Imagination and belief are obviously different. Imagining that you have won the lottery is not quite the same as believing that you have won. But what is the difference? According to a standard view in the contemporary debate, they differ in two key functional respects. First, with respect to the cognitive inputs to which they respond: imaginings do not respond to real-world evidence as beliefs do. Second, with respect to the behavioural outputs that they produce: imaginings do not motivate us (...) to act as beliefs do. I argue that this view is mistaken in one important respect. The distinction between imagination and belief does lie at the functional level; but the relevant functional difference does not concern behavioural outputs – since, in spite of appearances, imaginings and beliefs motivate us to act in the same ways. To see the difference, we need to focus on the inputs side – and, relatedly, on the sorts of inferential relations that imaginings and beliefs bear to each other. I show that this view does not have the absurd consequences that it may prima facie seem to have; on the contrary, it has important implications for our understanding of how the mind works. (shrink)

Superstition and confabulation are extremely pervasive in our cognitive lives. Whilst both these phenomena are widely discussed in the recent psychological literature, however, the relationship between them has not been the object of much explicit attention. In this paper, I argue that this relationship is actually very close, and deserves indepth consideration. I argue that superstitious and confabulatory attitudes share several key features and are rooted in the same psychological mechanisms. Moreover, some of the key features that superstitious and confabulatory (...) attitudes share reveal such attitudes to be non-doxastic in nature, with important implications for our assessment of their epistemic rationality. Many instances of what we call superstitious and confabulatory ‘beliefs’ are not, in fact, beliefs; hence, entertaining them may be less irrational than it prima facie seems to be. (shrink)

Can fictional narration yield knowledge in a way that depends crucially on its being fictional? This is the hard question of literary cognitivism. It is unexceptional that knowledge can be gained from fictional literature in ways that are not dependent on its fictionality (e.g., the science in science fiction). Sometimes fictional narratives are taken to exhibit the structure of suppositional argument, sometimes analogical argument. Of course, neither structure is unique to narratives. The thesis of literary cognitivism would be supported if (...) some novels exhibit a cogent and special argument structure restricted to fictional narratives. I contend that this is the case for a kind of transcendental argument. The reason is the inclusion and pattern of occurrence of the predicate ‘believable’ in the schema. Believability with respect to fictional stories is quite a different thing than it is with respect to nonfictional stories or anything else. (shrink)

This is the most comprehensive book ever published on philosophical methodology. A team of thirty-eight of the world's leading philosophers present original essays on various aspects of how philosophy should be and is done. The first part is devoted to broad traditions and approaches to philosophical methodology. The entries in the second part address topics in philosophical methodology, such as intuitions, conceptual analysis, and transcendental arguments. The third part of the book is devoted to essays about the interconnections between philosophy (...) and neighbouring fields, including those of mathematics, psychology, literature and film, and neuroscience. (shrink)

Imaginative immersion refers to a phenomenon in which one loses oneself in make-believe. Susanna Schellenberg says that the best explanation of imaginative immersion involves a radical revision to cognitive architecture. Instead of there being an attitude of belief and a distinct attitude of imagination, there should only be one attitude that represents a continuum between belief and imagination. -/- We argue otherwise. Although imaginative immersion is a crucial data point for theorizing about the imagination, positing a continuum between belief and (...) imagination is neither necessary nor sufficient for explaining the phenomenon. In addition, arguing against Schellenberg’s account reveals important but underappreciated lessons for theorizing about the imagination and for interpreting boxological representations of the mind. (shrink)

This paper develops an account of the nature of imagination as a discrete mental process underpinned by a specialised neural and computational architecture. The account integrates evidence from cognitive neuroscience and developmental psychology with philosophical arguments about the nature of imagination. We situate the account against other philosophical accounts and apply it to the understanding of some puzzling phenomena: delusion, pretence and self-deception. We argue that many of the puzzling features of these phenomena arise because they are analysed with a (...) doxastic framework. When the role of imagination in these cases is properly understood these puzzles become more tractable. (shrink)

According to a once-standard view, imagination has little or no role in action guidance: its motivating power, if any, is limited to pretence play. In recent years this view has been challenged by accounts that take imagination to motivate action also beyond pretence, for instance in the domain of religion and conspiracy-related thinking. Following this trend, I propose a new argument in favour of imagination’s motivating power based on a class of actions that has not yet received much consideration in (...) the imagination literature: what I call ‘superstitious–magical actions’. These actions are extremely pervasive in our lives and reveal imagination’s motivating power to be larger than many take it to be. By analysing them I show not only that imagination motivates very often, but also how it does so – that is, what the dynamics of motivation by imagination are. (shrink)

A key epistemic puzzle about theatrical performances of fictional narratives has to do with how spectators pick out and recognize the characters they encounter. An adequate solution to the puzzle is constrained by several factors : it should be similar to what we need to say about picking out and recognition of characters in non-fictional narratives ; it should be similar to what we need to say about picking out and recognizing elements in non-narrative performances ; it be it must (...) be sensitive to the fact that most plays do not name or describe their characters ; it must be sensitive to the fact that most spectators have no prior experience or preparation for what they will encounter ; and it must comport with any plausible story we have to tell about the mechanisms we bring to the identification and re-identification of individuals in daily life. In this paper, I review a solution that meets these constraints and, in particular, I show why the proposed solution is likely to be subserved by very basic cognitive mechanisms involved in object perception and recognition in everyday life. I conclude by responding to ontological worries the solution is likely to foster. (shrink)

The ever-expanding literature on narrative reveals a striking divergence of claims about the epistemic valence of narrative. One such claim is the oftstated idea that narratives or stories generate both “hot” and “cold” epistemic irrationality. A familiar, rival claim is that narrative has an exclusive capacity to embody or convey important types of knowledge. Such contrasting contentions are not typically presented as statements about the accidents or effects of particular narratives; the ambition, rather, has been to identify a strong link (...) between a single, positive or negative epistemic valence and narrativity, or the traits in virtue of which some discourse, utterance, or series of thoughts is aptly classified as a narrative or story. In this essay I contend that arguments in this vein are dubious.Not only are contentions about the specificity of narrative tenuous and controversial, but even if they were not, there are serious problems with the postulated connections between narrativity and the epistemic merits or demerits of narratives. These difficulties are identified in a critical discussion of prominent examples from the literature. My conclusion is not that there is nothing worth saying about relations between narratives and various epistemic desiderata, but that one prevalent theoretical ambition in this area ought to be renounced in favor of more viable avenues of inquiry. (shrink)

This paper develops an account of the nature of imagination as a discrete mental process underpinned by a specialised neural and computational architecture. The account integrates evidence from cognitive neuroscience and developmental psychology with philosophical arguments about the nature of imagination. We situate the account against other philosophical accounts and apply it to the understanding of some puzzling phenomena: delusion, pretence and self-deception. We argue that many of the puzzling features of these phenomena arise because they are analysed with a (...) doxastic framework. When the role of imagination in these cases is properly understood these puzzles become more tractable. (shrink)

Článek představuje koncept epizodické osoby Galena Strawsona. Tento koncept představuje lidi, kteří neprožívají svůj život v jednotě jediného životního příběhu. Koncepce tak představuje alternativu k narativnímu pohledu osobní identity, který představuje životní příběh jako prvek zakládající osobní identitu.V první části článku je představena Strawsonova argumentace proti narativní tezi, kde jsou již nastíněny některé základní psychologické charakteristiky epizodické osoby. Je ukázáno, jak se epizodici liší v prožívání-sebe (epizodik nevnímá sebe v minulosti jako identické self), resp. v přesvědčeních ohledně jejich vlastní identity. (...) Jako centrální přesvědčení je identifikován fatalistický postoj (v tom smyslu, že osud je považován za autora vlastní identity). Je poukázán rozpor mezi sebe-konstitucí postulovanou narativní teorií a fatalistickým postojem.Hlavním cílem příspěvku je pak zakotvit koncept epizodické osoby v empirických datech, čemuž je věnována druhá část článku. Nejprve je představena teorie časové orientace Philipa Zimbarda a Johna Boyda, která představuje tři základní časové orientace – orientaci na minulost, na přítomnost a na budoucnost. Detailněji je představen psychologický profil člověka orientovaného na přítomnost. Fatalismus a smyslovost jsou identifikovány jako základní společné charakteristiky orientace na přítomnost a epizodičnosti. Je ukázáno, že orientace na přítomnost (na rozdíl od ostatních časových orientací, které jsou v souladu s narativním pohledem na vlastní život) podrývá narativní prožívání vlastního života, jako další paralela mezi epizodicitou a orientací na přítomnost. Tematizován je možný rozdíl v koncepcích fatalismu u člověka orientovaného na fatalistickou přítomnost a epizodické osoby. (shrink)

The article explores how a new dimension of emotion – depth – is crucially important for a better understanding of emotion and its connection to rationality. It begins by identifying that depth is trapped in a circularity in which deep emotions are important because they refer to deep and important aspects of people’s lives. Following Danto’s discussion of deep interpretation (1981), it suggests that it is the contrast between deep and superficial that grants emotional perspective and the ability to identify (...) levels of emotional depth. After arguing that the emotional perspective is grasped by the narrative structure of emotion, it raises several objections that provide the ground to establish a difference between deep and profound. Then the paper concludes that the meaning of emotional depth is only fully understood in the ongoing contrast with the superficial described before, and states how further research on depth of emotion may provide the key to understanding the ambivalent status of emotions regarding their link to rationality. (shrink)