DOCSLIB.ORG

Jennifer Lackey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jennifer Lackey JENNIFER LACKEY DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 1880 CAMPUS DRIVE, EVANSTON, IL 60208 PHONE: 847.491.2557 • E- MAIL: J - [email protected] WEBPAGE: HTTPS://SITES.NORTHWESTERN.EDU/JAL788 EMPLOYMENT Director, Northwestern Prison Education Program 2018–present Wayne and Elizabeth Jones Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University 2015–present Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University 2012–2015 Associate Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern University 2007–2012 Faculty Associate in Women’s Studies, Northern Illinois University 2004–2007 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Northern Illinois University 2003–2007 Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Pomona College 2000–2003 VISITING POSITIONS Visiting Professor, Universität zu Köln (Cologne, Germany) 2018 Visiting Professor, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales (Paris, France) 2018 Faculty Fellow, Downing College, University of Cambridge (Cambridge, England) 2003 EDUCATION Ph.D. in Philosophy, Brown University 2000 Dissertation: Rationality, Defeaters, and Testimony Committee: Ernest Sosa (advisor), Jaegwon Kim, James Van Cleve M.A. in Philosophy, University of Chicago 1995 B.A. in Philosophy with Honors, magna cum laude, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame 1994 RESEARCH INTERESTS AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Epistemology, Social Epistemology, Applied Epistemology, Legal Epistemology AREAS OF COMPETENCE Ethics, Philosophy of Language, Feminist Philosophy, Epistemology of Religion, Philosophy of Mind PUBLICATIONS AUTHORED BOOKS [1] The Epistemology of Groups, (forthcoming). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [2] Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge, (2008, hardback; 2010, paperback). Oxford: Oxford University Press. v Reviewed in Mind, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, The Philosophical Quarterly, Analysis, Analytic Philosophy, Erkenntnis, and Philosophy Now EDITED BOOKS [3] Applied Epistemology (under contract). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume of all new articles on a range of issues in applied epistemology. This collection includes papers by Karen Frost-Arnold; Kristie Dotson and Ezgi Sertler; Mylan Engel Jr.; Alexander Guerrero; Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa and Bianca Crewe; Michael Patrick Lynch and Hanna Gunn; Rebecca Kukla; Jennifer Lackey; Lauren Leydon-Hardy; Hallie Liberto; Aidan McGlynn; Rachel McKinnon; José Medina and Tempest Henning; Charles Mills; and Geoff Pynn. [4] Academic Freedom (2018). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume of all new articles on the topic of academic freedom. This collection includes papers by David Estlund; Jennifer Lackey; Michael Patrick Lynch; Mary Kate McGowan; Michele M. Moody-Adams; Martha C. Nussbaum; Philip Pettit; John Protevi; Jennifer Saul; Robert Simpson and Amia Srinivasan; and Brian Weatherson. [5] Essays in Collective Epistemology (2014). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume of all new articles in collective epistemology. This collection includes papers by Alexander Bird; Rachael Briggs, Fabrizio Cariani, Kenny Easwaran, and Branden Fitelson; David Christensen; Margaret Gilbert and Daniel Pilchman; Alvin I. Goldman; Jennifer Lackey; Christian List; Philip Pettit; Ernest Sosa; and Sarah Wright. [6] The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays (2013), co-edited with David Christensen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume of all new articles in the epistemology of disagreement. This collection includes papers by Robert Audi; David Christensen; Stewart Cohen; Bryan Frances; Sanford Goldberg; John Hawthorne and Amia Srinivasan; Thomas Kelly; Jonathan Kvanvig; Jennifer Lackey; Ernest Sosa; and Brian Weatherson. [7] The Epistemology of Testimony (2006), co-edited with Ernest Sosa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volume of all new articles in the epistemology of testimony. This collection includes papers by Robert Audi; C. A. J. Coady; Elizabeth Fricker; Richard Fumerton; Sanford Goldberg; Peter Graham; Jennifer Lackey; Keith Lehrer; Richard Moran; Frederick Schmitt; Ernest Sosa; and James Van Cleve. PAPERS [8] “False Confessions and Testimonial Injustice,” forthcoming in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. [9] “The Total Evidence View of the Epistemology of Sexual Consent,” forthcoming in Jennifer Lackey (ed.), Applied Epistemology. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). [10] “Punishment and Transformation,” forthcoming in Enoch Lambert and John Schwenkler (eds.), Becoming Someone New: Essays on Transformative Experience, Choice, and Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press). [11] “Assertoric Quality,” forthcoming in Sanford Goldberg (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Assertion. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). [12] “When Should We Disagree About Politics?” forthcoming in Elizabeth Edenberg and Michael Hannon (eds.), Political Epistemology. [13] “The Duty to Object,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2018): doi: 10.1111/phpr.12563. [14] “Credibility and the Distribution of Epistemic Goods,” in Kevin McCain (ed.), Believing in Accordance with the Evidence: New Essays on Evidentialism. (Springer Publishing, 2018): 145–168. [15] “Academic Freedom,” in Jennifer Lackey (ed.), Academic Freedom. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018): 3–20. [16] “Silence and Objecting,” in Casey Johnson (ed.), Voicing Dissent: The Ethics and Epistemology of Making Disagreement Public. (Routledge, 2018): 82–96. [17] “Group Lies,” in Eliot Michaelson and Andreas Stokke (eds.), Lying: Language, Knowledge, Ethics, Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018): 262–284. [18] “Experts and Peer Disagreement,” in Matthew Benton, John Hawthorne, and Dani Rabinowitz (eds.), Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018): 228–245. [19] “Group Assertion.” Erkenntnis 83 (2018): 21–42. [20] “Collective Epistemology,” in Kirk Ludwig and Marija Jankovic (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality (Routledge, 2017): 196–208. [21] “The Epistemology of Testimony and Religious Belief,” in William J. Abraham and Frederick D. Aquino (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Epistemology of Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017): 203–220. [22] “Norms of Credibility.” American Philosophical Quarterly 54 (2017): 323–337. [23] “What Is Justified Group Belief?” The Philosophical Review 125 (2016): 341–396. [24] “Assertion and Expertise.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (2016): 509–517. [25] “To Preempt or Not to Preempt.” Episteme 13 (2016): 571–576. [26] “Disagreement,” in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). [27] “Reliability and Knowledge in the Epistemology of Testimony.” Episteme 12 (2015): 203–208. [28] “Social Epistemology: 5 Questions,” in Duncan Pritchard and Vincent Hendricks (eds.), Social Epistemology: 5 Questions (Automatic Press/VIP, 2015): 111–125. [29] “Socially Extended Knowledge.” Philosophical Issues 24 (2014): 282–298. [30] “Taking Religious Disagreement Seriously,” in Laura Frances Callahan and Timothy O’Connor (eds.), Religious Faith and Intellectual Virtue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014): 299–316. [31] “A Deflationary Account of Group Testimony,” in Jennifer Lackey (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014): 64–94. [32] “Lies and Deception: An Unhappy Divorce.” Analysis 73 (2013): 236–248. [33] “The Virtues of Testimony,” in John Turri (ed.), Virtuous Thoughts: The Philosophy of Ernest Sosa (Dordrecht: Springer, 2013): 193–204. [34] “Introduction,” (with David Christensen) in David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey (eds.), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013): 1–3. [35] “Disagreement and Belief Dependence: Why Numbers Matter,” in David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey (eds.), The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013): 243–268. [36] “Deficient Testimonial Knowledge,” in Tim Henning and David P. Schweikard (eds.), Knowledge, Virtue, and Action: Putting Epistemic Virtues to Work (New York: Routledge, 2013): 30–52. [37] “Group Knowledge Attributions,” in Jessica Brown and Mikkel Gerken (eds.), Knowledge Ascriptions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012): 243–269. [38] “Assertion and Isolated Secondhand Knowledge,” in Jessica Brown and Herman Cappelen (eds.), Assertion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011): 251–275. [39] “Testimony: Acquiring Knowledge from Others,” in Alvin I. Goldman and Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Social Epistemology: An Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011): 71–91. [40] “Testimonial Knowledge,” in Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard (eds.), Routledge Companion to Epistemology (London and New York: Routledge, 2010): 316–325. [41] “Disagreement, Epistemology of,” Oxford Bibliographies Online: Philosophy (2010). [42] “Acting on Knowledge.” Philosophical Perspectives 24 (2010): 361–382. [43] “A Justificationist View of Disagreement’s Epistemic Significance,” in Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar, and Duncan Pritchard (eds.), Social Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010): 298–325. [44] “What Should We Do When We Disagree?” in Tamar Szabó Gendler and John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010): 274–293. [45] “Testimony” in Jonathan Dancy, Ernest Sosa, and Matthias Steup (eds.), A Companion to Epistemology, Second Edition (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010): 763–768. [46] “Knowledge and Credit.” Philosophical Studies 142 (2009): 27–42. [47] “What Luck Is Not.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (2008): 255–267. [48] “Perspectives
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Disagreement Without Transparency: Some Bleak Thoughts 11 Entailed by That Set
    PART I The Debate between Conciliatory and Steadfast Theorists A. Steadfastness 1 Disagreement Without Transparency Some Bleak Thoughts 1 J o h n H a w t h o r n e a n d A m i a S r i n i v a s a n 1 Dashed hopes The question at the centre of this volume is: what ought one to do, epistemically speaking, when faced with a disagreement? Faced with this question, one naturally hopes for an answer that is principled, general, and intuitively satisfying. We want to argue that this is a vain hope. Our claim is that a satisfying answer will prove elusive because of non-transparency : that there is no condition such that we are always in a position to know whether it obtains. When we take seriously that there is nothing, including our own minds, to which we have assured access, the familiar project of formulating epistemic norms is destabilized. In this paper, we will show how this plays out in the special case of disagreement. But we believe that a larger lesson can ultimately be extracted from our discussion: namely, that non-transparency threatens our hope for fully satisfying epistemic norms in general. To explore how non-transparency limits our prospects for formulating a satisfying disagreement norm, we will put forward what we call the Knowledge Disagreement Norm (KDN). This norm falls out of a broadly knowledge-centric epistemology: that is, an epistemology that maintains that knowledge is the telos of our epistemic activity. We will then explore the ways in which KDN might be thought to be defective.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Samuel R
    CURRICULUM VITAE SAMUEL R. FREEMAN (October 2020) Avalon Chair in the Humanities Professor of Philosophy and of Law University of Pennsylvania Philosophy Department, 433 Claudia Cohen Hall Phone: 215-898-9052 (office) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6304 215-898-8563 (Philosophy Dept) sfreeman(at)sas.upenn.edu EDUCATION_____________________________________________________ Harvard University, Department of Philosophy, 1979-1985; Ph.D. awarded 1985. Thesis: "Contractarianism and Fundamental Rights," Dissertation Supervisor: John Rawls University of North Carolina, School of Law, J.D., 1977 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, A.B. with highest honors, 1973 Göttingen University, West Germany, 1971-1972 AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION____________________________________________ Political and Social Philosophy, Moral Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, History of Ethics HONORS, GRANTS, AND AWARDS________________________________________ 2017 Election to American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2008-present Avalon Chair in the Humanities, University of Pennsylvania 2005-2006 Fellow at Kadish Center, School of Law, University of California-Berkeley 2001-2008 Steven F. Goldstone Term Chair Professor, University of Pennsylvania 1995 Research Fellowship, University of Pennsylvania 1993 American Philosophical Association Fred Berger Memorial Prize, for the Best Essay in Philosophy of Law published in 1990 and 1991. 1992-93 Laurance S. Rockefeller Visiting Fellow, The Center for Human Values, Princeton University 1993 Pew Foundation, Course Development Grant
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae of Alvin Plantinga
    CURRICULUM VITAE OF ALVIN PLANTINGA A. Education Calvin College A.B. 1954 University of Michigan M.A. 1955 Yale University Ph.D. 1958 B. Academic Honors and Awards Fellowships Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1968-69 Guggenheim Fellow, June 1 - December 31, 1971, April 4 - August 31, 1972 Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1975 - Fellow, Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship, 1979-1980 Visiting Fellow, Balliol College, Oxford 1975-76 National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships, 1975-76, 1987, 1995-6 Fellowship, American Council of Learned Societies, 1980-81 Fellow, Frisian Academy, 1999 Gifford Lecturer, 1987, 2005 Honorary Degrees Glasgow University, l982 Calvin College (Distinguished Alumni Award), 1986 North Park College, 1994 Free University of Amsterdam, 1995 Brigham Young University, 1996 University of the West in Timisoara (Timisoara, Romania), 1998 Valparaiso University, 1999 2 Offices Vice-President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1980-81 President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1981-82 President, Society of Christian Philosophers, l983-86 Summer Institutes and Seminars Staff Member, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Metaphysics, 1968 Staff member and director, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion, 1973 Director, National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar, 1974, 1975, 1978 Staff member and co-director (with William P. Alston) NEH Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion (Bellingham, Washington) 1986 Instructor, Pew Younger Scholars Seminar, 1995, 1999 Co-director summer seminar on nature in belief, Calvin College, July, 2004 Other E. Harris Harbison Award for Distinguished Teaching (Danforth Foundation), 1968 Member, Council for Philosophical Studies, 1968-74 William Evans Visiting Fellow University of Otago (New Zealand) 1991 Mentor, Collegium, Fairfield University 1993 The James A.
    [Show full text]
  • Academic Freedom
    Academic Freedom Jennifer Lackey Northwestern University Academic freedom, which allows members of institutions of higher learning to engage in intellectual pursuits without fear of censorship or retaliation, lies at the heart of the mission of the university. Indeed, according to the American Association of University Professors, “Academic freedom is the indispensable requisite for unfettered teaching and research in institutions of higher education.”1 Recent years have seen growing concerns about threats to academic freedom, many brought about from the changing norms of, and demands on, the university. A wide range of new issues— including content warnings, safe spaces, social media controversies, microaggressions, and no platforming—have given rise to loud cries, in both scholarly and popular contexts, that academic freedom is under serious attack. Despite this, there is surprisingly little philosophical work on the topic of academic freedom, and even less that directly takes up some of these new challenges. The present volume fills both of these gaps in the current literature by bringing together leading philosophers from a wide range of areas of expertise to weigh in on both traditional and timely issues involving academic freedom. 1. The Rationale for Academic Freedom The rationale for academic freedom is often connected to the justification for free speech more broadly.2 In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill famously defends free speech on the grounds that full and 1 https://www.aaup.org/our-work/protecting-academic-freedom 2 Post (2013) argues that, in fact, the norms of free speech are importantly different from the norms of academic freedom. Given the aims of teaching and research, for instance, there is speech that is tolerated in the broader public that would be at fundamental odds with the aims of the university, such as Holocaust open discussion will promote the truth, maintaining that a society should not merely tolerate speech that is objectionable, but embrace it.
    [Show full text]
  • Isaac E. Choi 291 Edwards Street New Haven, CT 06511 [email protected]
    Isaac E. Choi 291 Edwards Street New Haven, CT 06511 [email protected] Academic Positions Visiting Fellow, Rivendell Institute, Yale University, 2015–2017 Adjunct Instructor of Philosophy, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, 2016–2017 Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, 2014–2015 New Insights and Directions for Religious Epistemology project, led by John Hawthorne Junior Research Fellow, Somerville College, University of Oxford, 2014–2015 Research and Technical Assistant for Alvin I. Goldman, Rutgers University, 2013–2014 Editorial Assistant, Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology, Rutgers University, 2007–2011 Editor: Alvin I. Goldman Education Ph.D. in Philosophy, 2013 University of Notre Dame Dissertation: Epistemic Expertise: Its Nature and Appraisal Directors: Alvin Plantinga, Ted A. Warfield Additional Committee Members: Robert Audi, Alvin I. Goldman (Rutgers University), Leopold Stubenberg Visiting Graduate Student in Philosophy, 2007–2008 Rutgers University Th.M. in Philosophy and Theology, 2002, and M.Div., 2000 Princeton Theological Seminary A.B. in Chemistry, magna cum laude with highest honors in concentration, 1995 Harvard College Areas of Specialization Epistemology, Philosophy of Religion Areas of Competence Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science, Religion and Science, Logic, Ethics, Bioethics 2 Publications “Infinite Cardinalities, Measuring Knowledge, and Probabilities in Fine Tuning Arguments,” forthcoming in Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, edited by Matthew A. Benton, John Hawthorne, and Dani Rabinowitz. Oxford: Oxford University Press. “Is Petitionary Prayer Superfluous?” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 7 (2016): 32–62. Review of Pascal’s Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God, by Jeff Jordan, Religious Studies Review 35 (March 2009): 33.
    [Show full text]
  • PHIL GR 9110 Metaethics: the Value of Truth Location: Zoom Time: Fall 2020, Tuesday 10:10Am-12Pm EST
    Katja Maria Vogt, katjavogt.com, Columbia University 1 Fall 2020, Metaethics: The Value of Truth, Columbia University PHIL GR 9110 Metaethics: The Value of Truth Location: Zoom Time: Fall 2020, Tuesday 10:10am-12pm EST 1. Course Description Most people think that lying is wrong. The specifics are contested. What is lying? Why is lying wrong? Is lying always wrong? Should ethicists focus on lying, or rather on a range of attitudes that are responsive to the value of truth? These questions sit at the intersection of ethics, normative epistemology, and the philosophy of language. The seminar aims to bring together contributions in these fields, with a view to the larger question of how the value of truth figures in ethical life. We start with an introduction to recent analyses of lying, as well as the most famous normative position on lying, formulated in Kant’s famous essay “On a Supposed Right to Lie from Love of Humanity.” Throughout the semester, we go back and forth between the question of what lying is, and normative questions about whether and why lying is (always?) wrong. The seminar includes two sessions of the Workshop in Ancient and Contemporary Philosophy. Jens Timmermann (St. Andrews) will visit to discuss his book manuscript on Kant’s essay, and Seana Shiffrin (UCLA) will visit for discussion of her book Speech Matters (2014). 2. Week-by-Week Plan Week 1, Sept 8: Introduction to the Ethics and the Nature of Lying Reading 1: Mahon, James Edwin, “The Definition of Lying and Deception,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy 267 Fall, 2010 Professor Richard Arneson Introductory Handout Revised 11/09 Class Meets Tuesdays 1-4 in the Department Seminar Room
    1 Philosophy 267 Fall, 2010 Professor Richard Arneson Introductory Handout revised 11/09 Class meets Tuesdays 1-4 in the Department seminar room. My email: [email protected] This course considers some philosophical arguments concerning the justification of the claim that under modern conditions, the political order of a society ought to be democratic. Next question: how democratic ought the political order to be, and what determines the normatively appropriate degree of democracy in particular circumstances. Following David Estlund, let us say a state is legitimate if it issues commands (laws, public policies) and enforces them and does so permissibly, and a state has authority if it has the moral power to issue commands (laws, public policies) to its subjects and thereby to bring it about that those commanded have some moral obligation to comply. Under modern conditions, must a state be democratic in order to rule legitimately and with authority? Texts: Joshua Cohen, Rousseau: A Free Community of Equals; David Estlund, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. J. S. Mill’s Considerations on Representative Government is available on line at www.utilitarianism.net/jsmill/ Jason Brennan’s forthcoming book the Ethics of Voting will be made available by email attachment. Some other readings will be made available by email attachment or in printed copies to be placed in the Philosophy Department Library or both. Note that the reading for weeks 1 and 2 includes Rousseau’s The Social Contract, which is neither a book placed on the shelves of the bookstore for this class nor specially made available in the Department Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Tesitmony As Significance Negotiation
    Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 2-4-2016 12:00 AM Tesitmony as Significance Negotiation Jennifer F. Epp The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Dr. Tracy Isaacs The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Philosophy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Jennifer F. Epp 2016 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Epistemology Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Feminist Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Epp, Jennifer F., "Tesitmony as Significance Negotiation" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3697. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/3697 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract This dissertation addresses the following questions: How should epistemologists conceptualize testimony? What do people use testimony to do? And why does “what people do” with testimony matter epistemically? In response to these questions I both define and characterize testimony. While doing so I argue for the following answers, given here very briefly: What do people do when they testify? They tell each other things and avow that those things are true, offering their statements to others as reasons to believe. More importantly, they interact with each other in order to negotiate about significance. Why do these activities matter epistemically? Because by engaging in them people generate understanding, as well as knowledge that no one involved may have had prior to negotiation.
    [Show full text]
  • Experience and Foundationalism in Audi's the Architecture of Reason
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXVII, No. 1, July 2003 Experience and Foundationalism in Audi’s The Architecture of Reason WALTER SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG Dartmouth College Robert Audi’s The Architecture of Reason is a magnificent consolidation of decades of original work by a masterful philosopher. Its scope is impressive, as it covers both theoretical and practical reason in a slim volume. More impressive yet is its coherence, for Audi reveals a unified structure shared by what many philosophers assume to be disparate fields. In this short comment, I will focus on just a few aspects of Audi’s pri- mary analogies between theoretical and practical reason. He argues that “reason, conceived as a general human capacity, is, as Kant thought, unified. It is unified above all by its grounding, directly or through belief, in experi- ence, sensory, introspective, memorial, and reflective.” (233; cf. ix, 16, 80, 222) Audi’s structural thesis, then, is that good reasoning always has some foundation. His substantive thesis is that the foundation is always some experience. Hence his subtitle, “The Structure and Substance of Rationality”. 1 - Experience Audi admits “some differences between theoretical and practical reason”, but he claims that “none of them undermines the main analogies.” (193) It is not clear what it takes to undermine an analogy. Still, his main analogy regarding substance depends on a wide concept of experience, so his analogy seems problematic if his notion of experience is not adequately unified. One striking difference between the experiences that are said to ground theoretical reason and those said to ground practical reason concerns time.
    [Show full text]
  • Copp Cv 2015
    CURRICULUM VITAE DAVID COPP Department of Philosophy telephone: 530-554-1386 University of California, Davis fax: 530-752-8964 Davis, CA 95616 [email protected] http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/people/dcopp Education Ph.D. in Philosophy: Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1976. Dissertation, “Individuals, Collectives and Moral Agency.” M.A.: Cornell University, 1973. Honours B.A. in Philosophy and Sociology: Glendon College, York University, Toronto, l970. Faculty Positions Lecturer, Department of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University, 1974 - 1976. Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University, 1976 - 1980 Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University, 1980 - 1988. (On leave, 1984 - 1987.) Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1984 - 1987. Professor, Department of Philosophy, Simon Fraser University, 1988 - 1989. Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of California, Davis, 1989 - 1999. (On leave, 1998 - 1999.) Professor, Department of Philosophy, Bowling Green State University, 1998 - 2003. Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Florida, 2003 - 2009. Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of California, Davis, 2009 - 2013. Distinguished Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of California, Davis, 2013 - . Other Academic Positions Teaching Assistant to R. Stalnaker and N. Sturgeon, Cornell University, 1971 - 1972. Josephus Daniels Fellow of the Research Triangle Foundation, National Humanities Center, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1988-89. Visiting Professor, Stanford University, Fall 1992. Fellow of the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University, August - December, 1996. Fellow of the Centre for Applied Ethics, University of British Columbia, Jan.- June, 1997. Research Fellow, Philosophy Program, Research School of Social Science, Australian National University, June and July, 1998.Senior Research Fellow, Social Philosophy and Policy Center, Bowling Green State University, 1998 - 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • The Duty to Object Jennifer Lackey Northwestern University We Have
    The Duty to Object Jennifer Lackey Northwestern University We have the duty1 to object to things that people say. If you report something that I know is false or unwarranted, or potentially harmful to others, I may be required to say as much. Suppose, for instance, that you claim at a departmental gathering that a colleague plagiarized a crucial passage in his book and I know that this is merely a rumor. I seem obligated to object to this—to make clear that the plagiarism accusation is problematic. My aim in this paper is to explore in greater depth how to best understand this duty. Broadly speaking, there are at least two central sources of the normative force at work in the duty to object: epistemic and moral. While the primary focus of my discussion will be on the epistemic dimension—in large part because this is where the most original work can be done—I will also frequently bring in the moral dimension, particularly when doing so will productively contribute to a fuller understanding of the duty to object. Here is the plan for the paper: after some preliminary remarks in Section 1, I turn, in Section 2, to highlighting two central features of this duty that distinguish it from others, such as believing in accordance with the evidence or promise-keeping. In particular, I argue that whether we are obligated to object is directly influenced not only by what other relevant members of the conversational context or community do, but also by the social status of the agent in question.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasons, Practical Reason, and Practical Reasoning
    © Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Ratio (new series) XVII 2 June 2004 0034–0006 REASONS, PRACTICAL REASON, AND PRACTICAL REASONING Robert Audi Abstract The concepts of reasons as supporting elements, of practical reason as a capacity, and of practical reasoning as a process are central in the theory of action. This paper provides a brief account of each. Several kinds of reason for action are distinguished. Prac- tical reason is characterized both as a capacity whose exercise is largely constituted by a kind of responsiveness to reasons and as governed by certain normative principles; and practical reasoning is described as a kind of mental process in which reasons figure as premises and, from those premises, a practical conclusion is drawn. Much of the paper undertakes two related tasks: to distinguish the main kinds of practical reasoning and the associated criteria of assessment and to formulate some important substantive princi- ples of practical reason. These principles yield criteria of several sorts: logical, inferential, epistemic, and material. On the theory presented, although any (non-basic) intentional act can be grounded in practical reasoning, the same acts can be performed for the relevant reason(s) without being so grounded, and in either case their rationality depends on adequate support by the reason(s). One kind of reason is commonly thought to be captured by Kantian hypothetical imperatives. The final sections explore what constitutes a hypothetical imperative and what other princi- ples are needed to account for practical rationality. A major con- clusion is that in the domain of practical reason, if there are no categorical imperatives, there are no hypothetical imperatives either.
    [Show full text]