Naturalism, non-factualism, and normative situated behaviour

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
This paper argues that the normative character of our unreflective situated behaviour is not factual. We highlight a problematic assumption shared by the two most influential trends in contemporary philosophy of cognitive science, reductionism and enactivism. Our intentional, normative explanations are referential, descriptive or factual. Underneath this assumption lies the idea that only facts can make true or false our attributions of cognitive, mental and agential abilities. We will argue against this view by describing the main features and problems of reductionism and enactivism and then we will offer two arguments against this shared factualist assumption: (1) normative vocabulary is ineliminable if we want a complete explanation of our situated practices; and (2) the factualist assumption is a species of the is-ought fallacy. Finally, we will claim that a folk psychological explanation of our normative practices is fully compatible with ontological naturalism when such descriptivist or factualist assumption is rejected.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2018-07-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions.Weinberg, Jonathan M.; Nichols, Shaun & Stich, Stephen
Mind and World.Price, Huw & McDowell, John

View all 33 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
32 ( #33,024 of 38,850 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #24,483 of 38,850 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.