È possibile rendere compiutamente conto di ciò che gli artefatti e le tecnologie fanno, senza per questo sminuire il ruolo dell’agentività umana, ossia la capacità dell’essere umano di essere all’origine dell’azione e del senso?Per quanto determinismo tecnologico e sociocostruzionismo siano ormai approcci sufficientemente integrati, sembra quasi impossibile poter riconoscere l’uno senza pagare nulla di più che un piccolo contributo all’altro.Gli autori sottolineano quanto questa cesura che apparentemente riguarda un fenomeno circoscritto e settoriale come il ruolo degli artefatti nella costruzione del (...) mondo sociale, rispecchia in qualche modo l’antica distinzione proposta da Dilthey tra scienze della natura e scienze dello spirito. Il fatto é che tale divisione del lavoro scientifico sembra il risultato più che il punto di partenza di un lavoro deliberato di purificazione dei due domini . Per quanto utile da un punto di vista epistemologico, essa corre costantemente il rischio di proclamare a priori l’incapacità di alcune metodologie di indagare oggetti che si situerebbero al di là della loro giurisdizione . Inoltre, gli autori ritengono che questa distinzione sia alquanto problematica quando si tratta di questioni ontologiche. In linea con il pensiero di filosofi come Whithead , Delueze e Guatatri e Tarde , sostengono che tanto l’approccio sociocostruzionista quanto l’approccio tecno-determinista soffrano di un simile riduzionismo ontologico: ridurre l’oggetto di indagine a quanto la prospettiva inscritta in ciascuna metodologia consente di vedere e di analizzare.Prendendo le distanze da tale riduzionismo, questo articolo intende dimostrare che la materialità, la tecnologia e persino la natura intrudono costantemente nel mondo del significato, della comunicazione, del discorso. Allo stesso tempo, cultura e significato conferiscono senso e persino forma al mondo naturale . A fronte della propensione diffusa a pensare l’interazione come qualcosa che riguarda soltanto gli essere umani, gli autori mostrano che altre cose si autoconvocano costantemente nelle nostre conversazioni e che é legittimo ipotizzare che tali cose facciano «cose con le parole», per usare la famosa espressione che John Langshaw Austin coniò per indicare ciò che le persone fanno attraverso i loro atti linguistici.Attraverso un esempio tratto dalle osservazioni sul campo in un presidio medico d’urgenza operato da Medici senza Frontiere, gli autori mostrano che il sottolineare quanto e come le cose siano partecipanti attivi in una conversazione non significa evacuare il contributo umano all’attività di parola. Se le cose fanno cose con le parole é perché portano prospettivamente le persone a dire quel che dicono e, retrospettivamente, a far dire loro quel che hanno detto. Piuttosto che postulare che i soli partecipanti umani siano all’origine di quanto vien detto durante una conversazione, diventa possibile ritracciare altre origini o elementi che influenzano e condizionano ciò che le persone fanno mentre parlano tra loro.Il fatto che gli oggetti siano spesso trasformati dalla loro stessa incursione sulla scena interattiva viene vista come una prova della « realtà » del loro contributo alla conversazione. Utilizzando la metafora del ventriloquismo, gli autori mostrano che se i partecipanti umani fanno sì che le cose facciano cose con le parole, ciò é anche dovuto al fatto che le cose stesse fanno far loro cose con le parole, in quella sorta di oscillazione ventriloqua già sottolineata da David Goldbaltt . Individuare le tracce sia dell’agentività umana sia dell’agentività tecnologica, porta a riconoscere il grado di passività o passione inerente a qualunque attività o azione. Tale riconoscimento é cruciale dal momento che tale passività fa parte dei modi con cui le persone rendono razionale/giustificabile/legittimabile/ sanzionabile ciò che esse fanno e dicono nel corso di una interazione.Invece di ridurre l’interazione ad un fenomeno che riguarda esseri umani tra loro, appare più costruttivo riconoscere tutte le figure che popolano la scena interattiva, siano esse tecnologie, regolamenti, principi, emozioni o artefatti. La proposta avanzata dagli autori può dunque essere vista come un tentativo di riabilitare metaforicamente l’analisi del parlare prendendo seriamente in considerazione ciò che le figure letteralmente hanno da dire su come noi, gli umani, comunichiamo e lavoriamo.Se poiesis significa fabbricazione, allora forse poesia può diventare un modo innovativo di comprendere come funzionano le tecnologie e come noi interagiamo con esse.While we tend to think of interaction as involving human beings only, this paper proposes to show that other things – technologies, in particular – are continuously inviting themselves in our conversations and that these things can even be said to “do things with words.” Using the metaphor of ventriloquism, we show that if human participants make things do things with words, it is also because things animate them, a form of ventriloqual vacillation or oscillation already noticed by David Goldblatt . Acknowledging both human and technological agencies therefore leads us to recognize the degree of passivity or passion that is inherent in any activity or action, a recognition that is especially important given that its marks the accountable / reasonable / intelligible / justifiable / sanctionable character of what people do and say in interaction. (shrink)

In this paper I want to do the following things. First I want to show that in the part of the Theaetetus where the relationship between knowledge and perception is examined, the concept of knowledge that is in question is very clearly characterized. We are left in no doubt as to what is to count as knowing. Secondly I want to unravel in some detail the case that Socrates puts on Protagoras’ behalf where he draws on what Protagoras actually wrote (...) (151 E-152C); as opposed to what he may have taught secretly to his pupils (152C-160D). Thirdly I wish to argue that if we let the dialogue speak for itself, it is manifest that this case put up on Protagoras’ behalf at 151 E-152C is not overthrown; it is not even shaken. (shrink)

In this paper I want to do the following things. First I want to show that in the part of the Theaetetus where the relationship between knowledge and perception is examined, the concept of knowledge that is in question is very clearly characterized. We are left in no doubt as to what is to count as knowing. Secondly I want to unravel in some detail the case that Socrates puts on Protagoras’ behalf where he draws on what Protagoras actually wrote (...) ; as opposed to what he may have taught secretly to his pupils. Thirdly I wish to argue that if we let the dialogue speak for itself, it is manifest that this case put up on Protagoras’ behalf at 151 E-152C is not overthrown; it is not even shaken.In that part of the dialogue where the question is under examination whether or not knowledge and perception are the same, Socrates uses an idealized concept of knowledge. That is, he restricts the use of the word by setting down what he will consider to be the essential characteristics of knowledge, the sufficient and necessary conditions of its being instantiated. An excellent piece of philosophical procedure. (shrink)

Because anticipated and retrospective regret play important roles in practical deliberation and motivation, better understanding them can illuminate the contours of human agency. However, the possibility of self-ignorance and the fact that we change over time can make regret—especially anticipatory regret—not only a poor predictor of where the agent will be in the future but also an unreliable indicator of where the agent stands. Granting these, this paper examines the way in which prospective and, particularly, retrospective regret can nevertheless yield (...) important insight into the sorts of creatures we are, both generally and individually. The experience of retrospective regret can show a person she values something in a way she did not know or that she is (or was) a different person than she had thought, insights which can factor into forward-looking, or prospective, deliberation. Such instances of revelatory regret reveal something to the agent about herself as agent. I examine two cases of agential self-ignorance. In the first, the experience of regret reveals what the agent values, not only to others but even to the agent himself. In the second, the agent anticipates experiencing regret for an action but does not experience the regret, suggesting that the agent did not value the rejected alternative in the way she thought. Anticipatory regret is forward-looking and can play an important role in practical deliberation. But insofar as anticipatory regret flows from one’s imperfect judgment and prospection about oneself, retrospective regret can be an important corrective in helping the agent understand her own standpoint. (shrink)

In his newly updated version of The Anatomy of a Constitutional Law Case, Alan F. Westin provides a documentary portrait of historically important constitutional law case, 'Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, ' from its rise in a bargaining dispute in the steel industry during 1952 to the aftermath of its decision by the United States Supreme Court. Westin has added to his classic book additional materials and personal commentaries collected since the work was first published. The new information (...) covers what went on within the Truman administration, what went on within the Supreme Court when analyzing and resolving issues that come before it. Westin includes selections from transcripts, briefs and other official proceedings, adds notes describing each phase of the constitutional process, and a section of commentary and questions relating this case to others. (shrink)

It is not quite as easy to see that there is in fact no formula of this modal language having the same truth conditions (in terms of S5 Kripke semantics) as (1). This was rst conjectured by Allen Hazen2 and later proved by Harold Hodes3. We present a simple direct proof of this result and discuss some consequences for the logical analysis of ordinary modal discourse.

In recent years, there has been a heated debate about how to interpret findings that seem to show that humans rapidly and automatically calculate the visual perspectives of others. In the current study, we investigated the question of whether automatic interference effects found in the dot-perspective task (Samson, Apperly, Braithwaite, Andrews, & Bodley Scott, 2010) are the product of domain-specific perspective-taking processes or of domain-general “submentalizing” processes (Heyes, 2014). Previous attempts to address this question have done so by implementing inanimate (...) controls, such as arrows, as stimuli. The rationale for this is that submentalizing processes that respond to directionality should be engaged by such stimuli, whereas domain-specific perspective-taking mechanisms, if they exist, should not. These previous attempts have been limited, however, by the implied intentionality of the stimuli they have used (e.g. arrows), which may have invited participants to imbue them with perspectival agency. Drawing inspiration from “novel entity” paradigms from infant gaze-following research, we designed a version of the dot-perspective task that allowed us to precisely control whether a central stimulus was viewed as animate or inanimate. Across four experiments, we found no evidence that automatic “perspective-taking” effects in the dot-perspective task are modulated by beliefs about the animacy of the central stimulus. Our results also suggest that these effects may be due to the task-switching elements of the dot-perspective paradigm, rather than automatic directional orienting. Together, these results indicate that neither the perspective-taking nor the standard submentalizing interpretations of the dot-perspective task are fully correct. (shrink)

Are we witnessing progress or regress in the recent increasing popularity and electoral success of populist politicians and parties in consolidated democratic nations? ... Is the innovative use of popular referendum in Great Britain to settle fundamental constitutional questions a progressive or regressive innovation? ... Similarly, is the increasing use of constituent assemblies to change constitutions across the world evidence of progress in democratic constitutionalism, or, a worryingly regressive change back toward unmediated popular majoritarianism? ... This paper reflects on some (...) of the perils and promise of framing such questions with the conceptual couplet of progress and regress. It considers four compelling critiques of the use of ‘progress’ and its cognates in sociopolitical theory, as well as arguing that such concepts are nevertheless ineliminable for our normative theories. The paper concludes by suggesting that we can avoid the most serious problems by employing only conceptions of political progress and regress that are piecemeal, pragmatic, and processual. (shrink)