In particular, does saying that states of understanding are different to non-understanding states commit us to some kind of metaphysical dualism? And does the further claim that there is a difference in explanation between states of understanding and non-understanding states commit us to reject the possibility of naturalising the understanding? In other words, can one be committed to naturalism and accept transcendental philosophy? My answer is: it depends what this commitment to naturalism actually commits you to.
Naturalism, in the present context, is roughly the view that states of understanding can be explained in terms of states or properties or events or entities which are not themselves states, properties or events of understanding. It is the view that, say, the instantiation of every understanding property occurs in virtue of the instantiation of a non-understanding property; and it is the view that the first can be explained in terms of the second. And how can such states be explained naturalistically, if there is a difference between a naturalistic account of something and the account that states of understanding require?
These worries are mistaken. Consider firstly the idea of different explanations. This difference does not entail that the intentional cannot be explained in terms of the non-intentional. What it does entail is that, given i an explanation of an intentional property in terms of a non-intentional property, and ii an explanation of some non-intentional property in terms of some other non-intentional property, i will be a different kind of explanation to ii.
In particular, i will require what ii requires, plus a conceptual supplementation. This supplementation is simply whatever is required to show that it is in virtue of possessing the relevant non-intentional properties that the state in question possesses its intentional properties. In other words, it would a particular kind of answer to the transcendental question. One might compare this case with an example given by McDowell: he mentions someone who might respond to Zeno by walking across the room.
Two points by way of clarification: this conceptual work will, if it is actually possible, ultimately come down to allowing us to understand a metaphysical position.
It might therefore be a bit misleading to call it conceptual work, but what I mean by this title is that it will amount to us rethinking the nature of the intentional, or the non-intentional, or both. In other words, some of our metaphysical concepts will be reworked. Secondly, we are a long way from such a reworking. And this gap is based though not reducible to a conceptual gap, between the concepts we use to pick out and think about physical states, and those we use to pick out and think about experiential states.
The problem, in fact, seems to be twofold.
See a Problem?
On the one hand, in collapsing the intentional into the representational, there is a danger that intentionality is being misdescribed to start with. But supervenience claims require a transcendental account, making clear exactly how it is possible that the supervenient entity, M, can have any intentional content. Otherwise, we are left with a position the truth of which, to quote Nagel in a different context, we cannot understand.
Allison, H. Carr, D. Fodor, J. Mental Representation: A Reader. Heil, J. The Nature of True Minds. Jacob, P. What Minds can do: Intentionality in a non-Intentional World. Kant, I. Critique of Pure Reason. Guyer, P.
- The Way into Phenomenological Transcendental Philosophy from Psychology.
- Thoroughly Modern Milkshakes: 100 Thick and Creamy Shakes You Can Make At Home: 100 Classic and Contemporary Recipes.
- Journal of Transcendental Philosophy.
- Keynote speakers:.
- Naturalism (philosophy).
- Transcendental Philosophy and Naturalism.
Levine, J. Purple Haze: The Puzzle of Consciousness. McDowell, J. Mind and World. Mohanty, J. The Possibility of Transcendental Philosophy. Nagel, T. Concealment and Exposure and Other Essays. Ridgeview: Atascadero CA. Stanford University Press: Stanford.
Transcendental Philosophy and Naturalism - PDF Free Download
Smith, A. Smith, D. Stich, S. See Mind and World , pp. Apart from the logical problems such a view would throw up, it is untrue to our experiences. When I understand, say, a poem, I cannot separate my understanding the poem and my thinking of it or reading it. I mention it only to put it to one side — it must be acknowledged, but I cannot address it in this paper. See Mohanty , p. When I am aware of, say, a tree, I am aware of the tree itself, not of a representation of the tree.
I think the example of appreciating films differently suggests that relations of meaning are broader than rational relations. Journal of Transcendental Philosophy. Free Access. Online ISSN See all formats and pricing Online. Prices are subject to change without notice. Prices do not include postage and handling if applicable. More options … Overview Submission of Manuscripts. Overview Aims and Scope The Journal of Transcendental Philosophy JTPH provides a forum for philosophers working in the transcendental tradition, broadly construed as any form of thinking that presents itself as a creative continuation of the manner of philosophizing inaugurated by Kant.
Special Topic Issues One issue of each year will be a special topic volume, published by a designated Guest Editor. The first three special topic issues have already been selected: Transcendental Philosophy and the Challenge of Naturalism edited by Andrea Staiti. Language: English Type of Publication: Journal Keyword s : Epistemology, philosophy of mind, phenomenology, philosophy of science, philosophy of nature, philosophy of culture, ethics, political philosophy, metaphilosophy, Kant, German Idealism, Romanticism, Neo-Kantianism, Anglophone Idealism Readership: Institutes, libraries, students, scholars.
Instructions for Authors Instructions for Authors Original articles of between 5, and 10, words or book reviews of max. Structure — Book Reviews Book reviews are not double-blind peer reviewed. Rawls Cohen , pp. Carens , ch. Examples of the main forms of reference are given below: Single-authored book: Cohen. Co-authored book: as above with the names of authors appearing in the same order as on the original publication: Smith, M. Journal article: Sen, A. Betzler ed. For a book with multiple editors, the citation should be as above with editorial information: A.
Cohen and C. It also seems implausible to say that it is good just because it satisfies a desire as such: for even if I was bulimic it might do that, but still not be regarded as good. A third suggestion, then, is that it can be seen as good because it is good for me, as satisfying a genuine need or desire of mine. But if I think this is what makes eating the piece of cake good, I must value myself, as otherwise I could not hold that satisfying me is sufficient to make something good enough for it to be rational for me to choose to do it; so I must regard myself as valuable.
Transcendental Philosophy and Naturalism
Put conversely: suppose that you thought that you and your life were utterly worthless, pointless, meaningless—that in your eyes, you were valueless. And suppose that you are faced with a piece of cake: on what basis would you choose it eat it? It seems unlikely that there is something intrinsically good about eating it, or that you should do so just because you find yourself with a desire to do so, even while finding your existence valueless. It seems that the only reason to do so would be if you thought eating the cake brought you some genuine benefit—but if you thought your life was worthless, how could you see this as a reason either?
Why is bringing benefit to something that in your eyes is so utterly without value a reasonable thing to do? There are some dangers in this argument, however. But, this worry might be lessened by the thought that while the argument gets me to see that I must find something valuable about me, it need not be anything about me in particular, and perhaps could instead be something about me that is more general—such as my humanity or personhood.
- The Tower of Mud and Bone.
- Jesus Loves You - John 3:16 in Pictures?
- Athame (The Unfortunate Woods Trilogy Book 1).
However, while Korsgaard says that reflection will indeed lead us in this more general direction, we will need to see how. A second, perhaps related, worry is that this argument has a troubling parallel in the case of Satan, where Satan goes through 1 to 4 above, and concludes that he must regard his devilish nature as valuable. This is not the same as self-conceit, because he is not valuing himself as Satan just qua Satan; he is valuing his nature, just as we are valuing ours.
Nor does devilishness seem any less central to his nature than humanity is to ours. So it is hard to see how the Satanic parallel can be avoided by the argument as it stands. Nonetheless, it is possible that something can be built on the central idea of the argument, which seems to be this: As long as we think we can act for reasons based on the value of things, but at the same time reject any realism about that value applying to things independently of us, then we must be treated as the source of value and in a way that makes rational choice possible.
The first step is now familiar: To act is to do or choose something for a reason. Once again, realists might demur, claiming that some actions are rational things to do, because some things have value as such: so, perhaps knowledge is valuable in itself, thereby making it rational to seek it.
But let us leave such worries aside and assume with Korsgaard that nothing is objectively rational for us to do. The third step asks how a practical identity can make something into a reason for an agent: how can the fact that I am a father make it rational for me to buy my daughter this toy? The thought here is that it can only do so if you see value in that identity. Korsgaard stresses this when she writes:.
But moving on to step 4 , how can I see my particular practical identity as valuable? But, Korsgaard takes such realist positions to be problematic, and so thinks this will not do as an answer.
Related Transcendental Philosophy and Naturalism
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved