The standard philosophical account of akratic action is that it is action contrary to one’s current better judgment about what to do. While respecting the philosophical debate associated with this conception of akrasia, I attempt to offer a different perspective on the subject by suggesting that akratic action could be conceived more broadly as “action without due self-restraint.” Under such a broader conception, there may be several varieties of akrasia. Following Frank Jackson, I propose that a paradigmatic variety of akrasia (...) is “passionate akrasia,” defined in terms of the undue influence of passion. I provide an account of passionate akrasia that builds on Jackson’s decision-theoretic account, though revises it in important respects. In developing this account, I also suggest a solution to the problem of how one can act contrary to one’s current better judgment, thereby indicating how this approach can shed new light on traditional debates. (shrink)

이 연구에서 본인은 construal 이라는 상식적인 심리학적 개념에 대한 철학적 활용에 관하여 예시하고자 한다. Construal 이라는 것은 하나가 다른면에서 경험되어지는 심리적 상태이다. 가장 영향력 있는 철학적 활용으로는 이해관계에 근거한 construal로써 정서에 관한 Robert C. Roberts의 이론이여왔다. 하지만 본인은 이 개념은 아카라시아나 자기통찰 그리고 도교적 사고를 포함하는 몇 가지 다른 영역에서도 활용성을 가지고 있다고 주장하는 바이다. 전반적으로 이 연구가 이처럼 과소평가되는 개념에 대한 철학적 탐색이 더 이루어 질수 있는 자극이 되기를 바란다.

Michael T. Michael evaluates Freud s theory of dreams in light of major criticisms and scientific research. Approaching the issue from the vantage of the history and philosophy of science, he argues that the theory is a live hypothesis fully deserving of continued scientific exploration.".

Despite its profound influence on modern thought, psychoanalysis remains peripheral to the concerns of most analytic philosophers. I suggest that one of the main reasons for this is intellectual reservation, and explore some philosophical arguments against psychoanalysis that may be contributing to such reservation. Specifically, I address the objections that psychoanalytic theories are unfalsifiable, that the purported findings of psychoanalysis are readily explained as due to suggestion, that there is a troubling lack of consensus in psychoanalytic interpretation, and that there (...) is a lack of support for psychoanalysis within mainstream science. I also consider a major obstacle to the acceptance of contemporary defenses of psychoanalysis: the “bad lot” argument against Inference to the Best Explanation. My conclusion is that, though these objections have some merit, they are not sufficient reasons for not taking psychoanalytic ideas seriously. (shrink)