According to “the argument from discernment”, sympathetic motivation is morally faulty, because it is morally undiscriminating. Sympathy can incline you to do the right thing, but it can also incline you to do the wrong thing. And if so, it is no better as a reason for doing something than any other morally arbitrary consideration. The only truly morally good form of motivation-because the only morally non-arbitrary one-involves treating an action's rightness as your reason for performing it. This paper attacks the argument from discernment and argues against its conclusion.

In the “Transcendental Aesthetic” of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant offers an argument for transcendental idealism. This argument is one focus of the longstanding controversy between “one-world” and “two-world” interpretations of the distinction between things in themselves and things as they appear. I present an interpretation of the argument of the “Aesthetic” that supports a novel “one-world” interpretation. On this interpretation, Kant is concerned with the mind-dependence of spatial and temporal properties; and with the idea that space and time can be identified with mental objects. I end by arguing that, for Kant, even on a “one-world” interpretation, we do not know the nature or even the existence of mind-independent things.

I argue that thoughts and concepts are mental representations rather than abstracta. I propose that the most important difference between the two views is that the mentalist believes that there are concept and thought tokens as well as types; this reveals that the dispute is not terminological but ontological. I proceed to offer an argument for mentalism. The key step is to establish that concepts and thoughts have lexical as well as semantic properties. I then show that this entails that concepts and thoughts are susceptible to the type/token distinction. I finish by considering some objections to the argument.

The idea that moral imperatives are categorical is commonly used to support intemalist claims about moral judgment. I argue that the categorical quality of moral requirements shows at most that moral motivation need not flow from a background desire to be moral. It does not show that moral judgments can motivate by themselves, or that amoralism is impossible.

John McDowell has suggested recently that there is a route from his favoured solution to Kripke’s Wittgenstein’s “sceptical paradox” about rule-following to a particular form of cognitive externalism. In this paper, I argue that this is not the case: even granting McDowell his solution to the rule-following paradox, his preferred version of cognitive externalism does not follow.

Brandom’s “inferentialism”-his theory that an expression’s or state’s contentfulness consists in its use or occurrence being governed by inferential norms-proves dubiously compatible with his own deflationary approach to underwriting the objectivity of intentional content (an approach that is one of the theory’s essential presuppositions). This is because a deflationist argument, adapted from the case of truth to that of correct inference, undermines the key criterion of adequacy Brandom employs in motivating inferentialism. Once that constraint is abandoned, furthermore, Brandom is left vulnerable to the charge that his inferential norms are unavailable to play the meaning-constituting role he claims for them. Yet Brandom’s account of meaning tacitly intertwines inferentialism with a separate explanatory project, one that in explaining the pragmatic significance of meaning-attributions does yield a convincing construal of the claim that the concept of meaning is a normative one.

One thing all forms of foundationalism have in common is that they hold that a belief can be justified noninferentially-i.e., that its justification need not depend on its being inferred from some other justified (or unjustified) belief. In some recent publications, Peter Klein argues that in virtue of having this feature, all forms of foundationalism are infected with an unacceptable arbitrariness that makes it irrational to be a practicing foundationalist. In this paper, I will explain why his objections to foundationalism fail.