In this article, I critically reassess Iris Marion Young's late works, which centre on the distinction between liability and social connection responsibility. I concur with Young's diagnosis that structural injustices call for a new conception of responsibility, but I reject several core assumptions that underpin her distinction between two models and argue for a different way of conceptualising responsibility to address structural injustices. I show that Young's categorical separation of guilt and responsibility is not supported by the writings of Hannah (...) Arendt, which Young draws on, and that it is also untenable on independent systematic grounds. Furthermore, I argue that several of Young's other criteria fail to clearly demarcate two distinct phenomena. I therefore propose to transcend Young's distinction between two models in favour of a related, but conceptually different distinction between two forms of responsibility: interactional and structural. Embracing this terminology facilitates the conceptualisation of the general features of responsibility that are shared by both forms, including their retrospective and prospective time-direction and their applicability to individual, joint and group agency. The distinction between interactional and structural responsibility also yields a more compelling general account of the role of background structures, and of blame within ascriptions of political responsibility. (shrink)

There is a famous puzzle in Rorty scholarship: Did or did Rorty not subscribe to a form of realism and truth when he made concessions regarding objectivity to Bjørn Ramberg in 2000? Relatedly, why did Rorty agree with Ramberg but nevertheless insist upon disagreeing with Brandom, though large parts of the research community hold their two respective requests for shifts in Rorty’s stance to be congruous? The present article takes up the discussion and tries, for the first time, to make (...) sense of Rorty’s insistence that there is a difference between Brandom’s notion of “made true by facts” and Ramberg’s notion of “getting things right” by showing that Ramberg’s appropriateness-conditions are fully compatible with Rorty’s revised interpretation of Davidson’s concept of “triangulation,” whereas Brandom’s inferential “made-true-by-facts”-language game is not. The reason why Rorty agrees with Ramberg but not with Brandom, I argue, is that Brandom’s contemporary concept of objectivity, as developed in his contribution to the debate and in his Making It Explicit, works with a scheme-content distinction, whereas Ramberg’s Davidson-based version does not. As many of his critics suppose, Rorty’s concession to Ramberg entails a substantive revision of Rorty’s position, not just a clarification. However, this new position is not in conflict with Rorty’s most important commitment, namely his anti-authoritarianism. The revised account still does not bind him to the forms of realism and truth that his critics favor. The article explains to which forms of realism and truth Rorty’s concessions to Ramberg commit him instead. (shrink)

In our paper, we distinguish between two forms of memory knowledge: experiential memory knowledge and stored memory knowledge. We argue that, mutatis mutandis, the case that Pritchard makes for epistemological disjunctivism regarding perceptual knowledge can be made for epistemological disjunctivism regarding experiential memory knowledge. At the same time, we argue against a disjunctivist account of stored memory knowledge.

American critical realism emerged in two forms: an ‘essentialist’ version defended, with some significant divergences, by George Santayana and C. A. Strong, and an ‘empirical’ version primarily defended by Roy Wood Sellars. Both forms of American critical realism aimed at an epistemologically convincing ‘representationalist’ account of perception. However, they were divided over issues of ontology. While Santayana and Strong invoked the notion of essence in order to ontologically reinforce their epistemological conceptions, Sellars attempted a more empirical, evolution-based approach. (...) It will be argued that Sellars’s view has more to recommend it because it better explains the actual mechanism of perceptual representation. (shrink)

Recent commentators have contended that Hume’s skeptical arguments in the Treatise lead him to eschew a traditional epistemic account of justification in favor of a pragmatic account. While this view resolves some textual puzzles, others arise. Instead, Hume should be read as endorsing two completely distinct standards of doxastic normativity: the epistemic and the pragmatic. The epistemic grants beliefs philosophical approval, while the pragmatic circumscribes the domain of investigation to prevent reasoning that leads to extreme skepticism. I argue that the (...) mixed account of justification makes better sense of key passages in the Treatise than either constituent can on its own. One notable virtue of this account is that it explains how Hume can hold that the vulgar can have all things considered warrant. (shrink)

Recently, there has been some discussion of how Dutch Book arguments might be used to demonstrate the rational incoherence of certain hidden variable models of quantum theory. In this paper, we argue that the 'form of inconsistency' underlying this alleged irrationality is deeply and comprehensively related to the more familiar 'inconsistency' phenomenon of contextuality. Our main result is that the hierarchy of contextuality due to Abramsky and Brandenburger corresponds to a hierarchy of additivity/convexity-violations which yields formal Dutch Books of different (...) strengths. We then use this result to provide a partial assessment of whether these formal Dutch Books can be interpreted normatively. (shrink)

Building on a distinction between two kinds of skepticism recently worked out by the American philosopher James Conant, we can differentiate the question of how to overcome the gap between two cultural horizons in intercultural dialogue from the question of how there could even be such dialogue, irrespective of its method, success or failure. While the first question concerns practical conditionality, that is, something we as philosophers have to achieve, the second question concerns transcendental conditionality. After making this distinction clear, (...) the paper presents three cases of recent scholarship on intercultural dialogue, each of which can be read as a response to those two forms of conditionality of intercultural understanding. Those cases are Jean-Yves Heurtebise’s notion of a “transcultural” philosophy, Eric S. Nelson’s work on “intercultural philosophy,” and Kwok-Ying Lau’s concept of a “cultural flesh.” However, while speaking to both forms of conditionality, they tend not to distinguish sufficiently their responses to the two problematics. (shrink)

In the first part of this critical study on Herman De Dijn’s Vloeibare waarden, I offer a concise presentation of the central ideas in this book against the backdrop of Zygmunt Bauman’s view of late modernity. In the second part, I try to characterize De Dijn’s so-called conservatism with the assistance of a few quotations from the work of Leszek Kolakowski, a Polish philosopher with whom De Dijn feels congenial. In the third part, I make two critical observations concerning De (...) Dijn’s position in his book. Finally, I make a passing remark as to the philosophical importance of what Hannah Arendt calls ”dangerous thinking’. (shrink)

My aim in this article is twofold. First, I will illuminate the triangular conceptual connections between responsibility, authority, and power as they are exposed in the organizational realm; second, I will show how the three concepts are distinct. Relying on the work of Peter Strawson and his followers on responsibility for my point of departure, I will show that the connection between the inner corporational authority and its inner matching responsibility is different from the connection between the outer corporational forces (...) and influences and the CSR that they develop in reaction to these. This will expose another important distinction between two kinds of responsibility: the organizational kind, as instantiated in organizations, and the social kind, which constitutes the outer aspect of the CSR. Though many thinkers address different kinds of responsibility, a comparative perspective of these different concepts is missing. I attempt to bring three of these separate discourses together to examine them alongside one another, evaluating them in the light of their differences and similarities. This will expose a new typology of ‘responsibility’ that penetrates and illuminates the relations between corporations and society and as such enhance our understanding of organizational responsibility. (shrink)

Political theorists advocating the abolition of instrumental uses of groups of animals are divided with respect to how they evaluate welfare reforms. Radical abolitionists maintain that welfare reforms are only dubiously described as moral improvements while pragmatic abolitionists maintain that welfare reforms are moral improvements, even if the conditions they permit are unjust. This article examines Wyckoff’s interest model against the case of a Cincinnati coalition’s efforts to reform the local food chain. This article argues that the coalition’s program of (...) choice is a welfare reform and that the interest model must evaluate the program as a moral improvement. This article concludes that if the interest model is the most appropriate political theory of animal rights, pragmatic abolitionism is philosophically more appropriate than radical abolitionism. (shrink)

There has been increasing interest in the relevance of virtue approaches to ethics over the past 15 years. However, debate surrounding the virtue approach in the business, management and organisational studies literature has lacked progress. First, this literature focuses on a narrow range of philosophers, and, second, it has failed to analyse properly the consequences of virtue theory for action in practical settings other than in abstract terms. In order to begin addressing these issues, this paper compares what two virtue (...) frameworks—one focused on virtue in the context of community and the other on individuals as virtuous agents—lead to when evaluating the actions of parties to the 2002–2004 UK Fire Service dispute. The analysis argues that the virtue frameworks proposed by MacIntyre and Slote offer different but complimentary evaluations. Both not only point to potential problems with industrial disputes, but also recognise the legitimacy of action that is based in good motivations and carried out with regard for the virtues. It seems that fire fighters and their immediate supervisors, on the whole, met the conditions of virtue, but that it is open to question if the leaders of the Fire Brigades Union and the Government did the same. The analysis goes on to suggest which modes of negotiation would be acceptable under the virtue frameworks, and the implications for those involved in industrial dispute. (shrink)

Functional reductionism characterises inter-theoretic reduction as the recovery of the upper-level behaviour described by the reduced theory in terms of the lower-level reducing theory. For instance, finding a statistical mechanical realiser that plays the functional role of thermodynamic entropy allows for establishing a reductive link between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. This view constitutes a unique approach to reduction that enjoys a number of positive features, but has received limited attention in the philosophy of science. -/- This paper aims to clarify (...) the meaning of functional reductionism in science, with a focus on physics, to define both its place with respect to other approaches to reduction and its connection to ontology. To do so, we develop and explore two alternative frameworks for functional reduction, called Syntactic Functional Reductionism and Semantic Functional Reductionism. They represent two different possible stances on the view that expand and improve the basic functional reductionist approach along different lines, and make clear how the approach works in practice. The former elaborates on David Lewis’ account, is connected with the syntactic view of theories, is committed to a logical characterisation of functional roles, and is embedded within Nagelian reductionism. The latter adopts a semantic view of theories, spells out functional roles mainly in terms of mathematical roles within the models of theories, and is expressed in terms of the related structuralist approach to reduction. The development of these frameworks has the final goal of advancing functional reductionism, to make it a fully-fledged alternative account for reduction in science. (shrink)

In his paper "The Problem of Domination by Reason and its Non-Relativist Solution" Oskari Kuusela describes a problem about our conception of rationality, which he labels the problem of “domination by reason”. This problem has contributed to generate, Kuusela notes, a widespread dissatisfaction with reason, which has resulted in a tendency to discard ideals of rationality altogether. Kuusela, in his paper, provides a response to this dissatisfaction. He argues that Wittgenstein, if we read him correctly, exemplifies a conception of reason (...) that doesn’t incur the problem he indicates. In my response, I suggest a possible extension of Kuusela’s reflections. Domination by reason, as I argue, may also take another form, different from the one recognized by Kuusela. This alternative form is interesting for two reasons. First, those concerned about rationality’s dominance have quite often in mind this latter problem. Second, it is not obvious that the alternative version of the problem can be solved by appealing to the conception of rationality Kuusela locates in Wittgenstein: it could even be argued that such a conception, on a certain construal, may contribute to reinforcing it. I suggest that, if we focus solely on the aspects of Wittgenstein’s method highlighted in Kuusela’s paper, then such methods may be taken to promote domination by reason (in the alternative sense I introduce). There are, however, other aspects of Wittgenstein’s philosophy - most notably, his conception of ethical language - which may help us to dispel this version of the problem. Keywords: Wittgenstein, rationality, modernity, clarification, James Baldwin. (shrink)

The authors identify and offer an analysis of a new form of the Straw Man fallacy, and then explore the implications of the prevalence of this fallacy for contemporary political discourse.

The recent popularity of contextualist treatments of the key epistemic concepts has tended to obscure the differences that exist between the various kinds of contextualist theses on offer. The aim of this paper is to contribute towards rectifying this problem by exploring two of the main formulations of the contextualist position currently on offer in the literature—the 'semantic' contextualist thesis put forward by Keith DeRose and David Lewis, and the 'inferential' contextualist thesis advanced by Michael Williams. It is argued that (...) by evaluating these theses in the light of each other one can gain a deeper understanding of the contextualist position. In particular, it is argued that this relative evaluation highlights one interesting way in which contextualism might be developed. (shrink)

In his Leçons VII (Le désir politique de dieu) Pierre Legendre applies the idea or expression of ‘instituting time’ (‘instituer le temps’), that is, working with time as a malleable material, but at the same time conceptualising time as dogmatic time, especially in the interpretation of law. As an example of this concept he refers to the English Common Law, a ‘style’ of ‘governing by solving cases’. This text will analyse the notion of two times of law—inaugural/mythological and historical—and how (...) it applies to Common Law judgments, as well as to Institutional Writers that are characteristic of Scots Law in particular. (shrink)

The paper both connects and disassociates the work of Walter Benjamin and Aby Warburg. There are two interrelated undertakings. The first involves the relationship between philosophy and art history and thus how art history figures within the philosophical. The second pertains to the status of the image. Part of the argument to be advanced is that an engagement with philosophical approach to art history yields a concern with the image in which it is the image's material presence that proves decisive. (...) Indeed, it is by insisting on the object's materiality that it then becomes possible to locate the effective presence of the gesture as integral to the work of art. The contention is that gesture is the intersection of art's material presence and the concerns of meaning. The paper us develop via an engagement with works by Edgar Degas and Luca Signorelli. (shrink)

My aim in this article is twofold. First, I will illuminate the triangular conceptual connections between responsibility, authority, and power as they are exposed in the organizational realm; second, I will show how the three concepts are distinct. Relying on the work of Peter Strawson and his followers on responsibility for my point of departure, I will show that the connection between the inner corporational authority and its inner matching responsibility is different from the connection between the outer corporational forces (...) and influences and the CSR that they develop in reaction to these. This will expose another important distinction between two kinds of responsibility: the organizational kind, as instantiated in organizations, and the social kind, which constitutes the outer aspect of the CSR. Though many thinkers address different kinds of responsibility, a comparative perspective of these different concepts is missing. I attempt to bring three of these separate discourses together to examine them alongside one another, evaluating them in the light of their differences and similarities. This will expose a new typology of ‘responsibility’ that penetrates and illuminates the relations between corporations and society and as such enhance our understanding of organizational responsibility. (shrink)

Here, the logical behaviour of negation in Wittgenstein's Tractatus is compared with Demos' account of denial. Even if we hold negation as a pure syntactical device, at least in some context, it brings a handful of complex semantic information – potentially an infinite amount. We advocate then the existence of at least two negations due to the existence of two different and non-reducible types of exclusion. The first negation is a Tractarian and classical one, based on the notion of contradiction, (...) whereas the second is a non-classical negation, based on the notion of contrariety. (shrink)

In his late reflections on values and forms of life from the 1920s and 1930s, Husserl develops the concept of personal value and argues that these values open two kinds of infinities in our lives. On the one hand personal values disclose infinite emotive depths in human individuals while on the other hand they connect human individuals in continuous and progressive chains of care. In order to get at the core of the concept, I will explicate Husserl’s discussion of (...) personal values of love by distinguishing between five related features. I demonstrate that values of love (1) are rooted in egoic depts and define who we are as persons, (2) differ from objective values in being absolute and non-comparative, (3) ground vocational lives as organizing principles, (4) are endlessly self-disclosing and self-intensifying, and (5) establish transitive relations of care between human beings. On the basis of my five-partite distinction, I argue that Husserl’s concepts of love and value of love reveal the dynamic character of human subjectivity and intersubjectivity. (shrink)

Cet article porte sur la désuétude des concepts colligés en histoire (ex. Renaissance, Guerre froide, Hiver de l’I.A., Procès de civilisation). Ces concepts possèdent un statut particulier, du fait qu’ils ajoutent au passé certains éléments structurants qui lui sont étrangers. La question est donc de savoir si ces apports extérieurs entrent en jeu lorsque vient le moment de juger de l’utilité ou de la désuétude des concepts colligés. En travaillant à partir d’une caractérisation minimale du narrativisme, je présenterai l’analyse de (...) deux formes de désuétudes que l’on retrouve en histoire et qui se distinguent de ce que l’on peut observer ailleurs dans les autres sciences, soit la désuétude occasionnelle et la désuétude par l’élimination. (shrink)

A serial reaction time experiment tested the hypothesis that there are two independent forms of implicit learning: learning that is linked to making judgments about stimuli, and learning that is linked to motor processing. Participants performed 2, 6, or 12 blocks of single task SRT, dual task SRT, or observation with one of five sequences; each sequence had the same underlying structure. Participants then performed two implicit tests, SRT and pattern judgment, as well as a generation test and an (...) explicit knowledge test. There was a double dissociation of the effect of sequence surface structure on SRT and pattern judgment. SRT and pattern judgment competence developed independently of each other across length of acquisition task. Performance on both implicit tasks did not depend on explicit knowledge. These results indicate that the SRT and pattern judgment measures tap independent forms of implicit learning, which is consistent with the modular nature of memory and cognition. (shrink)

The duty to love one's neighbor as oneself is at the core of Kierkegaard's Works of Love . In this book, Kierkegaard unfolds the meaning of neighborly love and claims that it is the only valid form of true love. He contrasts between neighborly love and preferential love (which includes romantic love and friendship) and criticizes the latter for being nothing but a form of selfishness. However, in some contexts, Kierkegaard seems to acknowledge the significance of preferential love relationships, and (...) does not disallow them. Therefore, his understanding of preferential love appears to be confused and inconsistent. My essay discusses the tension in Kierkegaard's position regarding preferential love, and by presenting recent readings of Works of Love , it asks whether this tension is resolvable and offers a suggestion for a possible solution. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: I distinguish two sorts of motivation for dualism. One motivation is driven by the distinctive character of conscious phenomenology. The other is driven by the special character of normativity: Is rationality an even problem than consciousness? There is no dramatic climax in which I show that these two dualist currents have a common source; in fact, I think they are relatively independent.

Despite their common core in statistics, insurance and epidemiology propel two different forms of solidarity. In insurance, the collective is a source of protection, thanks to the pooling of risks; in epidemics by contrast, the group remains the source of danger for the individual. The aim of this paper is to highlight the conceptions of community and solidarity at play in epidemics in contradistinction to insurance, with a focus on the shift introduced by big data and algorithms. Paradoxically, while (...) the new technologies and epidemiology share a common view on the relation between the individual and the collective, tracing apps were not widely adopted in the Covid-19 crisis. This reluctance to use current technologies for the sake of epidemic containments highlights, beyond legitimate interrogations, a confusion between two imaginaries of the social: insurance solidarity where the interdependence is a source of rights, and epidemic solidarity that imposes duties. (shrink)

본고는 새로운 관점에서 재구조화된 ‘고대와 근대 간의 논쟁’을 통해 고대윤리학과 근대윤리학의 특징과 한계를 비교·논구하고, 이를 토대로 오늘날 우리에게 주어진 윤리학적 과제를 해결하기 위해서 근대윤리학의 한계를 넘어서 ‘좋음의 윤리학’이 재건되어야 하는 학문적 근거를 논구하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 고대윤리학이 존재론적인 도덕의 근거를 토대로 좋음의 실현을 목적으로 삼는 넓은 의미의 도덕을 지향하는 반면, 근대윤리학은 인식론적인 도덕의 근거를 토대로 악의 회피를 목적으로 삼는 좁은 의미의 도덕을 지향한다. 근대윤리학은 좋음의 실현이 아닌 악의 회피를 목적으로 삼고, 인간 이외의 존재를 도덕의 영역에서 제외하기 때문에 ‘윤리학의 지평을 축소시켰다.’라고 (...) 평가된다. 그래서 근대윤리학은 오늘날 새롭게 등장한 사회윤리 문제, 과학기술의 발달과 자유주의적 우생학의 등장으로 인한 인간의 위기, 인간 이외의 존재, 자연 전체와의 도덕적 관계 설정 등과 관련된 윤리적 문제를 해결하는 데 일정한 한계를 지닌다. 이러한 윤리적 문제들을 해결하기 위해서는 근대윤리학의 한계를 넘어서 ‘좋음의 윤리학’이 현대적 조건에 적합한 방식으로 재건되어야 한다. (shrink)