Constitutivism aims to justify substantial normative standards as constitutive of practical reason. In this way, it can defend the constructivist commitment to avoiding realism and anti-realism in normative disciplines. This metaphysical debate is the perspective from which the nature of the constitutivist justification is usually discussed. In this paper, I focus on a related, but distinct, debate. My concern will not be whether the substantial normative claims asserted by the constructivist have some elements, which are not constructed, but real, given (...) independently from us; instead, my concern will be more narrowly epistemic – whether those claims can be derived from premises, which are normatively less substantial than the normative conclusions themselves. I focus on Korsgaard’s transcendental articulation of the constitutivist argument. I conclude that more work would need to be done, in order for this argument to function as intended. (shrink)

The nature and value of autonomy has long been debated in diverse philosophical traditions, including moral and political philosophy. Although the notion dates back to ancient Greek philosophy, it was during the Age of Enlightenment that autonomy drew much attention. Thus, as may be known, moral philosophers tended to emphasize self-regulation, particularly one’s own will to abide by universal moral laws, as the term “autonomy” originates from the Greek words “self” (auto) and “rule” (nomos). In parallel, modern epistemologists supposedly espoused (...) the idea of intellectual autonomy as self-reliance. In this classical view, an intellectually autonomous explorer of knowledge must not depend on a belief that is obtained from another’s testimony, until one can justify it to oneself. However, accompanying the growing focus on the importance of social dimensions of acquiring knowledge and understanding, recent epistemologists have doubted the classical view and have since reconsidered intellectual autonomy from distinct approaches such as social and virtue epistemology. This paper propounds an interpersonal-epistemic approach to intellectual autonomy. First, it is argued that thinking through questioning both individually and with other epistemic peers is an interpersonal-epistemic practice. Second, it is demonstrated that with particular cognitive features inherent within us, an intellectually autonomous person must think through questioning in necessary situations. This interpersonal account of intellectual autonomy can conceptually enrich intellectual autonomy by considering its relationship with not only responsibility but also with vulnerability. Specifically, regarding responsibility, an intellectually autonomous person must be responsible for his or her own actions throughout questioning processes. Regarding vulnerability, our intellectual autonomy lies in retaining autonomy with vulnerability in the plastic control of the questioning processes. (shrink)

In his well-known Mind and World and in line with Wilfrid Sellars (1991) or “that great foe of ‘immediacy’” (ibid., 127) Hegel, McDowell claims that “when Evans argues that judgments of experience are based on non-conceptual content, he is falling into a version of the Myth of the Given” (1996, 114). In this talk and on the basis of a Berkeleyio-Kantian ‘realist idealist’ world view (sect. 1) and an explication of Kant’s concept of the “given manifold” (CPR, e.g. B138; sect. (...) 2), I will argue that Kant and Evans (1982, chs. 5.1–5.2) were indeed mistaken in their versions of the given (sect. 3), but that Sellars and his student McDowell were even more mistaken (sects. 4–5) and that, in the end, there would appear to be a non-conceptual and (thus) non-propositional and essentially (Kantio-)Schopenhauerian given (1816, ch. 1) in perceptual experience from which we unconsciously (Helmholtz 1867, ch. 26) and automatically infer to our first perceptual beliefs. (shrink)

The paper addresses the referring problem in quantum mechanics, by spelling out the alternatives with complete or individual concepts, with directly referential labels, and with intuition. The connection between the way of referring and some metaphysical theses about objects will be explained. Then, the paper intends to make plausible that the Kantian way is the best way for the quantum domain, including quantum field theories.

This dissertation is about the structure of thought. Following Gottlob Frege, I define a thought as the sort of content relevant to determining whether an assertion is true or false. The historical component of the dissertation involves interpreting Frege’s actual views on the structure of thought. I argue that Frege did not think that a thought has a unique decomposition into its component senses, but rather the same thought can be decomposed into senses in a variety of distinct ways. I (...) extend Frege’s position and use it to develop an account of the hierarchy of senses, the senses expressed by indexicals and demonstratives, and the distinction between logical and non-logical structure. I also discuss various connections with the nature of meta-representation, our capacity for reflective judgment, some aspects of the structure of conscious experience, the way we perceive regions of space and durations of time, and our conscious awareness of our own perceptions and events of thinking. (shrink)

Kant addressed the distinction between the two domains of phenomena and the thing-in-itself by considering time and space as two conditions of cognition. The result of such a distinction, which is the basis of his transcendental idealism school, was limiting cognition to the domain of phenomena and the impossibility of cognition of reality and the thing-in-itself. As the greatest philosopher of the modern period, and by adopting such an approach, Kant left unanswered the acute duality which he had inherited from (...) his predecessors and left his successors to encounter this problem; the most important of these successors was Hegel. Hegel, who considered duality to be the source of the need for philosophy and his school to be comprehensive of the previous philosophies, holds the establishment of such a comprehensive philosophy to requisite prevalence over dichotomies where the central point of such shortcomings was that very duality that was present within them. By establishing the school of absolute idealism and through the belief in the essential foundation in which the mind and external reality are unified, he saw both the underlying duality in Aristotelian and Platonic thought to be an obstacle for the actualization of his absolute ideal, as well as Kant’s thing-in-itself. Therefore, he denied the thing-in-itself by acknowledging its contradictoriness; however, he was then faced with the challenges that arose from omitting it. These challenges include deducing nature from logic as well as the issue of the existing probabilities in nature; in the first instance, we are faced with the problem of how particular nature can be deduced from general absolute thought and in the second with the problem that Hegel does not provide a rational solution for the existing probabilities in nature. These very challenges move us towards a fresh look at the thing-in-itself according to David Bohm as one of the greatest physicists of Quantum Physics. He studies the thing-in-itself by distinguishing between the two views of ontology and epistemology, the result of which was the distinction between the whole and things. Through this distinction, in the ontological approach, he considers the essence of the whole to transcend the mind and matter and thus, unknowable and denies the possibility actualization of Hegel’s absolute idealism; the result of this is acceptance of Kant’s thing-in-itself. In the epistemological approach too, despite being aligned with Hegel, he considers holomovement to consist of a dynamic movement. However, he departs from Hegel’s view and chooses Kant’s by distinguishing between two types of dynamics. The results of such a study include the following: a) the possibility of addressing some metaphysical issues in the new age and evaluating them through scientific-philosophical criteria; b) strengthening Kant’s stance regarding the thing-in-itself; 3) the overlap of the relationship between physics and philosophy in the study of existence and reality as a common matter that is discussable in both domains and d) the limitation of human thought in the cognition of the true foundation of the universe. (shrink)