Voici les éléments 1 - 10 sur 39
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    A plea for descriptive social ontology
    Abstract Social phenomena—quite like mental states in the philosophy of mind—are often regarded as potential troublemakers from the start, particularly if they are approached with certain explanatory commitments, such as naturalism or social individualism, already in place. In this paper, we argue that such explanatory constraints should be at least initially bracketed if we are to arrive at an adequate non-biased description of social phenomena. Legitimate explanatory projects, or so we maintain, such as those of making the social world fit within the natural world with the help of, e.g., collective intentionality, social individualism, and the like, should neither exclude nor influence the prior description of social phenomena. Just as we need a description of the mental that is not biased, for example, by (anti)physicalist constraints, we need a description of the social that is not biased, for example, by (anti)individualist or (anti)naturalist commitments. Descriptive social ontology, as we shall conceive of it, is not incompatible with the adoption of explanatory frameworks in social ontology; rather, the descriptive task, according to our conception, ought to be recognized as prior to the explanatory project in the order of inquiry. If social phenomena are, for example, to be reduced to nonsocial (e.g., psychological or physical) phenomena, we need first to understand clearly what the social candidates for the reduction in question are. While such descriptive or naïve approaches have been influential in general metaphysics (see Fine 2017), they have so far not been prominent in analytic social ontology (though things are different outside of analytic philosophy, see esp. Reinach (1913). In what follows, we shall outline the contours of a descriptive approach by arguing, first, that description and explanation need to be distinguished as two distinct ways of engaging with social phenomena. Secondly, we defend the claim that the descriptive project ought to be regarded as prior to the explanatory project in the order of inquiry. We begin, in Section 2, by considering two different ways of engaging with mental phenomena: a descriptive approach taken by descriptive psychology and an explanatory approach utilized in analytic philosophy of mind. We take these two ways of approaching the study of the mind to be analogous to the distinction we want to draw in social ontology between a descriptive and an explanatory approach to the study of social phenomena. We consider next, in Section 3, how our approach compares to neighboring perspectives that are familiar to us from general metaphysics and philosophy more broadly, such as Aristotle’s emphasis on “saving the appearances”, Strawson’s distinction between descriptive and revisionary metaphysics, as well as Fine’s contrast between naïve and foundational metaphysics. In Section 4, we apply the proposed descriptive/explanatory distinction to the domain of social ontology and argue that descriptive social ontology ought to take precedence in the order of inquiry over explanatory social ontology. Finally, in Section 5, we consider and respond to several objections to which our account might seem to be susceptible.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    A Socratic essentialist defense of non‐verbal definitional disputes
    In this paper, we argue that, in order to account for the apparently substantive nature of definitional disputes, a commitment to what we call ‘Socratic essentialism’ is needed. We defend Socratic essentialism against a prominent neo-Carnapian challenge according to which apparently substantive definitional disputes always in some way trace back to disagreements over how expressions belonging to a particular language or concepts belonging to a certain conceptual scheme are properly used. Socratic essentialism, we argue, is not threatened by the possibility that some apparently substantive definitional disputes may turn out to be verbal or conceptual, since this pluralist strategy, in our view, requires a commitment to more, rather than fewer, essences. What is more, a deflationary, metaphysically ‘light-weight’ construal of the essence-ascriptions in question leads to a peculiar conception of the pursuit of metaphysicians as behaving like deceptive (or self-deceived) grammarians pretending to be scientists. Moreover, this deflationary attitude, we argue, spreads beyond metaphysics and philosophy more broadly to apparently substantive definitional disputes in the sciences as well as other in other disciplines, such as art criticism.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    The Reactive Theory of Emotions
    (2021-12-21)
    Evaluative theories of emotions purport to shed light on the nature of emotions by appealing to values. Three kinds of evaluative theories of emotions dominate the recent literature: the judgment theory equates emotions with value judgments; the perceptual theory equates emotions with perceptions of values, and the attitudinal theory equates emotions with evaluative attitudes. This paper defends a fourth kind of evaluative theory of emotions, mostly neglected so far: the reactive theory. Reactive theories claim that emotions are attitudes which arise in reaction to perceptions of value.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Resolve is always effortful
    (2021-4-26)
    Ainslie argues there are two main kinds of willpower: suppression, which is necessarily effortful, and resolve, which is not. We agree with the distinction but argue that all resolve is effortful. Alleged cases of effortless resolve are indeed cases of what Ainslie calls habits, namely stable results of prior uses of resolve.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Décrire, La Psychologie de Franz Brentano
    (Paris: Vrin, 2021) ;
    Mulligan, Kevin
    Penser, entendre, juger, sentir, savoir, préférer, aimer, souhaiter, observer, remarquer, être conscient, prendre plaisir, vouloir, se souvenir... Pour atteindre une connaissance scienti􏰁que de ces actes mentaux, nous devons pratiquer ce qui, aux yeux Brentano, constitue l’activité philo- sophique par excellence : décrire. Le point de départ de toute psychologie scientique, maintient-il, est la description des phénomènes mentaux, de ce qu’ils ont en commun, de leurs espèces, de leurs relations. Ce n’est que sur la base de telles descriptions que nous pourrons ensuite nous atteler à la tâche qui consiste à expliquer les actes mentaux, en déterminant leurs causes et les conditions physiologiques de leur genèse. Brentano appelle la partie de la psychologie qui cherche à décrire les actes mentaux « psychologie descriptive » (il parle aussi de « psychognosie »), et appelle psychologie « explicative » ou « génétique » celle qui cherche à établir des lois empiriques rapportant des relations de succession entre ces phénomènes. De Brentano, la philosophie contemporaine de l’esprit retient en général la thèse selon laquelle les phénomènes mentaux sont par nature intentionnels – dirigés vers des objets distincts d’eux-mêmes. S’il ne fait aucun doute que cette thèse de l’intentionnalité est au cœur de la psychologie descriptive de Brentano, il est non moins certain que celle- ci ne se résume pas à celle-là. La psychologie de Brentano fourmille de descriptions détaillées de maints actes mentaux et de leurs relations. L’objet de ce livre est de rendre justice à ces descriptions, qui, en dépit de leur influence déterminante sur les héritiers de Brentano et de leur pertinence contemporaine, demeurent largement négligées au sein des débats actuels en philosophie de l’esprit. Qu’est-ce qu’être conscient? sentir ? connaître ? juger ? préférer ? prendre plaisir ? Comment ces phénomènes mentaux sont-ils reliés? Outre leur intérêt intrinsèque, les réponses circonstanciées que Brentano apporte à chacune de ces questions illustrent, chacune à leur manière, la fécondité de la méthode qui consiste à prendre au sérieux la tâche de la description.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    "'Unless I put my hand into his side, I will not believe'. The E"pistemic Privilege of Touch
    (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020) ;
    de Vignemont, Frédérique
    ;
    Gatzia, Dimitria
    ;
    Brogaard, Berit
    Touch seems to enjoy some epistemic advantage over the other senses when it comes to attest to the reality of external objects. The question is not whether only what appears in tactile experiences is real. It is that only whether appears in tactile experiences feels real to the subject. In this chapter we first clarify how exactly the rather vague idea of an epistemic advantage of touch over the other senses should be interpreted. We then defend a “muscular thesis”, to the effect that only the experience of resistance to our motor efforts, as it arises in effortful touch, presents us with the independent existence of some causally empowered object. We finally consider whether this muscular thesis applies to the perception of our own body.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Realism’s Kick
    (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020) ;
    Limbeck-Lilienau, Christoph
    ;
    Stadler, Friedrich
    Samuel Johnson claimed to have refuted Berkeley by kicking a stone. It is generally thought that Johnson misses the point of Berkeley's immaterialism for a rather obvious reason: Berkeley never denied that the stone feels solid, but only that the stone could exist independently of any mind. I argue that Johnson was on the right track. On my interpretation, Johnson’s idea is that because the stone feels to resist our effort, the stone seems to have causal powers. But if appearances are to be taken at face value, as Berkeley insists, then the stone has causal powers. I argue that such causal powers threaten not only Berkeley’s view that only minds are active, but also, and more fundamentally, his central claim that sensible things depend on perception.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Suffering Pains
    (London: Routledge, 2020)
    The paper aims at clarifying the distinctions and relations between pain and suffering. Three negative theses are defended: 1. Pain and suffering are not identical. 2. Pain is not a species of suffering, nor is suffering a species of pain, nor are pain and suffering of a common (proximate) genus. 3. Suffering cannot be defined as the perception of a pain’s badness, nor can pain be defined as a suffered bodily sensation. Three positive theses are endorsed: 4. Pain and suffering are categorically distinct: pain is a localised bodily episode, suffering is a non-localised affective attitude. 5. Suffering can be expressed, pains cannot. As a consequence, we can have compassion for the suffering of others, not for their pains. 6. The relation between pain and suffering is akin to the relation between danger and fear, injustice and indignation, wrongdoing and guilt: suffering is the correct reaction to pain. One upshot is that both the influential view that the experience of pain is incorrigible and the influential view that the ordinary conception of pain is paradoxical are false.
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    De l'optimisme
    (2019-5-22)
  • Publication
    Accès libre
    Haecceitism as a Theory of Individual Essences
    (2019) ; ; ;
    Dasgupta, Shamik
    ;
    Mackie, Penelope
    ;
    Rodriguez-Pereyra, Gonzalo
    ;
    Varzi, Achille
    Cette thèse a pour sujet le débat entre deux théories métaphysiques : l’haeccéitisme et l’anti-haeccéitisme. En substance, l’anti-haeccéitiste pense que tout ce qui est le cas est déterminé par la nature qualitative de la réalité, ce que l’haeccéitiste nie. La thèse comporte deux buts principaux. Le premier consiste à formuler et défendre une nouvelle manière de comprendre les deux théories en question. Le deuxième consiste à défendre une version de l’haeccéitisme que j’appelle ‘haeccéitisme austère’. Les chapitres 1-4 se focalisent sur le premier but. Dans le chapitre 1, je considère deux arguments en faveur de l’anti-haeccéitisme. J’explique que ces arguments sont représentatifs de la raison principale pour laquelle certains sont amenés à embrasser l’anti-haeccéitisme. Selon les philosophes en question, si l’haeccéitisme est vrai alors ce que j’appelle des cas d’identité primitive peuvent se produire, et ces cas sont indésirables. En substance, un cas d’identité primitive se produit à chaque fois qu’une caractéristique non-qualitative de la réalité n’est pas fixée par le qualitatif. Dans le chapitre 2, j’énonce deux desiderata qui sont satisfaits par certaines versions de l’anti-haeccéitisme. Ensuite, je défends l’idée qu’une version de l’anti-haeccéitisme au sujet des K (les entités appartenant à une certaine catégorie) doit éliminer la possibilité que des K aient identité primitive ou non-qualitative afin de satisfaire les deux desiderata. En somme, selon ces versions de l’anti-haeccéitisme, pour chaque K, être tel K en particulier consiste à posséder un certain profil qualitatif. J’affirme aussi que (i.) ce débat, si défini correctement, est accessible indifféremment aux nominalistes comme aux réalistes au sujet des propriétés et de relations ; (ii.) avoir identité primitive n’est pas la même chose qu’avoir une haeccéité telle que Duns Scotus le conçoit. Dans le chapitre 3, je fais la distinction entre l’haeccéitisme métaphysique – qui est le sujet principal de ma recherche – et une différente théorie qu’on appelle l’haeccéitisme modal. Ensuite, j’explore la question de savoir si l’haeccéitisme métaphysique peut être défini en termes de survenance. A cet effet, je fournis des raisons en faveur d’une réponse négative et je présente deux manières alternatives de définir le débat concernant l’haeccéitisme métaphysique. La première alternative – défendue par Shamik Dasgupta – est formulée en termes de faits qualitatifs, faits non-qualitatifs, ainsi que d’une relation de fondation métaphysique. La deuxième alternative est celle que je défends. Selon cette dernière, l’anti-haeccéitisme au sujet des K doit soutenir qu’aucun K ne puisse avoir identité primitive. Or, une entité qui n’a pas d’identité primitive est une entité qui possède ce que je définis comme une ‘essence individuelle qualitative minimale’. Donc, l’anti-haeccéitisme au sujet des K implique que chaque K a une essence individuelle qualitative minimale. Une deuxième conséquence est qu’une version forte du principe de l’identité des indiscernables (PII) au sujet des K est vraie. En revanche, si la version de l’anti-haeccéitisme de Dasgupta est défendue, elle n’implique pas de souscrire à une version forte du PII. Dans le chapitre 4, je montre qu’une telle version de l’anti-haeccéitisme n’est pas viable. Une définition correcte du débat doit caractériser l’anti-haeccéitisme comme une théorie qui affirme qu’au moins les entités fondamentales ne peuvent pas avoir d’identité primitive. Les chapitres 5 et 6 sont quant à eux dédiés à mes arguments contre l’anti-haeccéitisme et en faveur de ce que je définis comme l’haeccéitisme austère. Dans le chapitre 5, je montre que l’anti-haeccéitisme au sujet des K est contraint de souscrire à l’idée selon laquelle les K satisfont le PII fort. Je discute les avantages et les inconvénients de cette obligation et je mets également en doute les différentes stratégies que l’anti-haeccéitiste peut adopter pour l’éviter. Dans le chapitre 6, je mets au point et je défends une version de l’haeccéitisme austère. L’haeccéitisme austère au sujet des K soutient notamment qu’il y a des K qui n’ont pas d’essence individuelle qualitative minimale et qu’aucun K ne possède une haeccéité. Je défends l’idée que l’haeccéitisme austère est vrai au sujet de certaines catégories d’entités. De plus, je soutiens qu’il y a des entités qui ont identité primitive au sens fort. C’est à dire, leur identité n’est pas déterminée par autre chose : il s’agit de faits bruts que ces entités sont ces qu’elles sont. Je conclus en répondant de manière systématique aux principales objections et difficultés qui sont avancées contre l’haeccéitisme austère., This thesis deals with the debate that opposes two metaphysical views: Haecceitism and anti-Haecceitism. Roughly speaking, according to anti-Haecceitists everything about reality is determined by the qualitative character of reality itself, while Haecceitists deny that this is the case. The thesis has two main goals. The first is to formulate and defend a novel way to understand the two views in question. The second is to defend a form of Haecceitism that I call ‘Austere Haecceitism’. The first goal provides the focus of the first four chapters of the thesis. In Chapter 1, I consider two arguments for anti-Haecceitism that I take to be emblematic of the typical rationale behind such a view. This rationale has it that if Haecceitism is true then what I call cases of primitive identity can possibly arise and that said cases are for some relevant reason unacceptable. Roughly, cases of primitive identity occur whenever the qualitative character of reality fails to ‘fix’ some non-qualitative feature of reality. In Chapter 2, I lay out two desiderata that a form of anti-Haecceitism may or may not satisfy. I then argue that a form of anti-Haecceitism about the Ks (i.e., the things of a certain class) that satisfies both must rule it out that any of the Ks possibly has primitive, non-qualitative thisness. That is, it must hold that given every single K, for something to be that very K in particular is for it to be qualitatively a certain way. I also contend that (i.) the present debate – if correctly framed – is equally accessible to realists and nominalists about properties and relations; (ii.) the notion of a primitive thisness is not to be confused with that of a Scotusian haecceitas. In Chapter 3, I distinguish the debate on metaphysical Haecceitism that is my topic from one it is at times mistaken with – i.e., the one on modal Haecceitism. I then address the question whether the issue of metaphysical Haecceitism can still (as the one about its modal ‘counterpart’) be stated in terms of supervenience. After providing reasons for a negative answer, I introduce two alternative takes on the present debate. The first one was set forth by Shamik Dasgupta: it is phrased in terms of a distinction between qualitative and non-qualitative facts and of a relation of grounding holding between them. The second strategy is the one I myself defend: it has it that to be an anti-Haecceitist about the Ks one must deny that any such thing may have primitive thisness. Since if something fails to have primitive thisness it must have what I call a ‘qualitative minimal individual essence’, anti-Haecceitism about the Ks in my sense entails that every K has a qualitative minimal individual essence. This entails, in turn, that the Ks respect a strong version of PII, the Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles. If Dasgupta’s strategy is legitimate then this is not the case: the anti-Haecceitist can guarantee that the Ks do not possibly give rise to cases of primitive identity without committing to strong PII. The aim of Chapter 4 is to prove that strategy unviable. Its upshot is that a proper framing of the present debate must indeed characterize anti-Haecceitism as a view that claims that at least the fundamental entities must fail to have primitive thisness. Chapters 5 and 6 are devoted to my case against anti-Haecceitism and for Austere Haecceitism. In Chapter 5, I argue that anti-Haecceitism about the Ks is indeed committed to the claim that such things respect strong PII. After discussing such a commitment, I cast doubts on some further strategies that the anti-Haecceitist may attempt in order to avoid it – strategies that appeal, in particular, to non-qualitative individual essences, irreducibly plural individuation, or some form of eliminativism. In Chapter 6, I develop and defend what I call a form of ‘Austere Haecceitism’. Any view that holds that some Ks have no qualitative minimal individual essence and that no K has a haecceity is a form of Austere Haecceitism about the Ks. My own position is that Austere Haecceitism is true about at least some Ks. Moreover, I hold that some such entities have strongly primitive thisness. That is, their being the very things they are does not consist in and is not determined by anything else at all. After recollecting the main tenets of my view, I defend them and the tenets of a weaker form of Austere Haecceitism, which they include, from some objections that may be raised against it.