRIPPS COLLEGE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS PROFESSOR SUSAN CASTAGNETTO PROFESSOR RIMA BASU APRIL 26, 2019 Bucciarelli 2 Acknowledgements First off, I would like to thank my wonderful family for supporting me every step of the way. Mamãe e Papai, obrigada pelo amor e carinho, mil telefonemas, conversas e risadas. Obrigada por não só proporcionar essa educação incrível, mas também me dar um exemplo de como viver. Rafa, thanks for the jokes, the editing help and the spontaneous phone calls. Bela, thank you for the endless time you give to me, for your patience and for your support (even through WhatsApp audios). To my dear friends, thank you for the late study nights, the wild dance parties, the laughs and the endless support.
    [Show full text]
  • Objectivity in the Feminist Philosophy of Science
    OBJECTIVITY IN THE FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requisites for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Karen Cordrick Haely, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Louise M. Antony, Adviser Professor Donald C. Hubin _______________________ Professor George Pappas Adviser Philosophy Graduate Program ABSTRACT According to a familiar though naïve conception, science is a rigorously neutral enterprise, free from social and cultural influence, but more sophisticated philosophical views about science have revealed that cultural and personal interests and values are ubiquitous in scientific practice, and thus ought not be ignored when attempting to understand, describe and prescribe proper behavior for the practice of science. Indeed, many theorists have argued that cultural and personal interests and values must be present in science (and knowledge gathering in general) in order to make sense of the world. The concept of objectivity has been utilized in the philosophy of science (as well as in epistemology) as a way to discuss and explore the various types of social and cultural influence that operate in science. The concept has also served as the focus of debates about just how much neutrality we can or should expect in science. This thesis examines feminist ideas regarding how to revise and enrich the concept of objectivity, and how these suggestions help achieve both feminist and scientific goals. Feminists offer us warnings about “idealized” concepts of objectivity, and suggest that power can play a crucial role in determining which research programs get labeled “objective”.
    [Show full text]