Abstract: This paper argues that instances of what are typically called ‘epistemic irresponsibility’ are better understood as instances of moral or prudenial failure. This hypothesis covers the data and is simpler than postulating a new sui generis form of normativitiy. The irresponsibility alleged is that embeded in charges of ‘You should have known better!’ However, I argue, either there is some interest at stake in knowing or there is not. If there is not, then there is no irresponsibility. If (...) there is, it is either the inquirer's interests—in which case it is a prudential shortcoming—or someone else's interests are at stake—in which case it is a moral shortcoming. In no case, I argue, is there any need to postulate a form of normativity in epistemology other than the traditional epistemological norm that one's attitudes should fit the evidence one has. (shrink)

In recent years, so-called organizational accounts (OA) have emerged in theoretical biology as a powerful, viable strategy for naturalizing teleology and normativity. In the wake of the theoretical tradition of autopoiesis and biological autonomy, OA notably propose a new meaning for the notion of “organization,” which they claim to be capable, among other things, of grounding objective and observer-independent normative teleological ascriptions. In this paper, I focus on this last claim, asking “How are ‘organization’ and ‘normativity’ conceptually connected?” The basic (...) insight mobilized by the OA framework to answer this question is most often expressed as a counterfactual argument regarding the “conditions of existence” of organized entities. In this paper, I show that careful scrutiny of this core OA argument reveals a substantial shortcoming. To make this point, I first analyze how the OA framework positions the idea of “conditions of existence” via the notions of “dependence”, “constraint,” and “closure.” Second, I consider various possible interpretations of the OA counterfactual argument grounding norms. I conclude that the implications of this argument do not enable OA to deliver what they promise, i.e., a straightforward link between organization and norms. I argue that a different strategy is needed to capture the basic organizational intuition about biological normativitiy and suggest that a stipulative route might be better suitable to that end. (shrink)

Wie entwickelt sich ein ich-loses Selbstgefühl? Wie vollzieht sich der Schritt zum Selbstbewusstsein? Und wie wird aus einer emotionalen Reaktion ein Werturteil? „Vom Leben zur Bedeutung“ beschreibt die Übergänge zwischen verschiedenen Erscheinungsformen des Geistigen. Die Rolle der Sprache wird dabei ebenso reflektiert wie das Konzept des Intentionalen als Element der Theorie der Emotionen, der Theorie sprachlicher Bedeutung und der Philosophie des Geistes. -/- 1. Die wichtigsten aktuellen Debatten in Kognitions- und Kulturwissenschaften werden aufgegriffen: Einbezug der Tiere, Emotionsforschung, Leiblichkeit. 2. Bislang (...) vernachlässigte Fragen nach Übergängen zwischen Bewusstseinsformen und Formen des Normativen werden erörtert. 3. Die Studien werden in die aktuelle Naturalismusdebatte eingebettet. (shrink)