Hopeless practical deliberation – reply to Bobier

Analysis 79 (4):629-631 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Bobier argued that hope is necessary for practical deliberation. I will demonstrate that Bobier’s argument for this thesis fails. The problem is that one of its main premisses rests on a sufficient condition for hoping that is subject to counterexamples. I consider two ways to save the argument, but show that they are unsuccessful in doing so.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,937

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-06-23

Downloads
58 (#369,129)

6 months
12 (#294,748)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andy Mueller
Goethe University Frankfurt

Citations of this work

The Focus Theory of Hope.Andrew Chignell - 2023 - Philosophical Quarterly 73 (1):44-63.
Hope: Conceptual and Normative Issues.Catherine Rioux - 2021 - Philosophy Compass 16 (3).
Philosophy of Hope.Michael Milona - 2020 - In Steven C. Van den Heuvel (ed.), Historical and Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Hope. Cham: Springer. pp. 99-116.

Add more citations

References found in this work

How We Hope: A Moral Psychology.Adrienne Martin - 2013 - Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Finding hope.Michael Milona - 2019 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 49 (5):710-729.
The value of hope.Luc Bovens - 1999 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 59 (3):667-681.
The nature of hope.Ariel Meirav - 2009 - Ratio 22 (2):216-233.
What is hope?Jack M. C. Kwong - 2019 - European Journal of Philosophy 27 (1):243-254.

View all 15 references / Add more references