DOCSLIB.ORG

Recasting Reality Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recasting Reality Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist 124 Philosophy Springer News 10/2008 springer.com/booksellers H. Atmanspacher, Institut für Grenzgebiete der M. Dascal, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel (Ed .) C. Dilworth, Uppsala University, Sweden Psychologie und Psychohygiene e . V ., Freiburg, Germany; H. Primas, Küsnacht, Switzerland (Eds .) Leibniz: What Kind of Scientific Progress Recasting Reality Rationalist? A Study Concerning the Nature of the Relation Between Successive Scientific Wolfgang Pauli’s Philosophical Ideas and Theories Contemporary Science Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was an outstanding contributor to many fields of human knowledge. The historiography of philosophy has tagged Kuhn and Feyerabend formulated the problem. Wolfgang Pauli was not only one of the most him as a “rationalist”. But what does this exactly Dilworth provides the solution. influential physicists of the 20th century: His huge mean? Is he a “rationalist” in the same sense in In this highly original and insightful book, Craig correspondence and unpublished manuscripts also Mathematics and Politics, in Physics and Juris- Dilworth answers all the questions raised by the demonstrate his deep interest in questions beyond prudence, in Metaphysics and Theology, in Logic incommensurability thesis. Logical empiricism physics. and Linguistics, in Technology and Medicine, cannot account for theory conflict. Popperianism This volume explores the relevance of Pauli’s in Epistemology and Ethics? What are the most cannot account for how one theory is a progres- visionary ideas with respect to several topics in significant features of his “rationalism”, whatever sion beyond another. Dilworth’s Perspectivist science and philosophy that are of great contempo- it is? conception of science does both. rary interest: the role of symmetries in theoretical For the first time an outstanding group of Leibniz While remaining within the bounds of classical science; dual-aspect approaches to the mind-brain researchers, some acknowledged as leading philosophy of science, Dilworth does away with problem; the tension between psychological and scholars, others in the beginning of a promising the logicism of his competitors. On the Perspec- physical time; the nature of creative activity and career, who specialize in the most significant areas tivist view theory conflict is not contradiction, and the origin of mathematical insight; and adap- of Leibniz’s contributions to human thought and theory superiority does not consist in deductive tive mutations and epigenetics in biology. Today action, were requested to spell out the nature subsumption or set-theoretic inclusion. Here the we are in a position to appreciate how relevant of his rationalism in each of these areas, with a relation between theories is analogous to the appli- Pauli’s work and speculations have turned out to view to provide a comprehensive picture of what cation of individual concepts, and the question of be. This book, authored by a team of internation- it amounts to, both in its general drive and in its theory superiority becomes one of relative applica- ally renowned experts, provides material and specific features and eventual inner tensions. bility. In this way Dilworth succeeds in providing a suggests directions for future studies of a variety conception of science in which scientific progress of deep-seated and open problems, in particular Features is based on both rational and empirical consider- concerning the relation between mind and matter. 7 A new global picture of Leibniz’s ‘rationalism’ ations. emerges in this book, a picture that comprises Features many aspects hitherto overlooked 7 Each chapter Features 7 Explores the borderlands between mind and contributes to a better understanding of Leibniz’s 7 Provides the only solution to the problem of the physical world 7 Contains new ideas about conception and use of rationality in each field scientific progress that accounts for both conflict the role of consciousness 7 Perennial ideas in and progress 7 Introduces a completely new, philosophy revisited with the help of an “Old Fields of interest non-relativistic philosophy of science 7 Provides Master” Modern Philosophy; History of Science; Ethics a deep but concise critical overview of the whole of twentieth-century philosophy of science Fields of interest Target groups 7 Expresses the most sophisticated form of Philosophy of Science; Physics, general; Philosophers; Leibniz scholars, researchers, perspectivism in philosophy Evolutionary Biology teachers, students; historians of philosophy and of ideas (especially 17th and 18th centuries); histo- Fields of interest Target groups rians of science, of mathematics, of law, of religion, Philosophy of Science; Epistemology; Metaphysics Scientists, philosophers, interested laypersons, of ethics; moral philosophers, logicians, argumen- libraries tation theorists Target groups Philosophers of science; students studying Type of publication Type of publication philosophy of science Monograph Contributed volume Type of publication Discount group Discount group Monograph P P Discount group P Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Due October 2008 Due October 2008 Due November 2008 2008 . XX, 532 p . 2 illus . (Logic, Epistemology, and the 4th ed . 2009 . XVIII, 306 p . (Synthese Library, Volume 153) 2009 . Approx . 360 p . 20 illus . Hardcover Unity of Science, Volume 13) Hardcover Softcover 7 $79.95 7 $319.00 7 approx. $59.95 ISBN 978-3-540-85197-4 ISBN 978-1-4020-8667-0 ISBN 978-1-4020-9108-7 springer.com/librarybooks Springer News 10/2008 Philosophy 125 P. Pagliani, Research Group on Knowledge and M. Schemmel, Max Planck Institute for the History of A. van Rees, University of Amsterdam, Communication Models, Rome, Italy; Science, Berlin, Germany The Netherlands M. Chakraborty, University of Calcutta, West Bengal, India The English Galileo Dissociation in Argumentative A Geometry of Approximation Thomas Harriot’s Work on Motion as an Discussions Example of Preclassical Mechanics A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective Rough Set Theory: Logic, Algebra and Topology of Conceptual Patterns The short series The Historical Epistemology of Dissociation is a pervasive argumentative Mechanics presents the long-term development technique that can be found in argumentative A Geometry of Approximation addresses Rough of mechanical knowledge. The books in this series discussions from all realms of public and private Set Theory, a field of interdisciplinary research first combine the presentation of a broad selection life. Up till now, a comprehensive and systematic proposed by Zdzislaw Pawlak in 1982, and focuses of relevant sources with in-depth analyses of the argumentation theoretical study of dissociation mainly on its logic-algebraic interpretation. The long-term development of mechanical knowledge does not exist. This book aims to fill this gap. theory is embedded in a broader perspective that focusing on the early modern period. This series is The treatment in this book, in several respects, is includes logical and mathematical methodologies conceived in analogy to the four-volume series on innovative. To begin with, so far, dissociation has pertaining to the theory, as well as related episte- The Genesis of General Relativity (BSPS 250). been studied mainly from a monologual orienta- mological issues. Any mathematical technique that The English Galileo, the first book in this series, tion. This book specifically focuses on dialogual is introduced in the book is preceded by logical investigates the shared knowledge of preclassical aspects of the use of dissociation in argumentative and epistemological explanations. Intuitive justi- mechanics by relating the work of Thomas Harriot discussions. In the second place, extant studies fications are also provided, insofar as possible, so on motion, documented by a wealth of manu- deal primarily with examples of dissociation from that the general perspective is not lost. scripts, to that of Galileo and other contempo- the philosophical and literary spheres or from the Such an approach endows the present treatise with raries. political arena. This book discusses a great variety a unique character. Due to this uniqueness in the Harriot and Galileo indeed exploited the same of examples, many from every-day contexts, from treatment of the subject, the book will be useful to shared knowledge resources in order to approach such sources as newspapers, television shows, researchers, graduate and pre-graduate students the same challenging objects. websites, Parliamentary Reports, and ordinary from various disciplines, such as computer science, conversations. Last, but not least, the present book mathematics and philosophy. It features an impres- Features examines a broad range of features of dissociation. sive number of examples supported by about 40 7 First book in small unique series on The tables and 230 figures. Historical Epistemology of Mechanics 7 Has Features received two distinguished awards, the Junior 7 Systematic treatment of the uses of dissociation Features Scholar Award of the Georg Agricola Society 7 Wealth of examples, selected from different 7 Provides a full and detailed overview of all and the Georg Uschmann Award of the German cultures and types of situation 7 Exploration aspects of Rough Set Theory 7 The first book to National Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina of both dialectical and rhetorical dimensions of place Rough Set Theory in a broad historical and dissociation 7 Embedded in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thomas Harriot: Father of Modern Notation
    Biddix 1 THOMAS HARRIOT: FATHER OF MODERN NOTATION A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. SLOAN DESPEAUX DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY BY LAYLA BIDDIX Biddix 2 Students learn mathematical symbolism early in their education. Any third grader can convey with ease the meanings of “+”, “-“, “=”, “<”, and “>” when asked about these symbols. However, these same students are rarely ever taught the origins of the symbols that they utilize with nearly every mathematical equation that they encounter. Most of these students will never be taught that several of these symbols were created and used by mathematician and astronomer Thomas Harriot. Although little is known of Thomas Harriot, his influence on mathematics is prevalent even at the most basic levels of mathematical manipulations. There exist many suggestions for why Harriot created symbols for his mathematical works, but no concrete reasoning for why Harriot began using symbolism in his mathematics is known. The mixed reaction from his mathematic colleagues and the fact that Harriot did the majority of his work in the early 1600s without the use of a printing press, make it extraordinary that many of the symbols Harriot utilized and the notation in which he wrote in his mathematical manuscripts are still in use today. Harriot always had a knack for symbolism. Harriot’s work with symbolism began with his creation of his own alphabet based on the Algonquian language.1 After spending time and forming a friendship with an Algonquian Indian that some of Harriot’s friends had kidnapped from what is now known as North Carolina, he began writing a language based on what he learned from his new Indian friend.2 This new language included a branch of mathematics, in which he represented powers and roots using cossic or algebraic numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Harriot the Discovery of Refraction
    STEP-BY-STEP LANGUAGE INSTITUTE (84) (28) 6292-8721 https://stepbystepcorp.com Thomas Harriot The Discovery of Refraction A. When light travels from one medium to another, it generally bends, or refracts. The law of refraction gives us a way of predicting the amount of bending. Refraction has many applications in optics and technology. A lens uses refraction to form an image of an object for many different purposes, such as magnification. A prism uses refraction to form a spectrum of colors from an incident beam of light. Refraction also plays an important role in the formation of a mirage and other optical illusions. The law of refraction is also known as Snell’s Law, named after Willobrord Snell, who discovered the law in 1621. Although Snell’s sine law of refraction is now taught routinely in undergraduate courses, the quest for it spanned many centuries and involved many celebrated scientists. Perhaps the most interesting thing is that the first discovery of the sine law, made by the sixteenth-century English scientist Thomas Harriot (1560-1621), has been almost completely overlooked by physicists, despite much published material describing his contribution. B. A contemporary of Shakespeare, Elizabeth I, Johannes Kepler and Galilei Galileo, Thomas Harriot (1560-1621) was an English scientist and mathematician. His principal biographer, J.W. Shirley, was quoted saying that in his time he was “England’s most profound mathematician, most imaginative and methodical experimental scientist”. As a mathematician, he contributed to the development of algebra, and introduced the symbols of “>” and “<“ for “more than” and “less than.” He also studied navigation and astronomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation Theory and Practical Discourse
    Ulrich's Bimonthly 1 Werner Ulrich's Home Page: Ulrich's Bimonthly Formerly "Picture of the Month" November-December 2009 Reflections on Reflective Practice (6b/7) HOME Part 6b: Argumentation theory and practical discourse – Habermas 2 Previous | Next WER NER ULRICH'S BIO We are still engaged in an effort to review the practical philosophies of For a hyperlinked overview of all issues of "Ulrich's PUBLICATIONS Aristotle, Kant, and Habermas, to see what we can learn from them for the Bimonthly" and the previous "Picture of the Month" series, READINGS ON CSH purpose of grounding reflective practice philosophically. The discussions of see the site map DOWNLOADS Aristotle and Kant were detailed but still found place within a single essay PDF file HARD COPIES each. The current discussion of Habermas, however, takes more space and I CRITICAL SYSTEMS have therefore decided to split it into three parts (see the right-hand note). HEURISTICS (CSH) Note: This is the second of three parts reviewing the Before we continue with the second part, it may help returning readers if I CST FOR PROFESSIONALS implications of the work of & CITIZENS briefly sum up where we stand; should you be new to the Bimonthly, I Habermas for reflective professional practice. The first A TRIBUTE TO C.W. CHURCHMAN recommend you read the previous Part 6a/7 to facilitate your reading of the part appeared in the Bimonthly of September-October 2009; LUG ANO SUMMER SCHOOL present Part 6b/7 (click on the "Previous" button at the top right of this page). the third and concluding part is planned for a later ULRICH'S BIMONTHLY Bimonthly.
    [Show full text]
  • Developments in Argumentation Theory
    Developments in Argumentation Theory Frans H van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, University of Amsterdam Abstract In this paper, a survey is provided of the state of the art in argumentation theory. Some of the most significant approaches of the past two decades are discussed: Informal Logic, the formal theory of fallacies, formal dialectics, pragma-dialectics, Radical Argumentativism, and the modem revival of rhetoric. The survey is based not only on books, but also on papers published in professional joumals or included in conference proceedings. 1. Introduction Argumentation is a speech act complex aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. According to a prominent handbook definition, it is a verbal and social activity of reason carried out by a speaker or writer concerned with increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for a listener or reader; the con­ stellation of propositions brought to bear in this endeavour is intended to justify (or refute) the standpoint before a rational judge.\ Argumentation theory is the name given to the (systematic results of the) study of this discourse phenomenon. Argumentation theory studies the production, analysis and evaluation of argumen­ tation with a view of developing adequate criteria for determining the validity of the point of departure and presentational layout of argumentative discourse. The constellation of propositions advanced in argumentation is often referred to by the term argument, particularly by logicians and philosophers. This may lead to confusion because (in English) the word 'argument' has various meanings. Apart from (a) a reason and (b) a logical inference of a conclusion from one or more premisses, 'argument' can also denote (c) a discussion and (d) a quarrel.
    [Show full text]
  • What Should a Normative Theory of Argumentation Look Like?
    University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 11 May 18th, 9:00 AM - May 21st, 5:00 PM What should a normative theory of argumentation look like? Lilian Bermejo-Luque Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Bermejo-Luque, Lilian, "What should a normative theory of argumentation look like?" (2016). OSSA Conference Archive. 122. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/122 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What Should a Normative Theory of Argumentation Look Like? LILIAN BERMEJO-LUQUE Department of Philosophy I University of Granada Edificio de Psicología. Campus de Cartuja, s/n. Granada 18071 Spain [email protected] Abstract: Even if we identify the goals of normative theories of argumentation with the goals of a theory of justification, we can either focus on the conditions for considering that a target-claim is justified, or on characterizing justification from the point of view of the practice of arguing. I analyze the rewards and shortcomings of both views and their corresponding criteriological and transcendental accounts of the sort of objectivity that good argumentation is able to provide. Keywords: criteriological conception, justification LNMA, rationality, reasonableness, reasons, transcendental conception, wrong kind of reasons problem 1. Introduction Is arguing well always something reasonable, rational or justified? I would like to answer this question by considering two ways of thinking of the relationship between argumentation and reasonableness/ rationality/ justification that mirror two very different views about what a theory of argumentation should look like.
    [Show full text]
  • Nietzsche for Physicists
    Nietzsche for physicists Juliano C. S. Neves∗ Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Instituto de Matemática, Estatística e Computação Científica, CEP. 13083-859, Campinas, SP, Brazil Abstract One of the most important philosophers in history, the German Friedrich Nietzsche, is almost ignored by physicists. This author who declared the death of God in the 19th century was a science enthusiast, especially in the second period of his work. With the aid of the physical concept of force, Nietzsche created his concept of will to power. After thinking about energy conservation, the German philosopher had some inspiration for creating his concept of eternal recurrence. In this article, some influences of physics on Nietzsche are pointed out, and the topicality of his epistemological position—the perspectivism—is discussed. Considering the concept of will to power, I propose that the perspectivism leads to an interpretation where physics and science in general are viewed as a game. Keywords: Perspectivism, Nietzsche, Eternal Recurrence, Physics 1 Introduction: an obscure philosopher? The man who said “God is dead” (GS §108)1 is a popular philosopher well-regarded world- wide. Nietzsche is a strong reference in philosophy, psychology, sociology and the arts. But did Nietzsche have any influence on natural sciences, especially on physics? Among physi- cists and scientists in general, the thinker who created a philosophy that argues against the Platonism is known as an obscure or irrationalist philosopher. However, contrary to common arXiv:1611.08193v3 [physics.hist-ph] 15 May 2018 ideas, although Nietzsche was critical about absolute rationalism, he was not an irrationalist. Nietzsche criticized the hubris of reason (the Socratic rationalism2): the belief that mankind ∗[email protected] 1Nietzsche’s works are indicated by the initials, with the correspondent sections or aphorisms, established by the critical edition of the complete works edited by Colli and Montinari [Nietzsche, 1978].
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Perspectivism
    This impressive collection is essential reading for appreciating the inevi- table contextualities of scientific knowledge. It explores how notions of “perspective” can illuminate the epistemic upshot of the sciences and how they are situated in their history, practices, representations, and sometimes competing aims, provocatively advancing debates about realism, pragma- tism, explanation, and modeling in the process, all through a wealth of cases from physics, biology, neuroscience, and medical science . —Anjan Chakravartty, University of Miami An excellent collection of essays on a topic rapidly establishing itself as an important interpretive programme in philosophy of science. One of the volume’s many merits consists in showing the diversity and versatil- ity of perspectivism while illustrating common features among its differ- ent varieties. The reader is thus provided an enormously rich foundation for evaluating the role of perspectivism in understanding science and its practices . —Margaret Morrison, University of Toronto Perspectivism is a fruitful metaphor for imagining alternatives to tradi- tional realism in philosophy of science. Massimi and McCoy have gath- ered ten essays which show how perspectivism is illuminating in areas such as molecular biology and measurement theory, and also explore the relationships between perspectivism and other recent accounts including pragmatism, structural realism, pluralism, and scientific modelling. There is an excellent balance of established and emerging scholars in the field. This volume is a superb, cutting-edge text to use in an advanced graduate seminar . —Miriam Solomon, Temple University Understanding Perspectivism This edited collection is the first of its kind to explore the view called perspectivism in the philosophy of science. The book brings together an array of essays that reflect on the methodological promises and scientific challenges of perspectivism in a variety of fields such as physics, biology, cognitive neuroscience, and cancer research, just for a few examples.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge, Truth and the Life-Affirming Ideal in Nietzsche's Perspectivism
    Knowledge, truth and the life-affirming ideal in Nietzsche’s perspectivism Joakim Olsson Department of Philosophy Level C (third year) 15 ECTS Supervisor: Elinor Hållén Examiner: Pauliina Remes Bachelor Thesis in Theoretical Philosophy Semester: Autumn 2017 Contents INTRODUCTION 1 Notes on bibliography and delimitation of scope 4 Abbreviations 5 CHAPTER I: NIETZSCHE AND TRUTH—A BACKGROUND 6 CHAPTER II: NIETZSCHE’S PERSPECTIVISM—AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL EXTROSPECTIVE READING 14 CHAPTER III: NIETZSCHE’S PERSPECTIVISM—A THERAPEUTIC INTROSPECTIVE READING 29 CHAPTER IV: REFLECTION—A CALL FOR A SYNTHESIS OF PERSPECTIVES 35 CONCLUSION 41 BIBLIOGRAPHY 43 Introduction In this thesis, I am going to explore the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1844-1900) epistemology through his concept of perspectivism. From being regarded to have had a main influence on the Nazis with his strongly opinionated views on humanity he has since the 1960s generally been considered “a certain sort of philosophical sceptic about truth, knowledge and meaning” (Leiter 2002, 291). When reading quotes like “’nothing is true, everything is permitted’” (Nietzsche 1998, 109) together with his repetitive reference to interpretation and perspective, one could perhaps see why. As ‘The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’ indeed writes: [Nietzsche] bluntly rejects the idea, dominant in philosophy at least since Plato, that knowledge essentially involves a form of objectivity that penetrates behind all subjective appearances to reveal the way things really are, independently of any point of view whatsoever (Anderson, 2017). This quote is stated specifically about Nietzsche’s perspectivism, which argues that all knowing is perspectival—that just as in visual matters, we all know the world from our very limited personal perspective (Nietzsche 1998, 85).
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory
    Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory Argumentation Library VOLUME 28 Series Editor Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Editorial Board Bart Garssen, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Scott Jacobs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Erik C.W. Krabbe, University of Groningen, The Netherlands John Woods, University of British Columbia, Canada More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5642 Frans H. van Eemeren • Bart Garssen Editors Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory 123 Editors Frans H. van Eemeren Bart Garssen Faculty of Humanities, TAR Faculty of Humanities, TAR University of Amsterdam University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands The Netherlands ISSN 1566-7650 ISSN 2215-1907 (electronic) Argumentation Library ISBN 978-3-319-21102-2 ISBN 978-3-319-21103-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2015944150 Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    [Show full text]
  • Argumentation Theory.[A Selected Annotated Bibliography]
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 289 210 CS 505 834 AUTHOR Benoit, William L. TITLE Argumentation Theory. [A Selected Annotated Bibliography]. INSTITUTION ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Urbana, Ill.; Speech Communication Association, Annandale, Va. PUB DATE Oct 85 NOTE 5p. PUB TYPE Reference Materials - Bibliographies (131) -- Information Analyses ERIC Information Analysis Products (071) EDRS PRICE MFU1 /PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Annotated Bibliographies; Attitude Change; Communication Research; Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education; Interpersonal Communication; *Persuasive Discourse; Rhetoric; *Speech Communication; Teaching Methods; *Theories; *Theory Practice Relationship IDENTIFIERS *Argumentation Theory; Perelman (Chaim); *Rhetorical Theory ABSTRACT Materials dealing with aspects of argumentation theory are cited in this annotated bibliography. The 50 citations are organized by topic as follows: (1) argumentation; (2) the nature of argument; (3) traditional perspectives on argument; (4) argument diagrams; (5) Chaim Perelman's theory of rhetoric; (6) the evaluation of argument; (7) argument fields;(8) argument and attitude change; and (9) argume.t in interaction. (SKC) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** U $ DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educalonal Research and Improverns EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
    [Show full text]
  • A Weakly Pragmatic Defense of Authoritatively Normative Reasons
    NIHILISM AND ARGUMENTATION: A WEAKLY PRAGMATIC DEFENSE OF AUTHORITATIVELY NORMATIVE REASONS Scott Simmons A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2020 Committee: Michael Weber, Advisor Verner Bingman Graduate Faculty Representative Christian Coons Molly Gardner Sara Worley ii ABSTRACT Michael Weber, Advisor Global normative error theorists argue that there are no authoritative normative reasons of any kind. Thus, according to the error theory, the normative demands of law, prudence, morality, etc. are of no greater normative significance than the most absurd standards we can conceive of. Because the error theory is a radically revisionary view, theorists who accept it only do so because they maintain the view is supported by the best available arguments. In this dissertation, I argue that error theory entails that it is impossible that there are successful arguments for anything, thus defenses of error theory are in tension with the view, itself. My argument begins with the observation that it is natural to think a successful argument is one that gives us an authoritative normative reason to believe its conclusion. Error theory entails that there are no authoritative reasons to believe anything. What are arguments for error theory even supposed to accomplish? Error theorists may respond that their arguments are solely intended to get at the truth. I argue that this reply fails. One problem is that it cannot make sense of why in practice even error theorists still want evidence for the premises of sound arguments. Error theorists may try to capture the importance of evidence by appeal to our social norms or goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Barris Deep Disagreement
    Deep Disagreement and the Virtues of Argumentative and Epistemic Incapacity JEREMY BARRIS Department of Philosophy Marshall University Huntington, WV [email protected] Abstract: Fogelin’s (1985) Wittgen- Résumé: La vision Wittgensteinienne steinian view of deep disagreement as de Fogelin (1985) du désaccord allowing no rational resolution has profond comme n'autorisant aucune been criticized from both argumenta- résolution rationnelle a été critiquée à tion theoretic and epistemological la fois du point de vue de la théorie perspectives. These criticisms typical- d’argumentation et des perspectives ly do not recognize how his point épistémologiques. Ces critiques applies to the very argumentative généralement ne se rende pas compte resources on which they rely. Addi- comment sa vision s'applique aux tionally, more extremely than Fogelin ressources argumentatives sur himself argues, the conditions of deep lesquelles les critiques s'appuient. En disagreement make each position outre, plus que ce que Fogelin lui- literally unintelligible to the other, même soutient, les conditions de again disallowing rational resolution. désaccord profond rendent chaque In turn, however, this failure of sense position littéralement incompréhensi- is so extreme that it partly cancels its ble à l’autre, ce qui empêche encore own meaning as a failure of sense. une résolution rationnelle. Cependant, Consequently, it paradoxically opens cet échec de sens est si extrême qu’il new possibilities for sense and there- annule en partie son propre sens en fore rationally unexpected resolutions. tant qu’échec du sens. Par conséquent, cela ouvre paradoxalement de nouvelles possibilités de sens et donc des résolutions rationnellement inat- tendue. Keywords: deep disagreement; resolution of deep disagreement; existential decision; argumentative virtue; Fogelin; Wittgenstein © Jeremy Barris.
    [Show full text]