scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "The Philosophical Quarterly in 2020"


Journal ArticleDOI
Umrao Sethi1
TL;DR: In this article, a view of perception that does justice to Price's intuition that all sensory experience acquaints us with sensible qualities like colour and shape is developed, and it is argued that we can respect this intuition while insisting that ordinary perception puts us in direct contact with the mindindependent world.
Abstract: I develop a view of perception that does justice to Price's intuition that all sensory experience acquaints us with sensible qualities like colour and shape. Contrary to the received opinion, I argue that we can respect this intuition while insisting that ordinary perception puts us in direct contact with the mind-independent world. In other words, Price's intuition is compatible with naïve realism. Both hallucinations and ordinary perceptions acquaint us with instances of the same kinds of sensible qualities. While the instances in hallucination are mind-dependent, those in veridical perception are not. The latter are ontologically over-determined—they have their existence guaranteed both in virtue of having a material bearer and in virtue of being perceived by a mind. Such over-determined instances are mind-independent—they can continue to exist unperceived, because, in addition to the minds that perceive them, their existence is guaranteed by the material objects that are their bearers.

11 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, a de minimis normativism account of full aptness is proposed, which keeps all the advantages of the canonical view, avoids its problems entirely, and offers some additional payoffs.
Abstract: Full aptness is the most important concept in performance-based virtue epistemology. The structure of full aptness, in epistemology and elsewhere, is bilevelled. At the first level, we evaluate beliefs, like performances, on the basis of whether they are successful, competent, and apt—viz successful because competent. But the fact that aptness itself can be fragile—as it is when an apt performance could easily have been inapt—points to a higher zone of quality beyond mere aptness. To break in to this zone, one must not merely perform aptly but also in doing so safeguard in skilled ways against certain risks to inaptness. But how must this be done, exactly? This paper has two central aims. First, I challenge the credentials of mainstream thinking about full aptness by raising some new and serious problems for the view. I then propose a novel account of full aptness—what I call de minimis normativism—which keeps all the advantages of the canonical view, avoids its problems entirely, and offers some additional payoffs.

10 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that to be free, we must be "non-subjected" in the exercise of our rights, including our rights to appropriate, and that we enjoy such freedom only when the ability to exercise our rights does not depend on others.
Abstract: The Lockean theory of property licenses unilateral appropriation on the condition that there be ‘enough, and as good left in common for others’. However, the meaning of this proviso is all but clear. This article argues that the proviso is centered around the Lockean theory of freedom. To be free, I argue, we must be ‘non-subjected’ in the exercise of our rights, including our rights to appropriate. We enjoy such freedom only when the ability to exercise our rights does not depend on others. That can obtain if literally enough and as good is left in common. But it can also obtain in other ways, for example through competitive labour markets. The latter offer something as good as ‘enough and as good’.

8 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: According to as discussed by the authors, emotional experiences are opaque in a distinctive way: introspective attention to them does not principally reveal non-intentional somatic qualia but rather felt valenced intentional attitudes.
Abstract: According to some philosophers, when introspectively attending to experience, we seem to see right through it to the (apparent) objects outside, including their properties. This is called the transparency of experience. This paper examines whether, and in what sense, emotions are transparent. It argues that emotional experiences are opaque in a distinctive way: introspective attention to them does not principally reveal non-intentional somatic qualia but rather felt valenced intentional attitudes. As such, emotional experience is attitudinally opaque. Introduction When we introspectively focus on experience itself, rather than what experience is about or directed toward, we arguably find nothing to attend to but (apparent) objects and their properties. As it is sometimes put, we seem to see right through experience to the objects (apparently) outside, including their properties. Consider introspectively attending to a visual experience of a red and round ball. According to some philosophers, the only properties that seem salient – the only properties that capture how things are experientially for me – are properties of the (apparent) external object, that is redness and roundness as represented properties of the ball, not any ‘intrinsic’ properties of the experience. This reflects the so-called transparency of experience. What is entailed by it concerning the correctness of specific theories of perceptual experience – for example, sense-datum theory, strong representationalism, intentionalism, naïve realism – will not concern me here. The transparency of experience is a phenomenological rather than metaphysical claim, concerning how (and what) properties seem to figure in introspective attention to 1 See Tye 1995: 30; Moore 1903: 446, 450; Harman 1990: 38; 1996: 8-9, 14; Shoemaker 1996: 100, 132, 257; Tye 1992: 160; 2002: 139; Martin 2002: 380-81; Speaks 2009: 542.

7 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The certainty norm of practical reasoning as mentioned in this paper holds that one is permitted to rely on a proposition in practical reasoning if and only if p is epistemically certain, i.e., if it is known to be true.
Abstract: When is it permissible to rely on a proposition in practical reasoning? Standard answers to this question face serious challenges. This paper uses these challenges to motivate a certainty norm of practical reasoning. This norm holds that one is permitted to rely on p in practical reasoning if and only if p is epistemically certain. After developing and defending this norm, I consider its broader implications. Taking a certainty norm seriously calls into question traditional assumptions about the importance of belief and knowledge. In particular, it raises the possibility that many epistemological jobs that are usually assigned to belief and knowledge should be reallocated to two related but importantly different states: psychological and epistemic certainty.

7 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that experts acquire specialized knowledge and abilities through extensive training and acquire specialized visual experiences through perceptual learning, and survey an array of empirical studies on face perception and perceptual expertise that support this account.
Abstract: Through extensive training, experts acquire specialized knowledge and abilities. In this paper, I argue that experts also acquire specialized visual experiences. Specifically, I articulate and defend the account that experts enjoy visual experiences that represent gestalt properties through perceptual learning. I survey an array of empirical studies on face perception and perceptual expertise that support this account. I also look at studies on perceptual adaptation that some might argue present a problem for my account. I show how the data are subject to an interpretation that is friendly to it. Last, I address two theoretical objections to the claim that visual experiences represent gestalt properties.

6 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that these ways of understanding general adoption lead to unacceptable formulations of the theory, and propose a new approach to formulating rule consequentialism, "uniform-moral education" (UNME), on which what it means for a moral code to be generally adopted is not for it to be either generally followed or generally accepted, but instead for it being generally taught.
Abstract: Rule consequentialism holds that an action's moral standing depends on its relation to the moral code whose general adoption would have the best consequences. Heretofore rule consequentialists have understood the notion of a code's being generally adopted in terms of its being generally obeyed or, more commonly, its being generally accepted. I argue that these ways of understanding general adoption lead to unacceptable formulations of the theory. For instance, Brad Hooker, Michael Ridge, and Holly Smith have recently offered different answers to the question of what ‘acceptance rate’ we should build into our formulation of rule consequentialism, and all are unsatisfactory. I argue instead for a novel approach to formulating rule consequentialism, ‘uniform-moral-education’ rule consequentialism, on which what it means for a moral code to be generally adopted is not for it to be generally followed or generally accepted, but instead for it to be generally taught.

5 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
Antonin Broi1
TL;DR: In this paper, a new argument against the plausibility of the notion of the essence of phenomenal properties is presented, and it is shown that no account of what grounds these relations can be consistent with Revelation, at least if we take common phenomenological descriptions for granted.
Abstract: Revelation, or the view that the essence of phenomenal properties is presented to us, is as intuitively attractive as it is controversial. It is notably at the core of defences of anti-physicalism. I propose in this paper a new argument against Revelation. It is usually accepted that low-level sensory phenomenal properties, like phenomenal red, loudness or brightness, stand in (phenomenal) relation of similarity and quantity. Furthermore, these similarity and quantitative relations are taken to be internal, that is, to be fixed by what their relata are. I argue that, under some plausible additional premises, no account of what grounds these relations in the essence of their relata is consistent with Revelation, at least if we take common phenomenological descriptions for granted. As a result, the plausibility of Revelation is undermined. One might however resist this conclusion by weakening the epistemic relation postulated between subjects and their phenomenal properties.

5 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, it was shown that the cardinality of an infinite series of events is denumerably infinite, and that the possibility of a beginningless series of past events should not be rejected merely on the ground that it would be an actual infinite.
Abstract: It is often said that time must have a beginning because otherwise the series of past events would have the paradoxical features of an actual infinite. In the present paper, we show that, even given a dynamic theory of time, the cardinality of an endless series of events, each of which will occur, is the same as that of a beginningless series of events, each of which has occurred. Both are denumerably infinite. So if (as we believe) an endless series of events is possible, then the possibility of a beginningless series of past events should not be rejected merely on the ground that it would be an actual infinite. What would be required to rebut our argument is a symmetry breaker – something that motivates treating the past relevantly differently to the future. We consider several attempts to provide a symmetry breaker and show that none of them is successful.

5 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: For instance, this paper argued that if there is any special problem for expressivists, it is whether facts about what truth-conditions beliefs have can explain facts about basic inferential relations among those beliefs.
Abstract: Many think that expressivists have a special problem with negation. I disagree. For if there is a problem with negation, I argue, it is a problem shared by those who accept some plausible claims about the nature of intentionality. Whether there is any special problem for expressivists turns, I will argue, on whether facts about what truth-conditions beliefs have can explain facts about basic inferential relations among those beliefs. And I will suggest that the answer to this last question is, on most plausible attempts at solving the problem of intentionality, ‘no’.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that moral disagreements are compatible with mathematical realism in a way in which moral disagreements and mathematical realism are not, and that the analogy between mathematical and moral disagreement is not as straightforward as those arguments present it.
Abstract: The existence of fundamental moral disagreements is a central problem for moral realism and has often been contrasted with an alleged absence of disagreement in mathematics. However, mathematicians do in fact disagree on fundamental questions, for example on which set-theoretic axioms are true, and some philosophers have argued that this increases the plausibility of moral vis-à-vis mathematical realism. I argue that the analogy between mathematical and moral disagreement is not as straightforward as those arguments present it. In particular, I argue that pluralist accounts of mathematics render fundamental mathematical disagreements compatible with mathematical realism in a way in which moral disagreements and moral realism are not.1

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Leibniz argues that there must be a fundamental level of simple substances because composites borrow their reality from their constituents and not all reality can be borrowed as mentioned in this paper, and the underlying logic of this borrowed reality argument has been misunderstood.
Abstract: Leibniz argues that there must be a fundamental level of simple substances because composites borrow their reality from their constituents and not all reality can be borrowed. I contend that the underlying logic of this ‘borrowed reality argument’ has been misunderstood, particularly the rationale for the key premise that not all reality can be borrowed. Contrary to what has been suggested, the rationale turns neither on the alleged viciousness of an unending regress of reality borrowers nor on the Principle of Sufficient Reason, but on the idea that composites are phenomena and thus can be real only insofar as they have a foundation in substances, from which they directly ‘borrow’ their reality. The claim that composites are phenomena rests in turn on Leibniz's conceptualism about relations. So understood, what initially looked like a disappointingly simple argument for simples turns out to be a rather rich and sophisticated one.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper developed a reductive account of the social capacities of non-planning agents, which supports the conclusion that they can enjoy shared agency and provided a recipe for generating novel hypotheses concerning why some agents (including the great apes) do not engage in shared agency.
Abstract: The leading reductive approaches to shared agency model that phenomenon in terms of complexes of individual intentions, understood as plan-laden commitments. Yet not all agents have such intentions, and non-planning agents such as small children and some non-human animals are clearly capable of sophisticated social interactions. But just how robust are their social capacities? Are non-planning agents capable of shared agency? Existing theories of shared agency have little to say about these important questions. I address this lacuna by developing a reductive account of the social capacities of non-planning agents, which I argue supports the conclusion that they can enjoy shared agency. The resulting discussion offers a fine-grained account of the psychological capacities that can underlie shared agency, and produces a recipe for generating novel hypotheses concerning why some agents (including, arguably, the great apes) do not engage in shared agency.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argued that the A-Theory and the general relativity are not compatible and gave good reasons to reject the A -Theory, even though strict inconsistency was not that reason.
Abstract: Neither special nor general relativity make any use of a notion of absolute simultaneity. Since A-Theories about time do make use of such a notion, it is natural to suspect that relativity and A-Theory are inconsistent. Many authors have argued that they are in fact not inconsistent, and I agree with that diagnosis here. But that doesn’t mean, as these authors seem to think, that A-Theory and relativity are happy bedfellows. I argue that relativity gives us good reason to reject the A-Theory, even though strict inconsistency isn’t that reason.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the neo-Aristotelian account of species natures as "life-forms" and develop two problems for their view: a problem of underdetermination and a problem generated by psychological work on "folk essentialism".
Abstract: This paper examines the neo-Aristotelian account of species natures as ‘life-forms’, which we owe to Philippa Foot, Michael Thompson and their defenders. I begin by developing two problems for their view: a problem of underdetermination and a problem generated by psychological work on ‘folk essentialism’. I move on to consider their important transcendental argument, which suggests that claims about life-forms are presupposed by all efforts to describe the organic world. In response, I sketch a neo-Kantian projectivist position, which agrees that life-forms are presupposed in these contexts, while denying that such life-forms are real. This position makes a better sense of the phenomena cited in support of the neo-Aristotelian view, while avoiding the problems raised for that view in the first half of this paper.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The argument demonstrates, contrary to the received historical narrative, that there is a real sense in which Stalnaker’s semantics for the indicative did succeed in capturing the logic of the Ramseyan indicative conditional.
Abstract: The logic of indicative conditionals remains the topic of deep and intractable philosophical disagreement. I show that two influential epistemic norms—the Lockean theory of belief and the Ramsey test for conditional belief—are jointly sufficient to ground a powerful new argument for a particular conception of the logic of indicative conditionals. Specifically, the argument demonstrates, contrary to the received historical narrative, that there is a real sense in which Stalnaker’s semantics for the indicative did succeed in capturing the logic of the Ramseyan indicative conditional.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore a radical alternative normative moral theory, "Designer Ethics", according to which our views are pro tanto crucial determinants of how, morally, we ought to be treated.
Abstract: It is commonly thought that morality applies universally to all human beings as moral targets, and our general moral obligations to people will not, as a rule, be affected by their views. I propose and explore a radical, alternative normative moral theory, ‘Designer Ethics’, according to which our views are pro tanto crucial determinants of how, morally, we ought to be treated. For example, since utilitarians are more sympathetic to the idea that human beings may be sacrificed for the greater good, perhaps it is permissible (or, even under certain conditions, obligatory) to give them ‘priority’ as potential victims. This odd idea has manifold drawbacks but I claim that it also has substantial advantages, that it has some affinities to more commonly accepted moral positions, and that it should be given a significant role in our ethical thinking.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: LeDoux's (1996) pioneering work on the neurobiology of fear has played a crucial role in informing debates in the philosophy of emotion as mentioned in this paper, however, LeDoux now argues that his work has been misread (2012, 2016, 2017, 2019).
Abstract: LeDoux’s (1996) pioneering work on the neurobiology of fear has played a crucial role in informing debates in the philosophy of emotion. For example, it plays a key part in Griffiths’s (1997) argument for why emotions don’t form a natural kind. Likewise, it is employed by Faucher and Tappolet (2002) to defend pro-emotion views, which claim that emotions aid reasoning (de Sousa 1987, Damasio 1994). LeDoux, however, now argues that his work has been misread (2012, 2016, 2017, 2019). He argues that using emotion terms, like ‘fear’, to describe neuro-cognitive data adds a “surplus meaning”: it attributes phenomenal properties to survival circuits which they don’t possess. This paper aims to explore LeDoux’s new proposal, and examine the potentially devastating consequences that ensue for the aforementioned views. I end by addressing the worry that these lessons are conditional on LeDoux’s own higher-order theory of emotional consciousness being true.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article argued that the connection between semantic deflationism and meta-ontological deflationism is weaker than Amie Thomasson makes them out to be, and that it is not advisable to hold them all at once, or even entail each other.
Abstract: Deflationary positions have been defended in many areas of philosophy. Most prominent are semantic deflationism about truth and reference, and meta-ontological deflationism, according to which existence has no deep nature and the standard neo-Quinean approach to ontology is misguided. Although both kinds of views have generated much discussion, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the question of how they relate to each other. Are they independent, is it advisable to hold them all at once, or do they even entail each other? One exception is Amie Thomasson, who has argued that semantic deflationism actually entails meta-ontological deflationism. This is unexpected, since semantic deflationism is usually regarded as much less controversial than meta-ontological deflationism. In our paper, we will argue that Thomasson’s argument fails though, and that the connection between the views is in fact weaker than she makes them out to be.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the prospects of a comprehensive philosophical account of promising that relies centrally on the notion of trust and lay out the core idea behind the trust view, showing how it convincingly explains the normative contours and the unique value of our promissory practice.
Abstract: This paper discusses the prospects of a comprehensive philosophical account of promising that relies centrally on the notion of trust. I lay out the core idea behind the Trust View, showing how it convincingly explains the normative contours and the unique value of our promissory practice. I then sketch three distinct options of how the Trust View can explain the normativity of promises. First, an effect based-view, second, a view drawing on a wider norm demanding respect to those whom one has invited to something, and finally, as a new suggestion, a Normative Interest View. This view holds that promising is a normative power that serves our interest in facilitating or enabling the relationship of trust between promisor and promisee. I argue that only those embracing the third view can fully account for the distinctive obligation that results from the giving of a valid promise in all cases.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that desire sometimes amounts to knowledge, in the same sense that belief sometimes amounts into knowledge. But their argument rests on two assumptions: that goodness is the correctness condition for desire and knowledge is apt mental representation.
Abstract: I argue that desire sometimes amounts to knowledge, in the same sense that belief sometimes amounts to knowledge. The argument rests on two assumptions: that goodness is the correctness condition for desire (which is one articulation of the idea that we desire things under the ‘guise of the good’) and that knowledge is apt mental representation (which is a generalized virtue-theoretic account of knowledge). Desire that amounts to knowledge—or ‘conative knowledge’—is illustrated by cases in which someone knows the goodness of something despite not believing that it is good.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors examines the options for spelling out an epistemic analogue of moral motivational internalism, and concludes that the most promising approach connects epistemic judgements to doxastic dispositions, which are related to motivation in a fairly tenuous sense.
Abstract: Is there an epistemic analogue of moral motivational internalism? The answer to this question has implications for our understanding of the nature of epistemic normativity. For example, some philosophers have argued from claims that epistemic judgement is not necessarily motivating to the view that epistemic judgement is not normative. This paper examines the options for spelling out an epistemic analogue of moral motivational internalism. It is argued that the most promising approach connects epistemic judgements to doxastic dispositions, which are related to motivation in a fairly tenuous sense. It is also argued that this approach currently lacks a plausible and informative account of the nature and workings of these doxastic dispositions, and, hence, an explanation of the range of phenomena internalist theses typically set out to explain. The most promising route for developing such an account, based on recent expressivist work, is investigated and found inadequate for the task.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors consider a novel objection to transparency that does not depend on intuitions about examples and develop an account of how we are able to think about our own visual experiences as such that is compatible with transparency.
Abstract: The transparency of visual experience (transparency) is a widely held and important thesis in the philosophy of perception. Critical discussion of transparency has focused on visual experiences, such as the experience of visual blur that are taken to be counter examples to transparency. Here, I consider a novel objection to transparency that does not depend on intuitions about examples. The objection is that if transparency is true then we cannot explain our ability to think about our visual experiences as such. In response to this objection, I develop an account of how we are able to think about our own visual experiences as such that is compatible with transparency.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the meta-ethical ramifications of a coarse-grained criterion of property identity, referred to as Hume's dictum, are explored, according to which properties are identical if...
Abstract: This paper explores the metaethical ramifications of a coarse-grained criterion of property identity, sometimes referred to as Hume's dictum. According to Hume's dictum, properties are identical if ...



Journal ArticleDOI
Ju Wang1