The critical arguments of scepticism lead to the conclusion that no proposition can be justified as true. The attempts to define knowledge as justified true belief therefore fail, even within externalism. If we attribute knowledge to someone else, we can never justifiably know that we have done it correctly. Attributing knowledge is a hypothetical activity. Moreover, knowledge itself is hypothetical as well. There are no justifiably identifiable good reasons telling us that an investigated proposition is true. Scepticism thus leads an optimist, who holds that knowledge exists, to objectivism, i.e. to the view that knowledge is objective because its truth can be reduced neither to good reasons nor to the beliefs of investigators. Keywords: scepticism, objective knowledge, internalism, externalism, objectivism
The aim of this paper is to discuss the concept of distributed cognition (DCog) in the context of classic questions posed by mainstream cognitive science. We support our remarks by appealing to empirical evidence from the fields of cognitive science and ethnography. Particular attention is paid to the structure and functioning of a cognitive system, as well as its external representations. We analyze the problem of how far we can push the study of human cognition without taking into account what is underneath an individual’s skin. In light of our discussion, a distinction between DCog and the extended mind becomes important.
3
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
In this paper, we make a hermeneutical analysis of internalism, the dominant tradition in the philosophy of sports. In order to accomplish this, we identify the prejudices that guide the internalist view of sports, namely the Platonic-Analytic prejudice introduced by Suits, one of the forefathers of internalism. Then, we critically analyze four consequences of following such a prejudice: a) its reductive nature, b) the production of a unrealistic view of sports, c) the vagueness of the idea of excellence; and d) the leap from the descriptive analysis of the sporting phenomenon to the setting of normative requirements for the practice of sports.
The paper analyzes the strategy of refuting skepticism by virtue epistemology of Ernest Sosa. Responses to skeptical challenge are overviewed. The philosophical and meta-philosophical strategies are outlined. The solution based on distinguishing between reflective knowledge and animal knowledge is considered. The internalist assumptions of skepticism are critically exposed. The notion of web of belief is further used to support an anti-skeptical position. Shane Ryan’s notion of epistemic grace is put forward in defense of the virtue epistemology approach.
The concept of narrow content is still under discussion in the debate over mental representation. In the paper, one-factor dimensional accounts of representation are analyzed, particularly the case of Fodor's methodological solipsism. In methodological solipsism, semantic properties of content are arguably eliminated in favor of syntactic ones. If “narrow content” means content properties independent of external factors to a system (as in Segal's view), the concept of content becomes elusive. Moreover, important conceptual problems with one-factor dimensional account are pointed out as a result of analysis arguments presented by J. Searle, S. Harnad and T. Burge. Furthermore, these problems are illustrated with psychological and ethological examples. Although understanding content as partially independent from contextual factors allows theorists to preserve content properties, it seems that understanding content in total abstraction from external factors of these properties is implausible. As a result, internalism is rejected in favor of externalism.
In this paper, we make a hermeneutical analysis of internalism, the dominant tradition in the philosophy of sports. In order to accomplish this, we identify the prejudices that guide the internalist view of sports, namely the Platonic-Analytic prejudice introduced by Suits, one of the forefathers of internalism. Then, we critically analyze four consequences of following such a prejudice: a) its reductive nature, b) the production of a unrealistic view of sports, c) the vagueness of the idea of excellence; and d) the leap from the descriptive analysis of the sporting phenomenon to the setting of normative requirements for the practice of sports.
Motivational internalism is a view according to which moral judgments are necessarily motivating. Rationalist internalism (RI) is the most popular version of this view; it limits internalism to people who are practically rational. Motivational internalism, including RI, has been criticized as being incompatible with research into certain personality disorder; in particular psychopathic personality and pathological personality which is the result of damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (shortened to VM damage). In this paper, I argue that many of the features of psychopathic personality and of VM damage, which some philosophers interpreted as direct proof against internalism, should be understood as having an effect on the practical rationality of the patients. This means that these personality disorders cannot be used as counter examples to RI and can, in fact, be seen as supporting RI to some extent . I begin by describing RI. I then turn to I describing the phenomenon of psychopathic personality and VM damage and their philosophically relevant features. Finally I discuss whether the features characterizing psychopathy and VM damage influence the degree to which these disorders can serve as counterexamples to internalism of the rationalist variety.
Philosophical interests of Joseph Życiński (1948-2011) in the domain of the philosophy of science were focused on the debate concerning the nature of science and philosophy of science that followed the Einstein-Planck revolution in science. The unexpected discovery of the philosophical, extra-scientific presuppositions in science, as well as of the extra-rational factors determining the way these presuppositions are accepted in science were to be explained within the meta-scientific framework. It is the aim of this paper to present ˙ Życiński’s diagnosis of this post-revolutionary situation in the philosophy of science as well as his critique of the metascientific answers to this challenge. The reasons will be given why all those answers are put under two dichotomous rubrics of internalism and externalism. It will be also explained how Życiński intends to supersede this false in his opinion opposition with a new concept of the doxatic rationality. However, the details of the metascientific proposal of Życiński will be given only in the subsequent paper. In order to perform the aim of the paper the metatheoretic tools set out by Popper (1979) will be used.
The paper discusses how evidentiality and conjunct/disjunct marking in grammar are related to reliabilism, a contemporary theory of epistemic justification developed within the Anglo-American analytic tradition. It is assumed that many problems and ideas concerned with theories of knowledge, and with justification of beliefs in particular, which are widely discussed in contemporary philosophical debates, are worth reconsidering in the light of what grammars of natural languages impose on the epistemic agent. Section two explains how the notions of knowledge, belief and justification are understood in the paper. The section also outlines the major problems concerning the internalist justification of beliefs. Section three presents an externalist view on the problem of justification: process reliabilism. The reliabilist theory of justification is set in the context of two grammatical categories: evidentiality and conjunct/disjunct marking (egophoricity). Since the two categories are still little known, section four offers a brief presentation of evidentiality and egophoricity in grammar, illustrated with data from two languages. Finally, section five addresses the problem whether the premises of reliabilism are reconcilable with ‘natural epistemology’ encoded in grammar. The final conclusion says that the externalist premises of reliabilism are certainly not congruent with grammatical evidentiality and evidentialityrelated categories, but they are not logically inconsistent therewith. Furthermore, since the reliabilist program declares interest in ‘folk epistemic practices’, the approach might greatly benefit from what ‘natural epistemology’ tells us about epistemic folk concepts and epistemic practices employed by speakers of diverse world languages.
Artykuł, opublikowany po raz pierwszy w 1979 r., jest jednym z najczęściej cytowanych tekstów filozoficznych z drugiej połowy XX wieku. Tekst Bernarda Williamsa zainicjował kilka ważnych debat, toczących się do dziś w etyce i filozofii działania. Zaproponowana przez niego interpretacja pojęcia racji działania jest, z jednej strony, niezwykle wpływowa, ale z drugiej bardzo niejednoznaczna i często krytykowana. Williams broni stanowiska, które z czasem zaczęto określać jako internalizm racji: pewne względy są racjami działania dla danego podmiotu tylko wtedy, gdy mają ścisły związek z „subiektywnym układem motywacyjnym” tego podmiotu, czyli z jakimiś aspektami jego psychiki, charakteru, celów, pragnień, planów, relacji z innymi itd. Stwierdzenie, że ktoś ma rację, by coś zrobić (a jeśli uznajemy, że jest to racja przeważająca — to, że powinien to coś zrobić), znaczy więc wedle tego stanowiska tyle, że ten ktoś jest w stanie być motywowany, by to coś zrobić. W przeciwieństwie do tego stanowisko określane obecnie jako eksternalizm racji głosi, że pewne względy mogą być racjami działania dla danego podmiotu także wtedy, gdy odwołują się do niezależnych od jego układu motywacyjnego własności świata. Williams wychodzi od modelu działania nawiązującego do koncepcji Hume’owskiej, następnie przedstawia jego bardziej rozbudowaną wersję, omawia rolę namysłu, naturę potrzeb, a także przedstawia argument za internalizmem racji, określany jako argument z wyjaśniania działania. Głosi on, że nawet gdyby istniały zewnętrzne racje działania, niezwiązane z subiektywnym układem motywacyjnym danego podmiotu, to odwołanie się do nich nie byłoby w stanie wyjaśnić, dlaczego dany podmiot postąpił tak, a nie inaczej, gdyż „nic nie jest w stanie wyjaśnić (zamierzonych) działań podmiotu za wyjątkiem czegoś, co motywuje go działania”. Rozważania na temat tego argumentu są dla Williamsa okazją m.in. do przedstawienia własnej interpretacji głośnej tezy Davida Hume’a, głoszącej, że rozum nie może być źródłem motywacji do działania.
EN
The paper, originally published in 1979, is one of the most cited philosophical texts written in the second half of the 20th century and initiated a series of important discussions in ethics and the philosophy of action that continue to be of relevance in the present. Bernard Williams’ interpretation of the concept of internal reasons is, on the one hand, extraordinarily influential but very ambiguous and highly criticized on the other. Williams defends the view that was later termed reasons internalism: some considerations are reasons for actions for an agent only if they are closely linked with “the subjective motivational set” of an agent, i.e. with some aspects of his psyche, character, aims, desires, projects, relations with other etc. According to this view, saying that an agent has a reason to do something (or if one thinks that this is a prevailing reason — that an agent ought to do something) means that the agent could be motivated to do it. In contrast, reasons externalism claims that some considerations may be reasons for action for an agent, even if they refer to some things independent of his motivation set. Williams starts with the simplified Humean model of motivation, then builds on it a more adequate model, he discusses the role of deliberation, the nature of needs, and then he presents an argument for reasons internalism. The argument from explanation claims that even if there existed external reasons for action unconnected with a subjective motivation set of an agent, appealing to them could not explain why an agent acts in such a way, because “nothing can explain an agent’s (intentional) actions except something that motivates him so to act.” The discussion around this argument gives Williams the opportunity to present his own interpretation of the well-known thesis by David Hume that reason cannot give rise to a motivation for action.
This article is an attempt to identify the sources of normativity in virtue ethics. The starting point for the analyzes presented here is the book by Dominika Dzwonkowska Environmental virtue ethics. In § 1, I present the basic theses and assumptions of this approach to ethics. Then, with reference to the concept of the moral subject proposed by Dzwonkowska, I ask whether it constitutes the primary source of normativity (§ 2). I argue that environmental virtue ethics can be ascribed to arguments shared by supporters of the so-called constitutive arguments in metaethics (§ 3). Their position is based on the recognition that moral norms, obligations, etc., derive from the constitutive features of the subject. I call such an approach internalist and contrast it with the non-internalist approach, the outline of which I propose in § 4. In the Conclusion, I suggest that the pragmatic considerations and conservatism of researchers speak in favor of the internalist approach.
PL
Niniejszy artykuł jest próbą wskazania źródeł normatywności w etyce cnót. Punktem wyjścia dla prezentowanych tutaj analiz jest książka Dominiki Dzwonkowskiej pt. Etyka cnót środowiskowych. W § 1 przedstawiam podstawowe tezy i założenia tego podejścia do etyki. Następnie odnoszę się do rozumienia podmiotu moralnego zaproponowanego przez Dzwonkowską i zadaję pytanie o to, czy stanowi on właściwe źródło normatywności (§ 2). Wykazuję, że zwolennikom etyki cnót środowiskowych można przypisać argumentację podzielaną przez zwolenników tzw. argumentów konstytutywnych w metaetyce (§ 3). Ich stanowisko opiera się na uznaniu, że moralne normy, zobowiązania itd., wynikają z konstytutywnych cech podmiotu. Takie ujęcie określam mianem internalistycznego i przeciwstawiam je koncepcji eksternalistycznej, której zarys proponuję w § 4. W Zakończeniu. sugeruję, że za stanowiskiem internalistycznym przemawiają względy pragmatyczne i konserwatyzm badaczy.
Celem artykułu jest ukazanie problematyki obiektywności w sporze między eksternalizmem a internalizmem oraz wykazanie oddziaływania zwrotnego antysceptycznych koncepcji eksternalistów na umocnienie ideału obiektywności. Przedstawione zostaną koncepcje esternalizmu epistemicznego Roberta Nozicka oraz semantycznego Hilarego Putnama i Donalda Davidsona, jak również zarys stanowisk internalistycznych.
EN
The aim of the paper is to show the relevance of objectivity in the dispute between externalism and internalism and to demonstrate how anti-skeptical externalisms approach strengthens the ideal of objectivity. There are presented the positions of Robert Nozick’s epistemic externalism as well as both Hilary Putnam’s and Donald Davidson’s semantic externalism, and also the internalism issues.
The question whether cognition ever extends beyond the head is widely considered to be an empirical issue. And yet, all the evidence amassed in recent years has not sufficed to settle the debate. In this paper we suggest that this is because the debate is not really an empirical one, but rather a matter of definition. Traditional cognitive science can be identified as wedded to the ideals of “smallism” and “localism”. We criticize these ideals and articulate a case in favor of extended cognition by highlighting the historical pedigree and conceptual adequacy of related empirical and theoretical work.
The explanatory gap problem arises in the context of the mind-body relation, and especially the phenomenal concepts-physical concepts relation. It is posed as a question about the method which is appropriate for the reduction of consciousness to physical or neural states of the brain. Therefore it concerns – as the paper suggests – theoretical incapability of naturalistic attempts to explain what phenomenal concepts are about in terms of what physical or natural concepts are about. The paper discusses the argument of Joseph Levine, one of the best-known critics of the reductive attempts to close the explanatory gap. The bottom line of the argument is that since phenomenal concepts are theoretically thick, and physical concepts are theoretically thin, there is no way to reduce the former to the latter.
Dlaczego nie ma filozofii nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych? Dlaczego pomimo istotnego intelektualnego i instytucjonalnego rozwoju nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych po II wojnie światowej, nie wygenerowała ona żadnych „wielkich idei”, które wywarłyby wpływ na szeroko rozumiane nauki humanistyczne? Żadna z teorii stosunków międzynarodowych nie wskazuje jako swojego fundamentu wyjątkowych własności międzynarodowości. Żadna z tych teorii nie formułuje fundacyjnego rosz- czenia do własnego przedmiotu w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych na sposób w jaki robią to geografia, historia czy socjologia. Prowadzi to do przekonania, że stosunki międzynarodowe nie muszą być kształtowane przez swoiste dla nich aspekty świata społecznego i można je interpretować za pomocą idei importowanych z dyscyplin, które zajmują się badaniem właściwych dla nich aspektów. Podstawową wadą tej otwartości nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych na inne dyscypliny jest brak namysłu nad własną „głęboką ontologią”. W tym wydaje się tkwić najważniejsza przyczyna braku filozofii nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Autor realizuje w swoim tekście dwa podstawowe cele. Po pierwsze, podważa zasadność dominujących w NSM stanowisk w kwestii rozumienia międzynarodowości, które nazywa internalizmem, eksternalizmem i korelacjonizmem. Po drugie, przedstawia istotę i konsekwencje negatywnego charakteru NSM polegającego na braku filozofii dyscypliny i badaniu międzynarodowości na wzór nauk politycznych. Autor przekonuje, że zrozumienie tej „dziwnej ortodoksji” może otworzyć drogę do jej przezwyciężenia. Jej pokonanie zaś otworzyć możliwość pomyślenia ontologii NSM, czyli zarysować drogę prowadzącą do filozofii nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Ostatecznie, odwołując się do propozycji J. Rosenberga, przedstawia ideę ontologii, na której można budować filozofię nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych.
EN
Why is there no philosophy of International Relations? Why, despite the significant intellectual and institutional development of International Relations after World War II, has IR failed to generate any ‘grand ideas’ that would influence the broadly understood humanities? None of the theories of international relations indicates the exceptional features of interna- tionality as its foundation. None of these theories formulates a fundamental claim to its subject matter in International Relations the way geography, history or sociology do. This leads to the conviction that international relations do not have to be formed by aspects of the social world that are specific to them, and can be interpreted in terms of ideas imported from the disciplines that deal with examining aspects relevant to them. The basic disadvantage of this openness of International Relations to other disciplines is the lack of reflection on its own ‘deep ontology.’ This seems to be the most important reason for the lack of a philosophy of International Rela- tions. The author accomplishes two basic goals in his text. Firstly, he undermines the legitimacy of the three attitudes prevailing in IR on understanding internationality, which he calls internal- ism, externalism and correlationism. Secondly, he presents the essence and consequences of the negative character of IR, which involves the absence of the philosophy of IR and studying internationality in the same manner as political science does. The author argues that understanding this ‘strange orthodoxy’ can be a means to overcom- ing it, thereby opening up the possibility of conceiving the ontology of IR, or outlining the path leading to the philosophy of International Relations. Finally, the author refers to the proposal of Justin Rosenberg, to then present an idea for an ontology on which the philosophy of Interna- tional Relations could be founded.
16
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The paper deals with the controversy between internalism and externalism on the nature of mental states, and its relevance to the philosophy of perception. In particular, the controversy between Hilary Putnam's natural realism and John Searle's direct realism is discussed. It is argued that Searle's defense of internalism fails to meet Putnam’s objections. Putnam’s case is even strengthened and the very source of the internalism vs. externalism controversy is identified in their shared assumptions. The rejection of these assumptions, together with the underlying myth of Cartesian Theater, makes the controversy meaningless. Finally, the relations of Searle’s and Putnam’s views to the Cartesian framework in the philosophy of perception are discussed.
PL
Głównym tematem pracy jest spór pomiędzy internalizmem a eksternalizmem w kwestii stanów mentalnych oraz jego znaczenie dla filozofii percepcji. W szczególności praca przedstawia spór pomiędzy realizmem naturalnym Hilarego Putnama a realizmem bezpośrednim Johna Searle'a. Podjęta zostaje próba wykazania, że argumenty Searle'a nie oddalają krytyki internalizmu, którą wysunął Putnam. Postawiona zostaje teza, że spór pomiędzy internalizmem a eksternalizmem oparty jest na wspólnych dla obu stanowisk przesłankach, których podważenie prowadzi do zakwestionowania sensowności samego sporu. Przesłanki te zostają umieszczone w kontekście mitu „teatru Kartezjańskiego”. Przedstawione zostają relacje, w jakich stanowiska Searle'a i Putnama pozostają do założeń uznanych w tej pracy za konstytutywne dla kartezjańskiego schematu myślenia w filozofii percepcji.
The article is an attempt at establishing a theoretical basis for a dialogue between phenomenology and contemporary philosophy, with regard to the problem of internalism-externalism. It is argued, according to Roman Ingarden, that one has to first of all put forward an adequate question about the problem, to be able to understand it appropriately. Moreover, the analysis is limited to the two forms of the internalism-externalism debate, namely semantics and the philosophy of the mind. Within Husserl’s phenomenology one can easily point to basic intuitions that justify the thesis that this philosophy refers to the internalism-externalism problem. Ultimately, by using phenomenological terminology, the article arrives at questions about possible internalism-or-externalism within Husserl’s phenomenological project. The questions, however, suggest that phenomenology can be neither clearly nor completely classified either as internalism or as externalism.
PL
Artykuł jest próbą stworzenia teoretycznej płaszczyzny dialogu pomiędzy fenomenologią i filozofią współczesną w odniesieniu do problemu internalizmu-eksternalizmu. Za Romanem Ingardenem argumentuje się, że należy wypracować adekwatne pytanie o ten problem, aby móc go właściwie zrozumieć. Analizy zawęża się przy tym do dwóch form debaty internalizmu z eksternalizmem, a mianowicie do semantyki i filozofii umysłu. Na gruncie fenomenologii Husserla bez trudu można wskazać podstawowe intuicje, które utwierdzają przekonanie, że filozofia ta może traktować o omawianym problemie. Korzystając z terminologii fenomenologicznej, ostatecznie formułuje się pytania o możliwy internalizm i eksternalizm w projekcie filozoficznym autora „Badań logicznych”. Pytania te jednak sugerują, że fenomenologia nie daje się w całości zdefiniować ani jako internalizm, ani jako eksternalizm.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.