I formulate a resilient paradox about epistemic rationality, discuss and reject various solutions, and sketch a way out. The paradox exemplifies a tension between a wide range of views of epistemic justification, on the one hand, and enkratic requirements on rationality, on the other. According to the enkratic requirements, certain mismatched doxastic states are irrational, such as believing p, while believing that it is irrational for one to believe p. I focus on an evidentialist view of justification on which a (...) doxastic state regarding a proposition p is epistemically rational or justified just in case it tracks the degree to which one’s evidence supports p. If it is possible to have certain kinds of misleading evidence, then evidentialism and the enkratic requirements come into conflict. Yet, both have been defended as platitudinous. After discussing and rejecting three solutions, I sketch an account that rejects the enkratic requirements, while nevertheless explaining our sense that epistemic akrasia is a distinct kind of epistemic failure. Central to the account is distinguishing between two evaluative perspectives, one having to do with the relevant kind of success, the other having to do with manifesting good dispositions. The problem with akratic subjects, I argue, is that they manifest dispositions to fail to correctly respond to a special class of conclusive and conspicuous reasons. (shrink)

Recent authors have drawn attention to a new kind of defeating evidence commonly referred to as higher-order evidence. Such evidence works by inducing doubts that one’s doxastic state is the result of a flawed process – for instance, a process brought about by a reason-distorting drug. I argue that accommodating defeat by higher-order evidence requires a two-tiered theory of justification, and that the phenomenon gives rise to a puzzle. The puzzle is that at least in some situations involving higher-order defeaters (...) the correct epistemic rules issue conflicting recommendations. For instance, a subject ought to believe p, but she ought also to suspend judgment in p. I discuss three responses. The first resists the puzzle by arguing that there is only one correct epistemic rule, an Über-rule. The second accepts that there are genuine epistemic dilemmas. The third appeals to a hierarchy or ordering of correct epistemic rules. I spell out problems for all of these responses. I conclude that the right lesson to draw from the puzzle is that a state can be epistemically rational or justified even if one has what looks to be strong evidence to think that it is not. As such, the considerations put forth constitute a non question-begging argument for a kind of externalism. (shrink)

It is common orthodoxy among internalists and externalists alike that knowledge is lost or defeated in situations involving misleading evidence of a suitable kind. But making sense of defeat has seemed to present a particular challenge for those who reject an internalist justification condition on knowledge. My main aim here is to argue that externalists ought to take seriously a view on which knowledge can be retained even in the face of strong seemingly defeating evidence. As an instructive example, I (...) first discuss whether a theory on which knowledge is belief that is safe from error has the resources for accommodating defeat. I argue that beliefs retained in defeat cases need not be unsafe or true in some accidental way. I then discuss externalist strategies for explaining why we have incorrect intuitions about defeat. The notion of an epistemically reasonable subject plays a central role in my theory. Reasonable subjects adopt general strategies that are good for acquiring true belief and knowledge across a wide range of normal cases, but stubbornly retaining belief in the face of new evidence does not reflect such policies. I argue that though the methods employed by subjects who fail to adjust their beliefs in defeat cases may be perfectly good, they are not good methods to adopt, as their adoption is accompanied by bad dispositions. What emerges is a view on which a subject can know despite being unreasonable, and despite failing to manifest dispositions to know across normal cases. Unreasonable subjects are genuinely criticisable, but like almost anything, knowledge can sometimes be achieved in the absence of a good general strategy. (shrink)

Subjects who retain their beliefs in the face of higher-order evidence that those very beliefs are outputs of flawed cognitive processes are at least very often criticisable. Many think that this is because such higher-order evidence defeats various epistemic statuses such as justification and knowledge, but it is notoriously difficult to give an account of such defeat. This paper outlines an alternative explanation, stemming from some of my earlier work, for why subjects are criticisable for retaining beliefs in the face (...) of paradigm kinds of putatively defeating higher-order evidence: they manifest dispositions that are bad relative to a range of candidate epistemic successes such as true belief and knowledge. In particular, giving up belief in response to higher-order evidence only when that evidence is not misleading would require subjects to have dispositions that discriminate between cases in which their original cognitive processes is fine, and cases in which they merely seemed to be fine. But, I argue, such dispositions are not normally humanly feasible. I show that retaining belief in putative cases of defeat by higher-order evidence is problematic irrespective of whether veritism or some form of gnosticism is true. In the end I contrast my account of dispositional evaluations with similar-sounding ideas that have been put forth in the literature, such as consequentialist views that focus on instrumental means to success. (shrink)

I begin with by discussing cases that seem to show that a range of norms – norms like Choose the best!, Believe the truth!, and even Keep your promises! – fail to map out an important part of normative space. At the core of the problem is the observation that in some cases we can only conform to these norms by luck, in a way that is not creditable to us. I outline a prevalent diagnosis of the problem of luck, (...) which I label perspectivist. According to this diagnosis, the problem with a range of objectivist norms is that they make reference to facts that may lie outside our perspectives, not being present to our minds. An agent’s perspective is a kind of representation of the world: her evidence, knowledge, beliefs, experiences, etc. The first aim of this paper is to argue that the perspectivist diagnosis of the problem of luck is not ultimately correct. The correct diagnosis, I argue, is feasibilist: in some situations it is not feasible to choose, act, or believe in ways that conformity to objectivist norms robustly depends on. That is, it is sometimes not feasible to manifest dispositions that robustly enough track what one ought to do or believe, according to norms like those listed above. The same, I argue, is true of perspectivist norms: sometimes it is not feasible to track facts about our own perspectives. This shift in focus from the limits of our perspectives to limits on what dispositions it is feasible to manifest has, I argue, deep ramifications for normative theory. My second aim is to sketch an alternative, feasibilist way of thinking about a more subject-directed kind of normativity, one that takes into account our limitations as human agents. The result is a normative picture that unifies the practical and theoretical domains. (shrink)

It is tempting to think that multi premise closure creates a special class of paradoxes having to do with the accumulation of risks, and that these paradoxes could be escaped by rejecting the principle, while still retaining single premise closure. I argue that single premise deduction is also susceptible to risks. I show that what I take to be the strongest argument for rejecting multi premise closure is also an argument for rejecting single premise closure. Because of the symmetry between (...) the principles, they come as a package: either both will have to be rejected or both will have to be revised. (shrink)

A wide range of more objectivist norms appear to leave uncharted an important part of normative space. In the beginning of this paper I briefly outline two broad ways of seeking more subject-directed norms: perspectivism and feasibilism. According to feasibilism, the ultimate reason why more objectivist norms are inadequate on their own is not that they fail to take into account the limits of an agent’s perspective, but that they are not sensitive to limits on what ways of choosing, acting, (...) and believing are feasible in a given situation. I think of these ways of choosing, acting, and believing in terms of an agent's dispositions. In this paper I focus on a knowledge-first implementation of feasibilism, a view in epistemology that supplements a knowledge norm with a norm urging one to manifest dispositions that are among the most knowledge-conducive feasible ones. A view with different norms that sometimes cannot be jointly satisfied raises questions about the status of these norms. By drawing on two general hypotheses about the relationship between succeeding (e.g. knowing) and manifesting dispositions conducive to success, I argue for a view on which the prescriptive and the hypological come radically apart. The result is that an epistemic analogue of a thesis that many have assumed to hold in the moral realm should be rejected. This thesis is Only Blameworthy for Wrongs: we can only ever be blameworthy for acts that are morally wrong. I argue that on the picture presented, we can be epistemically blameworthy for doxastic states that do not violate any prescriptive epistemic norms. I then generalise the considerations to the moral realm, arguing against Only Blameworthy for Wrongs. (shrink)

What sort of doxastic response is rational to learning that one disagrees with an epistemic peer who has evaluated the same evidence? I argue that even weak general recommendations run the risk of being incompatible with a pair of real epistemic phenomena, what I call evidential attenuation and evidential amplification. I focus on a popular and intuitive view of disagreement, the equal weight view. I take it to state that in cases of peer disagreement, a subject ought to end up (...) equally confident that her own opinion is correct as that the opinion of her peer is. I say why we should regard the equal weight view as a synchronic constraint on (prior) credence functions. I then spell out a trilemma for the view: it violates what are intuitively correct updates (also leading to violations of conditionalisation), it poses implausible restrictions on prior credence functions, or it is non-substantive. The sorts of reasons why the equal weight view fails apply to other views as well: there is no blanket answer to the question of how a subject should adjust her opinions in cases of peer disagreement. (shrink)

Our main aims in this paper is to discuss and criticise the core thesis of a position that has become known as phenomenal conservatism. According to this thesis, its seeming to one that p provides enough justification for a belief in p to be prima facie justified (a thesis we label Standard Phenomenal Conservatism). This thesis captures the special kind of epistemic import that seemings are claimed to have. To get clearer on this thesis, we embed it, first, in a (...) probabilistic framework in which updating on new evidence happens by Bayesian conditionalization, and second, a framework in which updating happens by Jeffrey conditionalization. We spell out problems for both views, and then generalize some of these to non-probabilistic frameworks. The main theme of our discussion is that the epistemic import of a seeming (or experience) should depend on its content in a plethora of ways that phenomenal conservatism is insensitive to. (shrink)

I look at incompatibilist arguments aimed at showing that the conjunction of the thesis that a subject has privileged, a priori access to the contents of her own thoughts, on the one hand, and of semantic externalism, on the other, lead to a putatively absurd conclusion, namely, a priori knowledge of the external world. I focus on arguments involving a variety of externalism resulting from the singularity or object-dependence of certain terms such as the demonstrative ‘that’. McKinsey argues that incompatibilist (...) arguments employing such externalist theses are at their strongest, and conclusively show that privileged access must be rejected. While I agree on the truth of the relevant externalist theses, I show that all plausible versions of the incompatibilist reductio argument as applied to such theses are fundamentally flawed, for these versions of the argument must make assumptions that lead to putatively absurd knowledge of the external world independently of the thesis of privileged access. (shrink)

The notion of credit plays a central role in virtue epistemology and in the literature on moral worth. While virtue epistemologists and ethicists have devoted a significant amount of work to providing an account of creditable success, a unified theory of credit applicable to both epistemology and ethics, as well as a discussion of the general form it should take, are largely missing from the literature. Our goal is to lay out a theory of credit that seems to underlie much (...) of the discussion in virtue epistemology, which we dub the Cake Theory. We argue that given the goals that virtue epistemologists and ethicists who discuss moral worth have, this theory is problematic, for it makes credit depend on the wrong facts. (shrink)

We think we have lots of substantial knowledge about the future. But contemporary wisdom has it that indeterminism prevails in such a way that just about any proposition about the future has a non-zero objective chance of being false.2, 3 What should one do about this? One, pessimistic, reaction is scepticism about knowledge of the future. We think this should be something of a last resort, especially since this scepticism is likely to infect alleged knowledge of the present and past. (...) One anti-sceptical strategy is to pin our hopes on determinism, conceding that knowledge of the future is unavailable in an indeterministic world. This is not satisfying either: we would rather not be hostage to empirical fortune in the way that this strategy recommends. A final strategy, one that we shall explore in this paper, is one of reconciliation: knowledge of a proposition is compatible with a subject’s belief having a non-zero objective chance of error.4 Following Williamson, we are interested in tying knowledge to the presence or absence of error in close cases, and so we shall explore the connections between knowledge and objective chance within such a framework. We don’t want to get tangled up here in complications involved in attempting to formulate a necessary and sufficient condition for knowledge in terms of safety. Instead, we will assume the following rough and ready necessary condition: a subject knows P only if she could not easily have falsely believed P.5 Assuming that easiness is to be spelt.. (shrink)

Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli tutkia sisäistä yrittäjyyttä luovuuden kautta työkierron kontekstissa suomalaisen keskisuuren kaupungin liikelaitoksessa. Tutkimuksen aineisto koostui teemahaastattelun menetelmällä kerätystä aineistosta, joka analysoitiin abduktiivisen sisällönanalyysin menetelmällä. Tutkimus pyrki syventämään ymmärrystä liikelaitoksen työntekijöiden ja toimihenkilöiden luovuuteen liittyen. Tutkimus käsitteli henkilöstöryhmien luovuutta, luovuuden mahdollistavaa kulttuuria sekä luovuuden kehittämistä ja niiden eroavaisuuksia henkilöstöryhmien välillä. Tutkimuksen perusteella selvisi, että henkilöstöryhmien välillä on eroa siinä, missä määrin he kokevat voivansa vaikuttaa omaan luovuuteensa töissä. Toimihenkilöiden kohdalla aktiivinen subjektin rooli oli yleisempi, kun taas työntekijät kokivat olevansa (...) useissa yhteyksissä objekteja. Tutkimuksen perusteella voidaan päätellä, että luovuuden kaltainen abstrakti ilmiö voidaan pilkkoa pienempiin palasiin. Ilmiön ymmärtäminen on tärkeää, jotta organisaatiossa voidaan ajatella luovuutta strategisena kohteena ja että sitä voidaan johtaa. (shrink)

De nos jours, La notion d’intégration urbaine est chargée de sens si différents qu’elle est difficile à l’utiliser de manière rigoureuse. L’objectif de l’introduction de ce concept dans un projet de développement et d’aménagement urbain du secteur El Koudia (situer dans la ville de Marrakech), est de réaliser un nouveau modèle de « projet urbain » par les acteurs territoriaux, qui mettra en cohérence à l’échelle d’un bassin de vie : la planification urbaine, la mobilité, les activités économiques et (...) commerciales, les services et les équipements…, et ce, dans un cadre d’intégration, de cohésion sociale et de durabilité. -/- . (shrink)

Many epistemologists have endorsed a version of the view that rational belief is sensitive to higher-order defeat. That is to say, even a fully rational belief state can be defeated by misleading higher-order evidence, which indicates that the belief state is irrational. In a recent paper, however, Maria Lasonen-Aarnio calls this view into doubt. Her argument proceeds in two stages. First, she argues that higher-order defeat calls for a two-tiered theory of epistemic rationality. Secondly, she argues that there seems (...) to be no satisfactory way of avoiding epistemic dilemmas within a two-tiered framework. Hence, she concludes that the prospects look dim for making sense of higher-order defeat within a broader theoretical picture of epistemic rationality. Here I aim to resist both parts of Lasonen-Aarnio’s challenge. First, I outline a way of accommodating higher-order defeat within a single-tiered framework, by amending epistemic rules with appropriate provisos for different kinds of higher-order defeat. Secondly, I argue that those who nevertheless prefer to accommodate higher-order defeat within a two-tiered framework can do so without admitting to the possibility of epistemic dilemmas, since epistemic rules are not always accompanied by ‘oughts’ in a two-tiered framework. The considerations put forth thus indirectly vindicate the view that rational belief is sensitive to higher-order defeat. (shrink)

It’s often thought that the phenomenon of risk aggregation poses a problem for multi-premise closure but not for single-premise closure. But recently, Lasonen-Aarnio and Schechter have challenged this thought. Lasonen-Aarnio argues that, insofar as risk aggregation poses a problem for multi-premise closure, it poses a similar problem for single-premise closure. For she thinks that, there being such a thing as deductive risk, risk may aggregate over a single premise and the deduction itself. Schechter argues that single-premise closure succumbs (...) to risk aggregation outright. For he thinks that there could be a long sequence of competent single-premise deductions such that, even though we are justified in believing the initial premise of the sequence, intutively, we are not justified in believing the final conclusion. This intuition, Schechter thinks, vitiates single-premise closure. In this paper, I defend single-premise closure against the arguments offered by Lasonen-Aarnio and Schechter. (shrink)

Epistemically akratic agents believe both p and that believing p is irrational for them. Some of the costs of thinking that epistemic akrasia can be rational are clear. It is hypocritical, and outright weird, to have beliefs that we consider irrational, let alone to reason with or act on those beliefs. However, as Maria Lasonen-Aarnio (2020) and Brian Weatherson (2019) have argued, the weirdness of akrasia does not obviously tell against its rationality. Here I argue that views permitting epistemic (...) akrasia fare worse than previously thought. These views imply that we should sometimes have beliefs that we know for certain are either irrational or false. And while having a belief that we know to be irrational is straightforwardly irrational, the additional possibility that the belief may be false cannot make having it any more rational. (shrink)

Legal definitions will be examined from three perspectives: their pragmatic function, their propositional structure, and their argumentative role. In law, definitions can be used for different pragmatic purposes: they can be uttered to describe a concept, or to establish a new meaning for a term. The propositional content of definitional speech acts can be different. In law, like in ordinary conversation, there might be different types of definition: we can define by providing examples, or showing the fundamental characteristics of the (...) concept defined, or listing the constituent parts of the denotatum. All these definitions play different argumentative roles in legal discourse. At a third level, definitions can be thought of as premises in complex patterns of reasoning (for the subject of reasoning from definition in law, see Aarnio 1977; Moore 1980; Lindahl, 2004). They constitute the fundamental element of argument from classification, namely a pattern of inference in which a new property (or a name) is attributed to an entity on the basis of other properties. (shrink)

Sokrates var inte bara en filosofisk nydanare. Genom sitt sätt att involvera sina samtalspartners i den filosofiska processen var han också i hög utsträckning en pedagogisk nydanare. Hans pedagogiska grundidé var den så kallade majeutiska metoden – det vill säga ”barnmorskemetoden”. Med det menade han att han inte överförde sina egna färdiga tankar till den han talade med utan han hjälpte sin samtalspartner att föda sina egna tankar. Inom pedagogiken är det vanligt att använda den så kallade ”Sokratiska metoden” vilket (...) i sin enklaste form bara innebär att man ställer frågor till studenterna. Den här artikeln kommer emellertid att handla om en mer sofistikerad metod som används för begreppsanalys/begreppsdefinition i grupp. Metoden är inspirerad av Sokrates men skiljer sig också en del från hur Sokrates själv grep sig an sina dialoger – åtminstone så som de beskrivs av Platon. Artikeln innehåller en kort historisk och pedagogisk bakgrund men syftar framför allt till att utgöra en praktisk vägledning för genomförande av sokratiska dialoger i filosofiundervisningen. Artikeln bygger framför allt på mina egna erfarenheter av att använda Sokratisk Dialog i undervisningen vid Filosofiska institutionen vid Lunds universitet, Lunds Tekniska Högskola, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet och i det privata näringslivet. Artikeln vänder sig till alla som undervisar i filosofi på universitetet eller gymnasiet eller i filosofiska metoder för studenter vid andra utbildningar, t.ex. värdeteori, vetenskapsteori eller tillämpad etik för ingenjörer eller medicinare – eller i vilket annat ämne som helst där det förekommer begrepp som saknar en enkel och knivskarp definition men som är viktiga för ämnet. (shrink)

«Hva er det vi egentlig mener når vi sier, mennesket er dødelig?» spør Woody Allen i boken The Insanity Defence. Han legger til: «Det er åpenbart ikke et kompliment.»1 Jeg tror Woody tar feil her. Vår dødelighet er et kompliment – eller i det minste av det gode – siden livet uten døden ville være katastrofalt. Udødelige liv fører til dyp kjedsomhet, eksistensiell angst og en radikal form for verdinihilistisk tilværelse. Grunnen er at udødeligheten gjør at vi en gang (...) i fremtiden må konfronteres med de radikalt livsfiendtlige stadiene av universets historie. Jeg argumenterer for at dette er en skjebne langt verre enn døden. Konklusjonen blir derfor, med et nikk til Voltaire, at om døden ikke hadde eksistert, hadde vi vært nødt til å finne den opp. (shrink)

« Ce petit livre est un bijou d’intelligence, de finesse, de culture, qui prend un objet technique sans rechigner et le tourne et le retourne comme Heidegger nous avait appris à le faire avec les chaussures de Van Gogh. Ce qui frappe, c’est l’ambition d’une méditation sur les cartes de la modernité contemporaine, sur le fameux Grand Paris, sur le sujet, sur le pluriel, sans les faux-fuyants du postmoderne, de la citation absurde. Luis de Miranda se promène, il vous conte (...) qu’il se promène, mais il vous mène avec une grande maîtrise et sait où il veut aller. Rien de gratuit dans cette rencontre de l’enseigne de kebabs sur la table de dissection de la Ville Néon. C’est plutôt une nouvelle méditation cartésienne après Descartes et Husserl : où le poêle et sa chaleur ont fait place au bruit vrillant du gaz dans un tube. Je suis, je crée, donc j’entends. » Yann Moulier-Boutang, ancien élève de l’ENS, professeur agrégé d’économie à l’université de technologie de Compiègne, directeur de la revue Multitudes. Né d’une rencontre inopinée avec un néon sur le quai du Louvre, ce livre a été composé à partir d’un séminaire donné par l’auteur à l’hiver 2012. Un voyage inspiré à travers la nuit, qui déchiffre les halos du passé et les reflets du présent pour donner à entendre une certaine magie du futur. Luis de Miranda, philosophe, romancier, révélateur du créalisme, est notamment l’auteur d’un essai remarqué, L’art d’être libres au temps des automates (Max Milo, 2010). (shrink)

I min artikel ”Att förstå – betraktelser utifrån en ny teori” (FT 31:4 Nov 2010) vill jag visa att det finns anledning att förtydliga förståelsebegreppet. Avsevärd möda har, historiskt sett, lagts ned på att definiera och bringa klarhet i begreppen kunskap och förklaring men förståelse, som når längre än vanlig kunskap, har förblivit ett otydligt begrepp. Teorin jag lägger fram i artikeln har som sin kärna en definition av förståelse. Denna utkristalliseras dels naturligt från vår vardagliga användning, dels från behovet (...) av att tydligt visa på vilket sätt förståelse är den djupaste formen av kunskap, av medveten insikt. Först när förståelsebegreppet utgör ett väl format verktyg kan kunskapsteorin nå sin fulla potential. Jag är tacksam gentemot Anders Tolland för att ha kritiskt granskat artikeln och för att han ger mig möjlighet att uttrycka teorin klarare. Tollands kritik berör främst oklarheter avseende innehållet i de abstraktioner som, tillsammans med jämförelser, är centrala element i teorin. Tolland bidrar också till förtydliganden, för vilka jag är mycket tacksam. Särskilt vill jag nämna påpekandena att förståelse dels kan relatera till vad något är, dels till varför det är på det sättet och att förståelse dels är en process, dels ett uppnått tillstånd. I det följande bemöter jag Tollands kritik och anser mig verkligen kunna visa att den framlagda teorin för förståelse är sammanhållen, tydlig och alls icke ”kontra-intuitiv” samt att den utgör ett viktigt, nytt kunskapsteoretiskt verktyg. (shrink)

Dans l'interprétation traditionnelle, La République s'inscrit dans la continuité des discussions de Gorgias, selon lesquelles la vertu et les lois de la polis sont des artifices inventés par une masse de faibles pour capter la soif de pouvoir des meilleurs individus, peu nombreux mais naturellement enclins à gouverner. Les thèses de Caliclès de Gorgias ressemblent aux idées exposées par Trasymaque dans le Livre I de La République. Les thèses politiques centrales exprimées par Socrate dans La République sont : les meilleurs (...) gouvernants sont sages, les meilleurs gouvernants gouvernent pour le bénéfice de ceux qui sont dirigés et non pour eux, il est très peu probable qu'une ville ait les meilleurs gouvernants car il y a un gouffre entre les valeurs de la plupart des gens et les valeurs des sages, le plus grand mal à une ville est la guerre civile pour savoir qui doit gouverner, l'harmonie entre les citoyens quant à qui doit gouverner, et l'harmonie exige que la ville cultive la vertu et la règle de droit. -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33208.01289 . (shrink)

Jag tror att det är ett misstag att kräva av humanvetenskaperna (d.v.s. humaniora, samhälls- och beteendevetenskaperna) att de imiterar naturvetenskapernas forskningsmetodik. Humanvetenskaperna studerar meningsfulla fenomen vilkas natur är på ett grundläggande sätt annorlunda än de blott fysiska fenomen som naturvetenskapen studerar. Den största skillnaden är att meningsfulla fenomen inte uppenbarligen är lagbundna på samma sätt som fysiska fenomen och uppvisar därför inte samma regelbundenhet och förutsägbarhet som fysiska fenomen. För att studera meningsfulla fenomen krävs därför andra forskningsmetoder. Trots att humanvetenskaperna (...) studerar fenomen som inte är lagbundna och är på ett visst sätt subjektiva, så vill jag mena att de studerar objektivt verkliga fenomen och kan få giltig kunskap om dem. Att subjektiva fenomen också kan vara objektivt verkliga kan låta märkligt för vissa läsare, varför jag rundar av med en diskussion om vad det egentligen innebär för något att vara objektivt verkligt. Enligt den definition jag föreslår så framstår att meningsfulla fenomen, också de som kallas ”sociala konstruktioner”, kan förstås som objektivt verkliga företeelser trots att de på ett betydelsefullt sätt också är subjektiva. (shrink)

L’épidémie de Covid-19 aurait pu y faire des ravages. Pourtant, ce 11 avril, le Vietnam ne comptait que 258 cas déclarés et aucun décès selon l’université américaine Johns Hopkins. Des chiffres observés avec moins de méfiance que ceux du voisin chinois, avec qui il partage 1 280 kilomètres de frontière. Le résultat est surprenant pour ce pays de 96 millions d’habitants, qui ne consacre que peu de moyens à la santé. À Hô-Chi-Minh-Ville, seuls 900 lits d’hôpitaux sont équipés pour (...) les soins intensifs, soit 1 pour près de 9 000 habitants. (shrink)

Det er min strid at tabellen av intensjonalitet (rasjonalitet, bevissthet, sinn, tanke, språk, personlighet etc.) som har fremtredende her beskriver mer eller mindre nøyaktig, eller i det minste fungerer som en heuristisk for, hvordan vi tenker og oppfører oss, og så omfatter det ikke bare filosofi og psykologi, men alt annet (historie, litteratur, matematikk, politikk etc.). Legg spesielt merke til at intensjonalitet og rasjonalitet som jeg (sammen med Searle, Wittgenstein og andre) ser det, inkluderer både bevisst deliberativspråklig system 2 og (...) bevisstløs automatisert prelinguistic System 1 handlinger eller reflekser. Jeg gir en kritisk undersøkelse av noen av de viktigste funnene fra to av de mest eminente studentene i moderne tid, Ludwig Wittgenstein og John Searle, om den logiske strukturen av intensjonalitet (sinn, språk, bevissthet, oppførsel), tar som utgangspunkt Wittgensteins grunnleggende oppdagelse - at alle virkelig "filosofiske" problemer er de samme - forvirringer om hvordan man bruker språk i en bestemt sammenheng, og så alle løsninger er de samme - ser på hvordan språket kan brukes i sammenheng en sammenheng slik at sannheten forhold (Vilkår for tilfredshet eller COS) er klare. Det grunnleggende problemet er at man kan si noe, men man kan ikke bety (stat klar COS for) noen vilkårlig ytring og mening er bare mulig i en svært spesifikk sammenheng. Jeg analyserer ulike skrifter av og om dem fra det moderne perspektivet til de to tankesystemene (popularisert som "tenker raskt, tenker sakte"), ved hjelp av en ny tabell med intensjonatitet og nye doble systemer nomenklatur. Jeg viser at dette er en mektig heuristisk for å beskrive atferd. Dermed er all oppførsel nært forbundet hvis man tar riktig synspunkt. Den fenomenologiske illusjonen (glemsel en automatisert system 1) er universell og strekker seg ikke bare gjennom filosofi, men gjennom hele livet. Jeg er sikker på at Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg og paven ville være vantro hvis fortalt at de lider av det samme problemet som Hegel, Husserl og Heidegger, (eller at de skiller seg bare i grad fra narkotika- og sexavhengige i å være motivert av stimulering av deres frontale kortices ved levering av dopamin (og over 100 andre kjemikalier) via ventral tegmentum og kjernen accumbens), men det er helt klart sant. Mens fenomenologene bare kastet bort mye folks tid, kaster de bort jorden og deres etterkommers fremtid. (shrink)

Det er min strid at tabellen av intensjonalitet (rasjonalitet, bevissthet, sinn, tanke, språk, personlighet etc.) som har fremtredende her beskriver mer eller mindre nøyaktig, eller i det minste fungerer som en heuristisk for, hvordan vi tenker og oppfører oss, og så omfatter det ikke bare filosofi og psykologi, men alt annet (historie, litteratur, matematikk, politikk etc.). Legg spesielt merke til at intensjonalitet og rasjonalitet som jeg (sammen med Searle, Wittgenstein og andre) ser det, inkluderer både bevisst deliberativspråklig system 2 og (...) bevisstløs automatisert prelinguistic System 1 handlinger eller reflekser. Jeg gir en kritisk undersøkelse av noen av de viktigste funnene fra to av de mest eminente studentene i moderne tid, Ludwig Wittgenstein og John Searle, om den logiske strukturen av intensjonalitet (sinn, språk, bevissthet, oppførsel), tar som utgangspunkt Wittgensteins grunnleggende oppdagelse - at alle virkelig "filosofiske" problemer er de samme - forvirringer om hvordan man bruker språk i en bestemt sammenheng, og så alle løsninger er de samme - ser på hvordan språket kan brukes i sammenheng en sammenheng slik at sannheten forhold (Vilkår for tilfredshet eller COS) er klare. Det grunnleggende problemet er at man kan si noe, men man kan ikke bety (stat klar COS for) noen vilkårlig ytring og mening er bare mulig i en svært spesifikk sammenheng. Jeg analyserer ulike skrifter av og om dem fra det moderne perspektivet til de to tankesystemene (popularisert som "tenker raskt, tenker sakte"), ved hjelp av en ny tabell med intensjonatitet og nye doble systemer nomenklatur. Jeg viser at dette er en mektig heuristisk for å beskrive atferd. Dermed er all oppførsel nært forbundet hvis man tar riktig synspunkt. Den fenomenologiske illusjonen (glemsel en automatisert system 1) er universell og strekker seg ikke bare gjennom filosofi, men gjennom hele livet. Jeg er sikker på at Chomsky, Obama, Zuckerberg og paven ville være vantro hvis fortalt at de lider av det samme problemet som Hegel, Husserl og Heidegger, (eller at de skiller seg bare i grad fra narkotika- og sexavhengige i å være motivert av stimulering av deres frontale kortices ved levering av dopamin (og over 100 andre kjemikalier) via ventral tegmentum og kjernen accumbens), men det er helt klart sant. Mens fenomenologene bare kastet bort mye folks tid, kaster de bort jorden og deres etterkommers fremtid. (shrink)

La réflexion sur l’éthique et la participation des jeunes et des enfants à l’aménagement com- porte au moins deux dimensions : d’une part, les justifications d’une telle participation ; d’autre part, les problèmes que la pratique participative fait émerger et face auxquels les cadres de réfé- rence conventionnels (non participatifs) ne sont pas toujours utiles. Le présent article aborde ces deux dimensions et explore leurs liens à la lumière de trois méthodes distinctes en matière de théorie morale, soit l’éthique déontologique, (...) l’éthique conséquentialiste et l’éthique de la vertu. Sur la base d’une expérience participative d’aménagement inscrite dans le programme Grandir en Ville de l’UNESCO, certaines contradictions entre les principes d’une pratique participative avec des enfants et la manière dont les problèmes éthiques sont parfois gérés sont mises en évidence. (shrink)