Scepticism about ought simpliciter is the view that there is no such thing as what one ought simpliciter to do. Instead, practical deliberation is governed by a plurality of normative standpoints, each authoritative from their own perspective but none authoritative simpliciter. This paper aims to resist such scepticism. After setting out the challenge in general terms, I argue that scepticism can be resisted by rejecting a key assumption in the sceptic’s argument. This is the assumption that standpoint-relative ought judgments bring (...) with them a commitment to act in accordance with those judgments. Instead, I propose an alternative account of our normative concepts according to which only ought simpliciter judgments commit one to acting in accordance with those judgments. In addition to answering the sceptical challenge, the proposal offers an independently motivated account of what makes a concept normatively authoritative. (shrink)

Many including Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philippa Foot, Peter Geach, Richard Kraut, and Paul Ziff have argued for good simpliciter skepticism. According to good simpliciter skepticism, we should hold that there is no concept of being good simpliciter or that there is no property of being good simpliciter. I first show that prima facie we should not accept either form of good simpliciter skepticism. I then show that all of the arguments that good simpliciter skeptics have proposed for their view fail (...) to show that we have good reason to accept good simpliciter skepticism. So, I show that we do not have good reason to accept good simpliciter skepticism. (shrink)

Entre los textos de Tomás consagrados a la simplicidad divina, la cuestión disputada De simplicitate divine esse sobresale por su original enfoque. Esta obra no se limita a probar la ausencia de toda clase de composición en Dios, sino que también muestra el impacto de ese atributo en el campo del lenguaje teológico. En efecto, la simplicidad cumple un papel fundamental a la hora de precisar el verdadero alcance de los nombres absolutos y relativos atribuidos a Dios. La temática está (...) lejos de ser irrelevante puesto que la imagen que el teólogo se forme de Dios y enseñe a los demás depende de la correcta comprensión de esos predicados. Nuestro trabajo ofrece una introducción a este texto medieval con el doble propósito de despertar o acrecentar el interés por su estudio y de descubrir que Tomás de Aquino tiene todavía mucho que decir sobre el Dios absolutamente simple. (shrink)

There are many different oughts. There is a moral ought, a prudential ought, an epistemic ought, the legal ought, the ought of etiquette, and so on. These oughts can prescribe incompatible actions. What I morally ought to do may be different from what I self-interestedly ought to do. Philosophers have claimed that these conflicts are resolved by an authoritative ought, or by facts about what one ought to do simpliciter or all-things-considered. However, the only coherent notion of an ought simpliciter (...) has preposterous first-order normative commitments. It is more reasonable to reject the ought simpliciter in favor of the form of normative pluralism advocated in (Tiffany 2007). (shrink)

Uniformity in human actions and attitudes incumbent with the ceteris paribus clause of folk psychology lucidly transits moral thoughts into the domain of subject versus object-centric explorations. In Zettel, Wittgenstein argues, “Concepts with fixed limits would demand uniformity of behaviour, but where I am certain, someone else is uncertain. And that is the fact of nature.” (Wittgenstein 2007, 68). Reflecting on the moral principle of “ethical giving” revives a novel stance in modern moral philosophy. An “ethical giving” is a moral (...) position that looks at giving from the context of harmonizing the changing demands of situations with normative ethical principles. Despite giving more prominence to the query of intuition, the chapter brings up the justification of normative moral principles pertaining to their applications and purports. Human activities aimed at decision-making goals conducted by the moral compass are nothing but the sanction of certain ethical norms and rules. In this context, two principles, the normative aspect and the perspective aspect need to be expounded in parallel. The perspective-based principle seeks practical guides to action, whereas the normative aspect principle looks for the concrete moral justification behind it. Normatively based moral decisions hinge on the probabilities and interests of agents that can sometimes lead towards a better choice. Thomas Nagel’s thought sounds more appealing, since his idea of practical conflict bends towards “...conflict between values which are incomparable for reasons apart from uncertainty about the facts.” (Nagel 2013, 128). Positions on moral personality and equality of justice collide with the conception of verities of the agents’ reason that cogitate a minimal aspect on the morally significant properties (range properties), which can hardly be possessed by all human beings equally. This argument sounds reasonable in light of Singer’s thought of “the principle of equal consideration of interests.” (Singer 2003, 21–22) The concern of this section is deliberative about how an agent could balance the demand of moral situations and the spirit of the moral principle devoid of being close to the relative truth. The conception of the moral decision remains capricious in line with the agent’s mood, time, and situation. The germane queries are: (a) How could one get the simpliciter of moral balance in “ethical giving” or offering help to the poor, orphans, and so on, who need helps from the agents and society? (b) Can we find any universalized principle in defense of ethical giving? (shrink)

Recently a lot has been written on the topic of value incomparability. While there is disagreement on how we are to understand incomparability, most seem to accept Ruth Chang's claim that all comparisons must proceed in some specific respect. Call this the Requirement for Specification. Interestingly, even though most seem to accept this requirement, next to nothing has been written on it. In this paper I focus on the requirement and discuss two different but related topics. First, an important observation (...) is made: as it turns out, the requirement plays an important explanatory role for the thesis that incomparability is to be understood in terms of vagueness. Second, I consider what is entailed by the Requirement for Specification. There is a general worry that the requirement entails that there is no such thing as goodness simpliciter. The line of thought is that if we always must specify in which way something is e.g., better than something else, then perhaps things cannot be better simpliciter. And if there is no such thing as betterness-simpliciter, then can there be such a thing as goodness simpliciter? Finally, I consider how an answer to this question affects the view that incomparability is vagueness. (shrink)

This paper identifies problems with indexicalism and abverbialism about temporary intrinsic properties, and solves them by disentangling two senses in which a particular may possess a property simpliciter. The first sense is the one identified by adverbialists in which a particular possesses at all times the property as a matter of foundational metaphysical fact regardless of whether it is manifest. The second involves building on adverbialism to produce a semantics for property-manifestation according to which different members of a family of (...) second-order properties of the foundational property are relevant to property manifestation at different times. (shrink)

Paul Gilbert has written a fascinating, stimulating book, one that offers a strong challenge to whoever might believe that the progress of scientific thought has rendered classical metaphysics obsolete, meaningless, or worthy only of historical scholarship. His work, based on the notion that a modern experimental science such as physics is not chiefly grounded on empirical evidence, is quite contrary to that naive empiricist conception already in jeopardy owing to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the present day prevalence of statistical explanation. (...) Physics' distinguishing trait is, in fact, the mathematical form given to its laws. However, mathematics is still awaiting a solid and complete foundation since Gödel's incompleteness theorem and the failure of Hilbert's metamathematical program. Such foundational difficulties are no surprise to Gilbert. Like those encountered by modern science's metaphysical predecessors, such difficulties are necessary consequences of the insuperable gap between reality and its discursive representation, between the unity of being, the multiplicity of its sensible appearances, and its analytical and synthetic reconstruction in thought. They reflect the "ontological differences" and conceptual separations that can be properly reunified only in action and not in words, that is, by means of a specific human action performed mentally when one is thinking that he is effectively thinking about something. Now, this type of solution is of course precluded by the prevailing quest for "objectivity" or "knowledge without a subject." For Gilbert, there can be no such thing as knowledge that is not animated by a subject's desire to fulfill the need to know, by doubts and astonishment at the recognition that reality is far more complex than its sensible appearances by which one immediately conceptualizes it. Even one's emotions, passions, freedom, the will to transcend oneself, to build a viable society, and to join with others while respecting their otherness must be taken into account. Any solid foundation for human knowledge must then encompass an ethical dimension. This is the major conclusion which the author wished to arrive at in this book and which had to be established first, before proceeding to the ultimate foundation aimed at by metaphysics. (shrink)

Are epistemic reasons normative in the same sense as, for instance, moral reasons? In this paper I examine and defend the claim that epistemic reasons are normative only relative to an epistemic standard. Unlike moral reasons they are not substantially normative, because they fail to make an independent contribution to obligations or permissions simpliciter. After presenting what I take to be the main argument for this view, I illustrate that the argument has often been defended by examples which controversially presuppose (...) strong epistemic obligations or pragmatic reasons for belief. Opponents of the argument often deny the existence of obligations and reasons of these kinds. I therefore examine whether the argument can withstand that line of critique by employing new examples. (shrink)

This article provides critical analysis of Aquinas’s designation of poverty as unqualifiedly evil. This paper provides an analysis of two different meanings of poverty: (a) in relation to things or to the external conditions in which people live and (b) in relation to an action in which people engage or are thwarted. Next, the paper discusses the sense in which poverty is an evil—and particularly, an unqualified evil—in relation to both of these meanings of poverty. Since Aquinas claims that poverty (...) is an unqualified evil so far as it prevents people from attaining the ends of sustaining themselves and assisting others, the final section of the paper discusses possible interpretations of these ends, suggesting that each end can be taken in a narrow, minimalist or subsistence sense and a broader, more holistic or contextualized sense. (shrink)

According to many philosophers there are only pro tanto oughts to believe relative to a standard of assessment: there are epistemic oughts to believe, moral oughts to believe, prudential oughts to believe etc. But there are no oughts to believe simpliciter. Many of the same philosophers who hold this view, also hold that ought to believe is to be understood deontologically – such that if S violates such an ought without excuse, S is blameworthy for doing so. I here argue (...) that on a deontological understanding of ought to believe there must be ought to believe simpliciter and that it is the violation of this ought that determines whether we are to blame for our beliefs. (shrink)

Uniformity in human actions and attitudes incumbent with the ceteris paribus clause of folk psychology lucidly transits moral thoughts into the domain of subject versus object-centric explorations. In Zettel, Wittgenstein argues, “Concepts with fixed limits would demand uniformity of behaviour, but where I am certain, someone else is uncertain. And that is the fact of nature.” (Wittgenstein 2007, 68). Reflecting on the moral principle of “ethical giving” revives a novel stance in modern moral philosophy. An “ethical giving” is a moral (...) position that looks at giving from the context of harmonizing the changing demands of situations with normative ethical principles. Despite giving more prominence to the query of intuition, the chapter brings up the justification of normative moral principles pertaining to their applications and purports. Human activities aimed at decision-making goals conducted by the moral compass are nothing but the sanction of certain ethical norms and rules. In this context, two principles, the normative aspect and the perspective aspect need to be expounded in parallel. (shrink)

Nicole Hassoun’s sufficientarian theory is based on a particular conception of caring, which she calls ‘care, simpliciter’. However, ‘care, simpliciter’ is not described in any detail. This essay tries to offer a critical revision of Hassoun’s concept of care in a way that would put the MGL theory on its strongest footing. To that end, I will contrast her view with a taxonomy of care that supplements the accounts of care provided by Stephen Darwall and Lori Gruen. I then put (...) forward a form of empathy that is best suited to the MGL theory, which fits the description of ‘care, simpliciter’. **Unpublished manuscript: feel free to cite.**. (shrink)

According to many philosophers there are only pro tanto oughts to believe relative to a standard of assessment: there are epistemic oughts to believe, moral oughts to believe, prudential oughts to believe etc. But there are no oughts to believe simpliciter. Many of the same philosophers who hold this view, also hold that ought to believe is to be understood deontologically – such that if S violates such an ought without excuse, S is blameworthy for doing so. I here argue (...) that on a deontological understanding of ought to believe there must be ought to believe simpliciter and that it is the violation of this ought that determines whether we are to blame for our beliefs. (shrink)

In The Felt Meanings of the World, Quentin Smith lays the groundwork for a metaphysical worldview that is meant to stand as an alternative to nihilism. Smith finds fault with nihilism inasmuch as it fails to account for the possibility that faculties other than reason, namely feelings or intuition, may be the source of important metaphysical insight. From this observation, Smith builds his “metaphysics of feeling,” which is not concemed with rational explanations of the world’s existence, but rather with the (...) relationship between the world and our own feelings. This information, Smith says, can satisfy our metaphysical longings inasmuch as we can become more aware of “what” the world is, even if we can never know “why” it exists. Smith’s metaphysic is a viable one, but it is not without its problems. Most notable of these is Smith’s conclusion that “joy” is the proper affective response to the pure existence of the world, or Being simpliciter. It is my intent to show not only that joy cannot be an affective response to Being simpliciter; but also that the metaphysics of feeling renders incoherent any notion of affective response to Being simpliciter. (shrink)

The author argues that the concept of justification is viewed best through elucidation of the processes of ethical and epistemic justification, with specific attention paid to what has been dubbed the "internalist/externalist" distinction in such justification. The first part of the argument clarifies the nature of the distinction as it occurs in ethics and then epistemic justification, noting that there is a parallel between the uses of the distinction, but that it is the way in which the uses are not (...) parallel that is most salient for conceptual purposes. The author then claims that there is an analogous distinction, frequently made in ethical justification, and that is the alleged normative/descriptive distinction. A look at the intersection of that distinction with the internalist/externalist juncture yields the notion that epistemic justification, in particular, could benefit from an externalist/ descriptive approach. Finally, the author argues that we would do well to apply some of the work of the social sciences to epistemic justification theory. The author concludes that the concept of justification includes all four components (internalist, externalist, nor mative, and descriptive) and that clarification of justification simpliciter involves an examination of justification in its various modes. (shrink)

Is it possible to give an explicit definition of belief in terms of subjective probability, such that believed propositions are guaranteed to have a sufficiently high probability, and yet it is neither the case that belief is stripped of any of its usual logical properties, nor is it the case that believed propositions are bound to have probability 1? We prove the answer is ‘yes’, and that given some plausible logical postulates on belief that involve a contextual “cautiousness” threshold, there (...) is but one way of determining the extension of the concept of belief that does the job. The qualitative concept of belief is not to be eliminated from scientific or philosophical discourse, rather, by reducing qualitative belief to assignments of resiliently high degrees of belief and a “cautiousness” threshold, qualitative and quantitative belief turn out to be governed by one unified theory that offers the prospects of a huge range of applications. Within that theory, logic and probability theory are not opposed to each other but go hand in hand. (shrink)

One premise in David Lewis’s well-known argument from temporary intrinsic properties in favor of temporal parts is the intuition that material objects exemplify such properties simpliciter, that is, without qualification. The argument has spawned a large critical literature, with commentators questioning the simpliciter premise’s motivation, content, dialectical force, and status as an intuition. The present essay has two chief goals: to provide a novel framework for clarifying Lewis’s simpliciter premise and to explain how the resulting clarification upends a wide range (...) of attempts in the literature to evade his conclusion. Central to both goals is the observation that exemplification simpliciter best comports with our most fundamental notion of property exemplification, a notion that applies equally well to material and atemporal abstract objects. (shrink)

" Seul ce qui est personnel est éternellement irréfutable ", disait Nietzche. Cet ouvrage s'efforce de présenter non pas le système, mais l'expérience personnelle de Plotin, en donnant le plus possible la parole au maître spirituel et au directeur de conscience. IL y est évidemment question de l'union mystique, événement indicible, surgissant en des moments privilégiés, qui bouleverse toute la conscience du moi, en lui faisant éprouver un sentiment de présence inexprimable. Plotin la décrit en des pages lyriques et frémissantes (...) qui comptent parmi les plus belles de la littérature mystique universelle. Mais il y est aussi question de la douceur sereine d'un philosophe qui, tout en vivant de la vie de l'esprit, peut-être " tout à la fois présent à lui-même et aux autres ", et assumer les soucis et les responsabilités de la vie quotidienne. (shrink)

Thomas Bradwardine makes much of the fact that his solution to the insolubles is in accordance with Aristotle's diagnosis of the fallacy in the Liar paradox as that of secundum quid et simpliciter. Paul Spade, however, claims that this invocation of Aristotle by Bradwardine is purely "honorary" in order to confer specious respectability on his analysis and give it a spurious weight of authority. Our answer to Spade follows Bradwardine's response to the problem of revenge: any proposition saying of itself (...) that it is false says more than does Bradwardine's proposition saying of it that it is false, and so follows from that other proposition only in respect of part of what it says, and not simpliciter. (shrink)

How to reconcile monadic simplicity with the successive plurality of the monadic states ? The doctrine of continued creation seems to entail the existence of independent temporal parts and thus lead to the thesis that the world contains only transitory things. I try to show how Leibniz has the resources to get out of this quandary. The analysis of the concept of extension shows that a plurality of states does not constitute a divisible aggregate. Then I examine the Leibnizian interpretation (...) of continued creation, by com- paring it to the scholastic and Cartesian Background. From thence I conclude that Leibniz’s final thesis is that monads are wholly present at each moment of their duration. (shrink)

El objetivo del presente trabajo es doble. En primer lugar, pretendo defender un concepto simpliciter de tolerancia según el cual la autonomía personal o la necesidad de fortalecer una cultura son las únicas razones que debe ponderar el agente-Estado para tolerar. En segundo lugar, pretendo responder afirmativamente a la pregunta de si puede el liberalismo perfeccionista y multicultural de Joseph Raz sostener desde la teoría moral y política un derecho intercultural. Para cumplir estos objetivos, me concentraré en los usos morales (...) del término tolerar para luego siguiendo a Michael Sandel, analizar los casos de tolerancia crítica y no crítica. Posteriormente, desarrollaré el liberalismo de Raz con el fin de mostrar los problemas teóricos que genera el fundamento de los derechos colectivos. Concluiré afirmando la existencia de derechos colectivos como recurso institucional para permitir el desarrollo de grupos culturales minoritarios dentro del actual desarrollo del Estado- nación. (shrink)

L'épistémologie de Kant, dont le but principal est d'expliquer la possibilité des jugements synthétiques a priori, est une épistémologie du point de vue du sujet ou «à la première personne»: le «sujet connaissant», dit Kant, «…compare, lie ou sépare [les] représentations et travaille … la matière brute des impressions sensibles pour en tirer une connaissance des objets…». C'est l'esprit, ou le moi pensant, comme il le soutient aussi, qui construit à partir des impressions reçues des sens une représentation objective de (...) l'univers en soumettant les phénomènes à ses formes a priori et à ses catégories. Mais de quelle nature peut être ce «moi» qui connaît? Est-il possible d'en dire quelque chose? Pour lui, «nous n'avons ni ne pouvons [en] avoir la moindre connaissance…». Le «je» du «Je pense», comme on le lit dans la déduction transcendantale des catégories, doit pouvoir «accompagner toutes mes représentations…», mais il ne peut être pour lui-même un objet de connaissance ou de représentation parce que «je ne saurais connaître comme objet cela même [le sujet] qu'il me faut supposer pour connaître en général un objet…». (shrink)

This is the afterword to the Polish translation of the book by P. Hadot, "Plotin ou la simplicite du regard".

L'arrivée de l'immense Asie non monothéiste sur le devant de la scène mondiale et le Printemps arabe remettent en question des certitudes que l'on croyait bien établies. Quelle compréhension avoir des monothéismes (islam, judaïsme, christianisme)? La place de la loi, de la foi, de la raison permettent de saisir les différences entre les trois monothésimes. A partir du moment où l'on admet un Dieu créateur de l'humanité, maître de l'histoire, l'optique est similaire.

Contrary to the commonly assumed opinion that Christianity sees pain as intrinsically evil – where evil is defined as the lack of something good – Aquinas defines pain not as a privation but rather a passion of the soul, i.e., an emotion that depends on sensual and/or intellective cognition of something evil, is good in itself, and may serve a purpose. This article offers a formalized version of the Thomistic definition of pain and related negative (unpleasant) emotions experienced by humans. (...) It also compares and contrasts this view with some contemporary scientific and philosophical models of pain. (shrink)

The argument that is in question in this article concerns the would-be dependence of one form of value on another. When something is intrinsically good for someone, which is to say, directly beneficial for them, it is so because it is good simpliciter. Proponents of the argument have so-called ‘perfectionist’ values chiefly in mind: worthwhile artworks, striking natural formations, intellectual and scientific achievements. They contend that the fact that engaging with perfectionist goods is non-instrumentally good for people depends on the (...) fact that perfectionist goods are good simpliciter. I argue that the dependency argument is not forced on us by intuitive claims about dependence, or by the need to be adequate to our practices with the relevant class of values. The good for theorist can provide a sophisticated account of perfectionist goods. If successful, the article provides a line of defense for the view that good is good for. (shrink)