20th Century Philosophy

This chapter analyses several pages of handwritten notes in which G. E. M. Anscombe explores her disagreement with Wittgenstein’s view of the will and of moral value. While the notes are undated, there is strong textual evidence for dating them to a period no later than the mid-1950s: first, because elements in them parallel what Anscombe wrote about Wittgenstein in a pair of letters to The Tablet in 1954; and second, because lines from the notes are mirrored in both the (...) first edition of /Intention/, published in 1957 and deriving from lectures that Anscombe delivered in Hilary Term (January-March) of that year, and /An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus/, published in 1958 and deriving from lectures delivered in the Michaelmas (October-December) and Hilary Terms of 1957-1958. Because of this, the notes shed new light on the philosophical background to the conception of the will and of voluntary and intentional action that Anscombe works out in /Intention/—including the inspiration for her well-known formula, “I do what happens,” which appears verbatim in these notes. (shrink)

The present collection of essays is dedicated to the work of Elizabeth Anscombe, in particular her work collected in the Anscombe Archive at the University of Pennsylvania. The collection brings together scholars working on Anscombe and her tradition, all of whom have significant expertise in Anscombe’s philosophical thought, with many having worked directly at the Archive. While a variety of perspectives on Anscombe’s thought are represented in the collection, including some vigorous scholarly disagreements, the contributing authors nevertheless share a commitment (...) to developing and deepening our understanding of her philosophical project and its contemporary relevance. (shrink)

The paper distinguishes two versions of the guise of the good in Anscombe’s Intention and raises some doubts about Francesco Orsi’s recent proposal for how these two versions hang together. While Orsi’s interpretation of the two versions are separately insightful and illuminating, Orsi’s “Anscombean argument” for connecting Anscombe’s two versions of the guise of the good is at odds with Anscombe’s own approach.

Aristotelian Naturalism is an ethics on which moral goodness is a species of natural goodness—the kind of goodness we find on display in other creatures whose habits and activities enable them to thrive. What it takes for humans to be good is to have habits and engage in activities that contribute to human flourishing. The primary aim of the book is to present a version of Aristotelian Naturalism enriched by empirical evidence and responsive to criticisms from feminist and disability ethics. (...) On the revisionist, Pluralist Aristotelian Naturalism developed here, human goodness is not a single, unitary ideal to which all humans should aim. Instead, it instead admits of real diversity, just as goodness in general admits of diversity across various species. There is a plurality of human goodnesses, and consequently, a variety of sets of human virtues that promote human flourishing in its many forms. The book explicates an Aristotelian methodology of ethics on which we must use philosophical reasoning to integrate observational evidence about the shape life forms take and the dispositions that contribute to good human lives. When we observe about what humans are and do in order to thrive in a wide array of bodies, social-political contexts, and environments, this puts pressure on the standard Aristotelian Naturalist singular ideal of human goodness as depicted by a flourishing neurotypical, able-bodied, resource-rich mature adult. Rather, we have reason to think that there is such substantial variation in human forms of life, and in what people can do and be in order to flourish, that there is not one human goodness and one set of virtues. Instead, there is a diversity of forms of human goodness, all equally valuable—whether the goodness of young children, adolescents, for people with intellectual disabilities, in old age, for people living in affluent democratic states, and for those managing to be good while under oppression in authoritarian regimes. Moreover, when we achieve one kind of human goodness, this changes what we are able to do and be. By being good in one way, we acquire the capacity to be good in another way. Thus we learn that most of us, for most of our lives, are simultaneously being and becoming good. (shrink)

How can Ordinary Language Philosophy (OLP) help us understand poetry? Against John L. Austin’s exclusion of poetic utterances as parasitical, Philip Mills explores how contemporary poetics broadens the aims and scope of OLP. Through the analysis of French and American poetry that reinterprets notions such as illocution, perlocution, and language-games, Mills develops a poetic philosophy of language, revealing its viral and transformative nature. Poetry, Performativity, and Ordinary Language Philosophy bridges philosophy and poetry, showing how poetry contaminates and reshapes our ways (...) of thinking and being in the world, and combining the poetic and the ethical in the notion of ‘poethics.’ This Open Access book offers a new perspective on the poetic and literary potential of OLP and the intersections between the philosophy of language and poetry. (shrink)

Erstmals 1969 veröffentlicht, wurde das Buch Perceptrons von Marvin Minsky und Seymour Papert auf die eine oder andere Weise über die Jahrzehnte immer wieder aufgegriffen, zitiert und zusammen mit dessen konnektionistischer Gegenposition als eine der großen Kontroversen der KI-Geschichte stilisiert. Es ist allerdings längst nicht eindeutig, inwieweit Inhalt und Auswirkung des Buches übereinstimmen. Dies lässt sich mithilfe der Carnap’schen Aussagenanalyse genauer beleuchten. Carnap beschreibt nach welchen Mechanismen Aussagen Inhalt und subjektive Vorstellungen vermischen und was es bedeutet, wenn eine Aussage nur (...) scheinbar ein Problem behandelt. Wendet man diese Analyse auf Perceptrons an, lassen sich nicht nur die vergangene Kontroverse besser verstehen, sondern auch Rückschlüsse auf heutige KI-Debatten ziehen. Unser Beitrag eröffnet damit die Möglichkeit, gegenwärtige Grenzdiskussionen Künstlicher Intelligenz sachlich zu betrachten. (shrink)

In this chapter, I critically examine issues relevant to the construction and reality of social categories, focusing on issues concerning conceptual schemes and conventionalism. Conceptual schemes (‘paradigms,’ ‘linguistic frameworks,’ ‘forms of life’) are systems of concepts that organize and give (intersubjective) meaning to empirical experience. In discussions about the construction of social categories, a common assumption is that social categories and kinds (e.g., ‘money,’ ‘marriage,’ ‘liberal’) require the presupposition of a conceptual scheme that gives meaning to those terms. One prominent (...) position in social ontology (Lewis, 1969, Gilbert 1989, 2014, Searle 1995) holds that the reality of social categories is grounded in a conventionalist conceptual scheme: social categories are conventionally accepted categories that reflect explicit or implicit agreements within a community. According to this view, the reality of social categories and kinds is established (and maintained) by contingent and arbitrary conventional decisions about social categories (e.g., laws about legal tender, marriage laws, the one-drop rule). Conventions can be understood as social customs (e.g., rules governing traffic, marriage laws, institutionalized rules about sex and gender) that serve some human purpose or interest. They are important for the establishment and maintenance of social norms (see Bicchieri 2006, 2017). -/- The chapter proceeds as follows. In section 2, I examine the general idea of conceptual schemes, focusing on Kuhn’s influential theory of paradigms. While Kuhn’s position implies a conceptual relativity and anti-realism (or instrumentalism) about scientific concepts, Davidson and Popper challenge the Kuhnian orthodoxy that the presence of conceptual schemes implies conceptual relativity or ‘incommensurability’ of competing conceptual schemes. I argue that a key difference between scientific and social conceptual schemes is that the former are oriented towards describing nature, whereas the latter are oriented towards social utility or usefulness. In section 3, I examine some foundational works in social ontology—focusing on the accounts of Lewis, Gilbert, and Searle—that hold that social categories are grounded by a conventionalist conceptual scheme. These accounts of social categories imply that the reality of social categories is constituted by (or grounded in) social conventions, which ultimately reflect (or are anchored by) explicit or implicit community-level agreements. In section 4, I survey some prominent accounts of social human categories, focusing on the views of Hacking, Khalidi, Mallon, Haslanger, and Ásta. A common tendency in these accounts is the portrayal of social categories as social to the extent that they are conventionally determined. This suggests that the proper contrast class for social categories is natural categories (as opposed to individual categories or innate categories). (shrink)

Sisyphus has no right to complain for his fate of eternal repetition. As long as he only has the boulder to worry about he enjoys the greatest life. — If in one world Odysseus has to take drastic measures to battle his temptation, there must be another world taking the course of temptation automatically grants him impunity. — The bizarre mythologization of Oedipus must be a female psychogenesis. [This is in all likelihood just a waste of your time. I apologize (...) for my awful writing. I'd be infinitely grateful for any comment.] . (shrink)