The sociologist Georg Simmel and the philosopher Ernst Cassirer developed strikingly similar theories of modernity. Both viewed the transition from a substantialist to a functionalist view of the world as the modern age's distinguishing characteristic. But they interpreted this transition from very different philosophical perspectives. Simmel subscribed to a phenomenalism derived from Mach, whereas Cassirer advocated an objectivism inspired by a particular interpretation of Kant. This epistemological disagreement helps account for the two thinkers’ divergent cultural attitudes. Whereas Simmel viewed the (...) complex structures of modernity as an alienation from the flow of subjective life, Cassirer viewed them as a proper expression of humanity's symbolising capacity. Simmel's cultural pessimism developed into an enthusiasm for radical collective action, especially during the First World War. Cassirer's optimism, conversely, guarded him against this temptation. (shrink)

(No abstract is available for this citation).

In the Philosophy of Cognitive Science, it is a common held view that the modularity hypothesis for cognitive mechanisms and the innateness hypothesis for mental contents are conceptually independent. In this paper I distinguish between substantial and deflationist modularity as well as between substantial and deflationist innatism, and I analyze whether the conceptual independence between substantial modularity and innatism holds. My conclusion will be that if what is taken into account are the essential properties of the substantial modules, i.e. domain (...) specificity and informational encapsulation, then it seems to be such independence. However, if what is taken into account is the function of the substantial modules, then it seems to be a conceptual connection from modularity to substantial innateness. (shrink)

Entre los filósofos que consideran que pensamos utilizando representaciones simbólicas, P. Carruthers ha defendido, versus la hipótesis del ‘lenguaje del pensamiento’ (LDP), una versión débil de la hipótesis del ‘pensamiento en lenguaje natural’ (PLN). En este trabajo, me ocuparé, en primer lugar, de mostrar las razones por las cuales Carruthers, en su defensa de la hipótesis débil del PLN, siembra cierta confusión en la polémica entre el LDP y PLN. En segundo lugar, intentaré esbozar una salida de esta confusión, ofreciendo (...) y evaluando dos opciones posibles, i.e. la estrategia trascendental y la de la inferencia a la mejor explicación revisada, para quien desee sostener una versión débil del PLN que no desvirtúe la polémica.Among the philosophers who believe that we think with symbolic representations, P. Carruthers has defended -against the ‘language of thought’ hypothesis (LOT)- a weak version of the ‘thinking in natural language’ hypothesis (TNL). In this paper, I will firstly state the reasons why I think that Carruthers throws the LOT-TNL debate into some confusion. Secondly, I will try to outline a way out of this confusion, offering and evaluating two possible options -i.e., the transcendental and the revised inference to the best explanation strategies- for those who wish to hold a weak version of TNL that does not distort the debate. (shrink)

Modern economics does not have much use for the classical scheme of virtues and vices. Yet, it appears to recognise prudence, or something lying in the same general region as prudence. In classical philosophy, prudence is the virtue of practical rationality, or rationality in action. Economics too has a theory of rationality in action. This paper asks if this is a good theory – if the actions prescribed by economics are indeed the actions that an ideally prudent counsellor would prescribe. (...) As I argue in what follows, there is reason to think that they are not, and the reason is to be traced back to the crucial dimension of time that is neglected in the economic theory of rational action. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Metaphysical Approaches Metaphysical Problems References.

En este trabajo discuto los criterios que se han postulado para establecer una distinción entre los estados doxásticos y los subdoxásticos; a saber: accesibilidad a la conciencia, integración inferencial y conceptualización. Esta discusión se realiza a través del análisis de los argumentos propuestos por Davies. Mi tesis es que si bien habría una distinción intuitiva entre ciertas clases de estados mentales, estos criterios, según las dos lecturas posibles de lo que el mismo Davies propone para que un criterio constituya una (...) distinción de principio, no parecen establecer la distinción deseada. /// In this paper I discuss the criteria that have been postulated for a principled distinction between doxastic states and subdoxastic states, namely: accesibility to consciousness, inferential integration, and conceptualization. The discussion set off from the analysis of the arguments put forward by Davies. My claim is that although there would be an intuitive distinction among certain kinds of mental states, according to two plausible readings of what Davies himself proposes as a principled criterion, such criteria do not seem to establish it. (shrink)

This is the first English-language intellectual biography of the German-Jewish philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945), a leading figure on the Weimar intellectual scene and one of the last and finest representatives of the liberal-idealist ...

Although the personal-subpersonal distinction was first proposed in 1969 by D. Dennett, it has been approximately in the last ten years that it has received in­creasing attention and has became a widely used distinction particularly in the philosophy of mind and cognitive psychology literature. While the distinction is ubiquitous there are a few recent proposals about the relationship between the levels, namely, inter alia, the mixed horizontal explanation (Bermúdez 2000), the semantic view of computation (Peacocke 1994), and interaction without reduction (...) (Davies 2000a, b). In this paper I will first describe the way of understanding the distinction shared by the proposals aforementioned. Second, I will show some of the difficulties facing each proposal. Finally, I will suggest what I consider are the misleading assumptions that are at the root of the proposed strategies of inter-level relations. (shrink)

Hornsby defiende una interpretación muy particular de la distinción personal-subpersonal tal como fue propuesta por Dennett y de la doctrina filosófica en la que está enraizada esta distinción. Según Hornsby de la aceptación de la distinción y la doctrina se sigue una defensa de la autonomía explicativa del nivel personal. Esta defensa nos compromete con un nivel personal genuino de explicación y la idea de que los hechos subpersonales no explican hechos personales. Hornsby sostiene, además, que mientras que en Dennett (...) se defiende la autonomía del nivel explicativo personal, en Dennett post-1969 al modificarse la doctrina de base cambia la manera de entender la distinción y con ello se reniega de ambos compromisos, de lo cual se sigue un abandono de la tesis de la autonomía del nivel explicativo personal. La tesis que vamos a sostener en este trabajo es que si bien la distinción de Dennett nos compromete con , no nos compromete con . Dado que una defensa de la autonomía explicativa del nivel personal, tal como Hornsby la entiende, abarca ambos compromisos, se sigue que no hay tal defensa. En consecuencia, si bien hay algunas cuestiones que en Dennett no se plantean de manera tan explícita y clara como en Dennett post-1969, no hay un cambio sustancial en su concepción de la distinción.According to Hornsby , Dennett's personal-subpersonal distinction has as one of its consequences a defense of the autonomy of personal level explanation, and this defense is based on two commitments: the personal level is a genuine level of explanation, and subpersonal facts do not explain personal facts. Moreover, Hornsby argues that Dennett post-1969 rejects both commitments, and that he consequently abandons the autonomy thesis. In this paper we shall argue that, although Dennett's distinction is committed to , it is not committed to . Given that a defense of the autonomy, as Hornsby understands it, presupposes both commitments, it follows that there is no such defense. We hold that there is no substantial change in Dennett's conception of the distinction, although some of these issues are not as clear and explicit in Dennett 1969 as in Dennett post-1969. (shrink)

This paper argues that happiness and pleasure are distinct states of mind because they stand in a distinct logical relation to belief. Roughly, being happy about a state of affairs s implies that one believes that s satisfies the description ‘s’ and that it is in some way good, whereas taking pleasure in s does not. In particular, Fred Feldman's analysis of happiness in terms of attitudinal pleasure overlooks this distinction.

Defenders of happiness surveys often claim that individuals are infallible judges of their own happiness. I argue that this claim is untrue. Happiness, like other emotions, has three features that make it vulnerable to introspective error: it is dispositional, it is intentional, and it is publically manifest. Other defenders of the survey method claim, more modestly, that individuals are in general reliable judges of their own happiness. I argue that this is probably true, but that it limits what happiness surveys (...) might tell us, for the very claim that people are reliable judges of their own happiness implies that we already have a measure of how happy they are, independent of self-reports. Happiness surveys may help us extend and refine this prior measure, but they cannot, on pain of unintelligibility, supplant it altogether. (shrink)

The best-known argument in favor of the innatism of certain mental structures is still the 'Poverty of the Stimulus Argument'. The general idea of the POSA is that the knowledge which needs to be acquired to develop a certain cognitive capacity vastly exceeds the information available in the environment, so the organism contributes innate information. A review of the literature on linguistic POSA shows that it is not yet fully clear what kind of argument this is and what it really (...) shows. This paper is intended as a diagnosis of the innateness strategy that makes use of the POSA. I will distinguish three types of POSA and argue, first, that the most appropriate type of POSA, according to certain empirical and theoretical criteria, does not seem to be sufficient for linguistic nativism and, second, that for it to be sufficient, it is usually supplemented with an armchair argument which weakens the empirical nature of the innateness hypothesis. El argumento más conocido en favor del innatismo de ciertas estructuras mentales sigue siendo el 'Argumento de la Pobreza del estímulo'. La idea general del APE es que el conocimiento que se requiere para desarrollar una cierta capacidad cognitiva excede en gran medida la información disponible en el entorno, de manera que el organismo contribuye con información innata. Un examen de la literatura del APE lingüístico muestra que aún no está del todo claro qué clase de argumento es y lo que realmente muestra. Mi objetivo en este trabajo es ofrecer un diagnóstico de la estrategia innatista que utiliza el APE. Así, distingo tres tipos de APE y argumento, en primer lugar, que la versión más apropiada, según ciertos criterios empíricos y teóricos, no parece ser suficiente para el innatismo lingüístico y, en segundo lugar, que para ser suficiente, suele complementarse con un argumento 'de sillón', cuya consecuencia es que convierte al innatismo en una hipótesis empírica debilitada. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Strange Death of British IdealismEdward SkidelskyIIn 1958, the Oxford philosopher G. J. Warnock opened his survey of twentieth-century English philosophy with some disparaging comments on British Idealism. It was, he writes, "an exotic in the English scene, the product of a quite recent revolution in ways of thought due primarily to German influences." Analytic philosophy, by contrast, represents a return to the venerable lineage of British empiricism, as (...) Bertrand Russell "symbolically joins hands" with his godfather John Stuart Mill. "Hume and Berkley would have been sadly puzzled by the pages of Bradley, to say nothing of Hegel's. But either might have conversed quite naturally with Moore, and with Russell too, at least in his less technical moments."1All this is rhetoric rather than history. Russell can be called the inheritor of Mill only with respect to his political and social attitudes; his main philosophical endeavour—the establishment of mathematics on a priori foundations—ran diametrically opposed to Mill. And Hume and Berkley would have been just as sadly puzzled by Moore's analysis of language—an activity they both regarded as the defining vice of scholasticism—as by anything in Bradley.Warnock's error has proved remarkably persistent. Only recently, thanks largely to the work of Peter Hylton, has the anti-empiricist, Platonist character of Russell's early thought been properly appreciated.2 I do not intend, in what follows, to retrace these philosophical arguments. My question is historical. It concerns the role of national feeling, first in the demise of Idealism after the First World War, and later in the interpretation of that demise after the Second. With regard to first question, I argue that the rejection of Idealism in Britain was in no sense [End Page 41] a reassertion of national tradition. The opposite is closer to the truth; the change in philosophical fashion was primarily a consequence of a widespread revulsion against nationalism following World War I. That this was later misinterpreted owes largely—and this is my second claim—to the very different climate prevailing in Britain after World War II. If in the twenties the British reserved their scorn for "Prussian militarism," in the fifties everything associated with Germany, its philosophy included, was viewed as irredeemably tainted. Analytic philosophy tried to present itself as a home-grown product, with deep roots in the English empiricist tradition. This partly accounts for the change in style from the highly technical scientism of Russell and the logical positivists to the concern with "ordinary language" characteristic of post-war Oxford philosophy. The fact that most of analytic philosophy's continental exponents were forced by Hitler into British or American exile assisted in the process of its naturalisation. Within a decade, it was possible to regard "analytic" and "Anglo-Saxon" philosophy as synonyms.Warnock's mistake now becomes easier to understand. He has interpreted the early twentieth century in the light of the post-war period, coming to the conclusion that Moore and Russell's rejection of Idealism was a reassertion of English national tradition. He has condensed fifty years of history into a single moment. I intend in what follows to pull apart the stages that Warnock has concertinaed together, demonstrating that national feeling played a far more complex and contradictory role in the history of British philosophy.IIOn one point Warnock is correct: Idealism did not perish of refutation. "Metaphysical systems do not yield...," he writes, "to frontal attack. Their odd property of being demonstrable only, so to speak, from within confers on them also a high resistance to attack from outside.... Such systems are much more vulnerable to ennui than to disproof" (Warnock, pp. 10–11). The claim of Russell and Moore to have "refuted" Bradley is regarded with scepticism by most recent commentators. Idealism, they point out, rested on something more substantial than a mere failure of logic or common-sense, and was therefore not vulnerable to the kind of simple knock-down arguments advanced by Russell and Moore. The causes of its decline must be sought elsewhere, in the broader cultural and political tendencies of the age.Had Russell and Moore's arguments been truly knock-down... (shrink)

In 1973, the philosopher George Dickie proposed an ingenious new answer to the old question: what is art? Arthood, he suggested, is not an intrinsic property of objects, but a status conferred upon them by the institutions of the art world. He accordingly attached an exemplary significance to works like Duchamp's urinal, whose very lack of intrinsic distinction focuses our attention upon their institutional context. But his theory was about art in general, and not just readymades. ‘I am not claiming (...) that Duchamp and his friends invented the conferring of the status of art; they simply used an existing institutional device in an unusual way.’. (shrink)

“Faculty of Language: the ‘Assembly-Only Hypothesis’ and Domain Specificity”. The faculty of language was always considered as the paradigm of a cognitive capacity that illustrates the property of domain specificity. In the minimalist-biolinguistic approach, this property seems to blur. However, the reason usually cited, does not seem adequate from the point of view of the conceptual coherence of the notion of domain specificity. In this paper I will distinguish between a sense of specificity of domain that is interesting or useful (...) for cognitive research and another vacuous one. I will show that if the analysis of the notion of domain specificity is conceptually coherent and the available empirical evidence is accepted, then these constitute the reasons why domain specificity cannot be attributed to the faculty of language under the assembly-only hypothesis. (shrink)

I argue that the project of moral enhancement is incipiently contradictory. All our judgements of human excellence and deficiency rest on what I call the human “form of life”, meaning that a radical transformation of this form of life, such as is envisioned by advocates of moral enhancement, would undermine the basis of those judgements. It follows that the project of moral enhancement is self-defeating: its fulfilment would spell the abolition of the very conditions that allow us to describe it (...) as an “enhancement”. (shrink)

El realismo intencional acérrimo quiere dos cosas que, según intentaré mostrar, son difíciles de lograr conjuntamente: estados con contenido semánticamente interpretable y que tengan rol causal en la producción de la conducta. Si bien no hay dificultades para obtener, el problema es con. La estrategia del RIA consiste en postular la existencia de leyes intencionales causales. El problema es que esas leyes son de un estatus dudoso, al punto que muchos consideran que no son posibles y ni siquiera necesarias. Según (...) el RIA, si no se puede obtener conjuntamente y se desprenderían dos consecuencias indeseables: si los estados intencionales no tienen rol causal qua intencionales significaría que no se es realista acerca de las creencias y deseos; y que no sean posibles las leyes intencionales implicaría que no se puede tener una psicología científica. En la primera parte del trabajo me ocuparé de exponer las tesis del RIA y mostraré que no puede cumplir conjuntamente con las exigencias y. En la segunda parte me ocuparé de defender la idea de que del hecho de que no se pueda conciliar y no se sigue un eliminativismo acerca de los estados intencionales ni la imposibilidad de que la psicología sea una ciencia. The Hairy Intentional Realism aims for two things that I shall try to show are difficult to jointly obtain: states with an interpretable semantic content, and with causal role in the production of behavior. There is no difficulty in obtaining, the problem is with. HIR's strategy consists in the postulation of causal intentional laws. The problem is that these laws have a doubtful status to the point that many consider them not possible and not even necessary. According to HIR, if and cannot be jointly obtained, two unwanted consequences emerge: if intentional states do not have a causal role qua intentional, that would mean ceasing to be realistic about them; and if intentional laws are not possible that would imply that we could not have a scientific psychology. In the first part of this paper I shall exhibit HIR's main theses and I shall show that it cannot accomplish the two demands. Second, I shall defend the idea that because of the fact that and cannot be reconciled, neither an eliminativism about intentional states, nor the impossibility that psychology is a science can follow. (shrink)

The Invention of Market Freedom, Eric MacGilvray , 216 pp., $94 cloth, $26.99 paper.What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Michael Sandel , 256 pp., $27 cloth, $15 paper.Money: The Unauthorised Biography, Felix Martin , 336 pp., £20 cloth, £9.99 paper.Money has always inspired obsession, both in those who amass it and in those who think about it. “Man will never be able to know what money is any more than he will be able to know what God (...) is,” wrote the French financier Marcel Labordère to his friend John Maynard Keynes. The analogy is apt. Money, like God, injects infinity into human desires. To love it is to embark on a journey without end. (shrink)

It is often claimed that the core moral concepts are universal, though the words used to articulate them have changed significantly. I reject this claim. Concepts cannot be disentangled from words; as these latter change, they change too. Thus the philosophical analysis of moral concepts cannot overlook the history of the words by which these concepts have been expressed. In the second part of the essay, I illustrate this claim with the example of happiness, showing how its original ‘verdictive’ meaning (...) was overlaid, in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with a new psychological sense. Knowledge of this history should make us cautious, I suggest in conclusion, of narrowly psychological accounts of happiness. (shrink)

This theory accords to volitions the status of basic mental actions, maintaining that these are spontaneous exercises of the will--a "two-way" power which ...

Durkheim écrit ce livre avec un but double : d'abord il voulait expliquer ce qui crée une société, ce qui la tient ensemble ; ensuite il voulait éclaircir l'influence qu'a la société sur la pensée logique. Pour Durkheim, la religion est la clé utilisée pour déverrouiller ces deux problématiques.Dans ce livre, Durkheim argumente que les représentations religieuses sont en fait des représentations collectives : l'essence du religieux ne peut être que le sacré. Il est une caractéristique qui se trouve universellement (...) dans toutes les religions. Le sacré, être collectif et impersonnel, représente ainsi la société elle-même. Ensuite il argumente que la société a un impact majeur dans la genèse de la pensée logique. C'est la société qui fournit à l'individu les catégories (le temps, l'espace, le nombre etc.) et les concepts nécessaires pour la pensée logique. (shrink)