Abstract

In his Philosophy of Devotion, Paul Katsafanas argues that some of our deepest, most identity-defining commitments are marked by “dialectical invulnerability” – that is, they are recalcitrant in the face of reflection that reveals them to be unjustified. If Katsafanas is right about this, it appears to undermine an account of identification offered by Richard Moran, since for Moran such recalcitrance is a mark of the attitude’s alienation. In these comments, I attempt to show what I think is right in Katsafanas’ account, while still defending the fundamental Moranian insight regarding the nature of identification and alienation.