Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Displaying: 1-5 of 5 documents


articles
1. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 10 > Issue: 2
James L. Trafford Modal Rationalism and the Transference of Meaning
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The lesson is familiar. Kripke’s arguments in favor of a posteriori necessary truths annul the idea that conceivability is a guide to metaphysical possibility because determining that which is a priori is a separate issue from determining that which is necessary. Modal rationalists do not completely agree with this conclusion. Following recent work on two-dimensional semantics, David Chalmers suggests that two distinct semantic values can be assigned to a statement, depending on whether we consider possible worlds as counterfactual or counteractual. The idea is that counterfactual possibilities yield familiar Kripkean intuitions, but that counteractuals fulfill the desired link between a priori conceivability and metaphysical possibility. In this paper, I discuss a problem for modalrationalism that arises through the use of material conditionals, or conditionals in the indicative mood. I then turn to Chalmers’ response, and suggest reasons why it is inadequate. I turn to another response from Chalmers, and suggest that, whilst it solves the fi rst issue, it is incapable of grounding modal rationalism. In conclusion I will suggest a way in which a tempered version of modal rationalism can be salvaged.
2. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 10 > Issue: 2
Julian Fink Asymmetry, Scope, and Rational Consistency
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Suppose rationality requires you to A if you believe you ought to A. Suppose you believe that you ought to A. How can you satisfy this requirement? One way seems obvious. You can satisfy this requirement by A-ing. But can you also satisfy it by stopping to believe that you ought to A? Recently, it has been argued that this second option is not a genuine way of satisfying the above requirement. Conditional requirements of rationality do not have two ‘symmetric’, but only one ‘asymmetric’ satisfaction condition. This paper explores the consequences of this argument for a theory of the requirements of rationality. I seek to show that thisview conflicts with another powerful intuition about the requirements of rationality, i.e. ‘rational consistency’: if rationality requires you to X, then it is not the case that rationality requires you to not-X. I shall conclude that ‘asymmetric’ satisfying is based on a misleading intuition, for which we should not sacrifice ‘rational consistency’.
3. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 10 > Issue: 2
Gustavo Fernández Díez The Demarcation between Philosophy and Science
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper is based on a criterion recently proposed by Richard Fumerton for demarcating philosophy of mind and cognitive science. I suggest to extend it to a demarcation criterion between philosophy and science in general, and put it in the context of the historical changes of boundaries between the philosophical and the scientifi c fi eld. I point to a number of philosophical claims and approaches that have been made utterly obsolete by the advancement of science, and conjecture that a similar thing may happen in the future with today’s philosophy of mind: under the supposition that cognitive science manages to progress very successfully in a certain direction, our concepts for mental states could change, and the type of philosophical interest we put in them, thus reshaping thewhole debate on the subject.
4. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 10 > Issue: 2
Noriaki Iwasa The Impossibility of Political Neutrality
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
For some contemporary liberal philosophers, a huge concern is liberal neutrality, which is the idea that the state should be neutral among competingconceptions of the moral good pursued by the people. In <i>The Morality of Freedom</i>, Joseph Raz argues that we can neither achieve nor even approximatesuch neutrality. He shows that neutrality and fairness are different ideas. His notion of neutrality is stricter than John Rawls’s and Ronald Dworkin’s. Raz shows that both helping and not helping can be neutral or non-neutral, thus neutrality is chimerical. Wojciech Sadurski’s appeal to rational expectations does not necessarily tell us which action is neutral. Distinguishing between comprehensive and narrow neutrality, Raz also claims that only the former is a proper response to conflicts. Sadurski criticizes it, claiming that conflicts are comprehensive in a sense which does not deny the adequacy of the narrow neutrality. In reality, however, it is almost impossible to achieve even the narrow neutrality. A theory is presented to explain why political neutrality is almost impossible to achieve. Philosophically, there is no neutral ground for neutral politics.
5. Croatian Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 10 > Issue: 2
Jasper Doomen A Systematic Interpretation of Hobbes’s Practical Philosophy
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Hobbes’s political philosophy departs from a number of premises that are supposed to be self-evident, supplemented by various observations from experience. These statements are examined critically and in their interrelatedness in order to find out to what extent Hobbes provides a convincing system of thought. The importance of the basis of man’s actions, his self-interest, is inquired, since it serves as the basis of his practical philosophy. After this, Hobbes’s views on ‘moral’ notions are expounded. As it turns out, Hobbes maintains a number of concepts that have such a connotation, but interprets these in a specific way. The articleis concluded with a modest systematic reconstruction of Hobbes’s main thoughts in practical philosophy.