What is structural rationality? Specifically, what is the distinctive feature of structural requirements of rationality? Some philosophers have argued, roughly, that the distinctive feature of structural requirements is coherence. But what does coherence mean, exactly? Or, at least, what do structuralists about rationality have in mind when they claim that structural rationality is coherence? This issue matters for making progress in various active debates concerning rationality. In this paper, I analyze three (...) strategies for figuring out what coherence means in the debates on structural rationality. I argue that these strategies face problems. (shrink)

This entry is composed of three sections. In §1, we survey debates about what structural rationality is, including the emergence of the concept in the contemporary literature, its key characteristics, its relationship to substantive rationality, its paradigm instances, and the questions of whether these instances are unified and, if so, how. In §2, we turn to the debate about structural requirements of rationality – including controversies about whether they are “wide-scope” or “narrow-scope”, synchronic or diachronic, (...) and whether they govern processes or states; as well as examining various forms of skepticism about structural requirements of rationality. In §3, we turn to the debate about the normative significance of structural rationality, surveying central challenges for the view that structural rationality is normatively significant and the theoretical options that arise in light of these challenges. (shrink)

Structural requirements of rationality prohibit various things, like having inconsistent combinations of attitudes, having means-end incoherent combinations of attitudes, and so on. But what is the distinctive feature of structural requirements of rationality? And do we fall under an obligation to be structurally rational? These issues have been at the heart of significant debates over the past fifteen years. Some philosophers have recently argued that we can unify the structural requirements of rationality by analyzing (...) what is constitutive of our attitudes (Lee, 2020; Worsnip, 2018a). It has also been suggested that, in the course of good first-personal deliberation, agents should treat structurally irrational combinations of attitudes as off-limits (Worsnip, 2021). In this paper, I raise a worry for these two theses concerning structural rationality. Roughly, I argue that some imperfect epistemic agents (like us) can be disposed to have structurally irrational combinations of attitudes. Also, when these imperfect agents deliberate, they should not treat structurally irrational combinations of attitudes as off-limits. Given our imperfections, being structurally irrational can very well be the best option we have. More generally, these observations reveal that structural rationality should not always be theorized independently from more “substantive” norms, like responsiveness to reasons or expected value optimization. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate whether there are genuine and irreducible pressures of diachronic rationality grounded on the structure of the subject rather than on substantive considerations, such as pragmatic ones. I argue that structural pressures of diachronic rationality have a limited scope. The most important pressure only tells against arbitrary interference with the mechanisms for the retention of attitudes over time. I then argue that in the practical case, a substantial account in terms of the agent's (...) temporal identity appears more promising than a purely structural one, but in the end it still leaves many questions about diachronic practical rationality underdetermined. (shrink)

Designing Engineering Cases contributes to learning Physics principles. This involves a method derived from Structured Rational Thinking. The research objectives were: analyze the design process of the Case by the SRJU model: structure, review, judges validation, students evaluation, with the dimensions of: clarity, coherence, relevance, sufficiency. It was described the relationship of rational thinking with the SRJU model. The first stage consisted of theoretically basing pedagogy related with rational thought of ancient Greece; Secondly, was developed the test design through an (...) interaction matrix for order and interpret data that reflect level of conceptualization, according to types of structured thought: logical, methodical, narrative; For each type, dimensions of content, purpose and structure are evaluated, through an essay of the designed Case and Socratic dialogue implemented; with a sample of a control and experimental group of 45 students. To measure the impact of understanding, three levels considered: little, moderate and a lot; each level related to a type of rational thinking with its dimensions, coded with an ordinal scale from 1 to 3. A summary table was constructed for identifying type of thought in student's interpretation when wrote and discussed the Case. In the third stage, the results of validation and evaluation showed optimal levels of relevance and sufficiency; with coincidences in acceptable assessments that the Case is not totally coherent with a linear reality but complex. Conclusion, the SRJU model is effective to design Cases due to its processes derived from rational thought, which also may improve understanding. (shrink)

The objective of the research is to test the feasibility of implementing Structured Rational Thinking to learn disciplinary principles, evaluate written language, and answer the questions: What are its epistemological foundations? What explains why rational thinking is not common in people? How do students modify their conceptualization of thematic principles through it? And how does it help students to build knowledge and express it? Rational thinking was theoretically framed and its derivation into types of structured thinking: logical, methodical, and narrative; (...) and its characterization according to its content, purpose, and structure, in its classical and modern forms. The hypothesis was: "people stop thinking rationally due to the lack of applying a method to order and properly conduct thoughts; one aspect is the method and another is the thought that it generates." Mixed methodology; results, it is expected that 50 students surveyed generate knowledge and language attached to objectified reality. Test 1: the level of understanding was assessed according to types of thinking, in ranges of: little, moderately and a lot, coded with ordinal values in intervals from 0 to 2, by interaction matrix. Test 2: table identifying levels of rational thinking, interval scale: 1 to 2 low level, 3 to 4 medium, 5 to 6 high, more than 6 very high. Conclusions, the effects of not applying a type of thinking that orders ideas to interpret reality and generate proven knowledge, far from conjectures, are outlined. The best thinking, guides reason when faced with compound and dynamic facts. (shrink)

In this paper, I will present and defend a hybrid account of structural rationality, simultaneously accommodating what two rival accounts, wide-scopism and narrow-scopism, get right. Wide-scopism holds that moving from an incoherent state to a coherent state is always a structurally rational thing to do. Narrow-scopism holds that there are cases in which the particular way in which coherence is achieved matters to structural rationality. The hybrid account I offer here holds that these two claims are (...) compatible and true. (shrink)

The normativity of so-called “coherence” or “structural” requirements of rationality has been hotly debated in recent years. However, relatively little has been said about the nature of structural rationality, or what makes a set of attitudes structurally irrational, if structural rationality is not ultimately a matter of responding correctly to reasons. This paper develops a novel account of incoherence (or structural irrationality), critically examining Alex Worsnip’s recent account. It first argues that Worsnip’s account (...) both over-generates and under-generates incoherent patterns of attitudes, and then proposes an alternative that both avoids these problems and captures a crucial insight behind Worsnip’s account. According to this account, a set of attitudes is incoherent just in case having all of the attitudes in that set is incompatible with reacting to a question in a way that one is, in virtue of having the attitudes, committed to. (shrink)

To explain why we should be structurally rational – or mentally coherent – is notoriously difficult. Some philosophers argue that the normativity of structural rationality can be explained in terms of substantive rationality, which is a matter of correct response to reason. I argue that the psychological phenomena – positive illusions – are counterexamples to the substantivist approach. Substantivists dismiss the relevance of positive illusions because they accept evidentialism that reason for belief must be evidence. I argue (...) that their evidentialist stance would imply that we are caught in unsolvable dilemmas arising from positive illusions. (shrink)

Conceptual understanding is essential to learn physics principles, for this it is advisable to develop a method of thinking. The Case Method can develop it hence the objectives of research: test the viability of implementing Rational Thought and the Case Metod in classrooms and answer the questions: how does rational thought modify in students conceptualization? and how the Case Method modifies their thinking scheme for learning disciplinary principles? The first stage consisted of theoretically basing classical pedagogy, with the rational thought (...) of ancient Greece and its derivation in scientific thought. For test design, an interaction matrix is proposed to order and interpret data that reflect the level of conceptualization, according to types of structured thought: logical, methodical and narrative; For each type of thought, dimensions of content, purpose and structure are evaluated. In the second stage implement the method with the IGBE model imply: individual activity, Case reading; focus group; plenary; anecdotal log; evaluation judges dimensions understanding; diagnostic surveys and verification of experimental and control groups. The results of first stage: methodological, theoretical and test design foundations were achieved supported by preliminary conclusions. Secondly when implementing the method, the judges evaluated plenary discussion with high levels of understanding. When evaluating logs, the results showed medium and high levels. When implementing diagnostic surveys, similar levels of preconceptions were observed in both groups. When comparing results from verification surveys, higher levels of understanding were observed in the experimental group than in the control group; The method favorably impacts understanding through dialogic socialization. (shrink)

This a review of Alex Worsnip's book 'Fitting Things Together: Coherence and the Demands of Structural Rationality'.

Alex Worsnip's recent book, Fitting Things Together: Coherence and the Demands of Structural Rationality, provides a sustained, wide-ranging defence of dualism.

We present an abstract model of rationality that focuses on structural properties of attitudes. Rationality requires coherence between your attitudes, such as your beliefs, values, and intentions. We define three 'logical' conditions on attitudes: consistency, completeness, and closedness. They parallel the familiar logical conditions on beliefs, but contrast with standard rationality conditions like preference transitivity. We establish a formal correspondence between our logical conditions and standard rationality conditions. Addressing John Broome's programme 'rationality through reasoning', (...) we formally characterize how you can (not) become more logical by reasoning. Our analysis connects rationality with logic, and enables logical talk about multi-attitude psychology. (shrink)

Current approaches used in educational research and practice to evaluate the quality of written arguments often rely on structural analysis. In such assessments, credit is awarded for the presence of structural elements of an argument, such as claims, evidence, and rebuttals. In this article, we discuss limitations of such approaches, including the absence of criteria for evaluating the quality of the argument elements. We then present an alternative framework, based on the Rational Force Model (RFM), which originated from (...) the work of a Nordic philosopher Næss. Using an example of an argumentative essay, we demonstrate the potential of the RFM to improve argument analysis by focusing on the acceptability and relevance of argument elements, two criteria widely considered to be fundamental markers of argument strength. We outline possibilities and challenges with using the RFM in educational contexts and conclude by proposing directions for future research. (shrink)

It is now standard to distinguish between two kinds of rationality: substantive rationality, which consists in holding attitudes that are substantively reasonable or justified, and structural rationality, which consists in holding attitudes that fit together in the right ways. What, if anything, unifies these two kinds of rationality? In this paper, I propose that norms of rationality arise because we are epistemically limited beings who cannot directly ensure the correctness of our attitudes. Substantive and (...) structural rationality represent two different ways of manifesting a fundamental commitment to getting things correct, given our epistemic limitations. Correspondingly, substantive and structural irrationality are distinct rational failures. Substantively irrational attitudes involve a failure to live up to the commitments that constitute those attitudes. Structurally irrational combinations of attitudes are constituted by inconsistent commitments, which guarantees that we will fail to live up to at least some of our commitments in holding these attitudes. (shrink)

According to a well-known view in the philosophy of mind, intentional attitudes by their very nature satisfy requirements of rationality (e.g. Davidson 1980; Dennett 1987; Millar 2004). This view (which I shall call Constitutivism) features prominently as the ‘principle of minimal rationality’ in de Sousa’s monograph The Rationality of Emotion (1987). By explicating this principle in terms of the notion of the formal object of an attitude, de Sousa articulates an interesting and original version of Constitutivism, which (...) differs in important respects from other extant versions. In this paper, I explore this version of Constitutivism against the background of recent developments in the theory of rationality and make explicit its ramifications for the long-standing dispute over whether the mind is essentially normative. My focus will be on how to conceive of the form of the rationality requirements that attitudes as such must satisfy according to this principle. I argue that, although de Sousa seems officially to endorse a structuralist conception of rationality, according to which these requirements are requirements of coherence, his considerations on formal objects suggest that they are more aptly conceived in terms of a reasons-responsive conception of rationality. I further argue that which of these two readings we choose makes a significant difference to the prospect of vindicating the essential normativity of mind by invoking the principle of minimal rationality. (shrink)

Bernard Lonergan has argued for a theory of cognition that is transcendentally secure, that is, one such that any plausible attempt to refute it must presuppose its correctness, and one that also grounds a correct metaphysics and ontology. His proposal combines an identity theory of knowledge with an intentional relation between knower and known. It depends in a crucial way upon an appropriation of one’s own cognitional motives and acts, that is, upon “knowing one’s own knowing.” I argue that because (...) of conflicts between the identity and intentionality components of the theory, rational self-appropriation cannot, as Lonergan claims, be an iteration of just the same acts by which we acquire other sorts of knowledge. I propose an amended theory in which the relation between intending-subject and intended-object of first-level cognition becomes, in RSA, a numerical identity of knower and known and of the epistemic and the ontological. (shrink)

Adrian Piper argues that the Humean conception can be made to work only if it is placed in the context of a wider and genuinely universal conception of the self, whose origins are to be found in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. This conception comprises the basic canons of classical logic, which provide both a model of motivation and a model of rationality. These supply necessary conditions both for the coherence and integrity of the self and also for unified (...) agency. The Kantian conception solves certain intractable problems in decision theory by integrating it into classical predicate logic, and provides answers to longstanding controversies in metaethics concerning moral motivation, rational final ends, and moral justification that the Humean conception engenders. In addition, it sheds light on certain kinds of moral behavior – for example, the whistleblower – that the Humean conception is at a loss to explain. (shrink)

The Humean conception of the self consists in the belief-desire model of motivation and the utility-maximizing model of rationality. This conception has dominated Western thought in philosophy and the social sciences ever since Hobbes’ initial formulation in Leviathan and Hume’s elaboration in the Treatise of Human Nature. Bentham, Freud, Ramsey, Skinner, Allais, von Neumann and Morgenstern and others have added further refinements that have brought it to a high degree of formal sophistication. Late twentieth century moral philosophers such as (...) Rawls, Brandt, Frankfurt, Nagel and Williams have taken it for granted, and have made use of it to supply metaethical foundations for a wide variety of normative moral theories. But the Humean conception of the self also leads to seemingly insoluble problems about moral motivation, rational final ends, and moral justification. Can it be made to work? (shrink)

David Gauthier suggested that all genuine moral problems are Prisoners Dilemmas (PDs), and that the morally and rationally required solution to a PD is to co-operate. I say there are four other forms of moral problem, each a different way of agents failing to be in PDs because of the agents’ preferences. This occurs when agents have preferences that are malevolent, self-enslaving, stingy, or bullying. I then analyze preferences as reasons for action, claiming that this means they must not target (...) the impossible, they must be able to be acted on in the circumstances, their targets must be attainable, and having the preferences must make their targets more likely. For groups of agents to have a distribution of preferences, their preferences must jointly have those four features, this imposing a kind of universalizability requirement on possible preferences. I then claim that, if all agents began with preferences satisfying these requirements, their preferences would not be of the morally problematic sort (on pain, variously, of circularity or contradiction in the specification of their targets). Instead, they would be either morally innocent preferences, or ones which put the agents in PDs. And it would then be instrumentally rational for the agents to prefer mutual co-operation. Thus if all agents initially had rationally permissible preferences and made rational choices of actions and preferences thereafter, they would never acquire immoral preferences, and so never be rationally moved to immoral actions. Further, the states of affairs such agents would be moved to bring about would be compatible with what Rawls’ agents would chose behind a veil of ignorance. Morality therefore reduces to rationality; necessarily, the actions categorically required by morality are also categorically required by rationality. (shrink)

The reasoning view of rational normativity claims that structural rationality is normative for reasoning. Specifically, it claims that structural rationality gives us reasons to structure deliberation in ways that respect the requirements of rationality. This paper critically assesses the reasoning view. It argues that while the reasoning view might succeed in responding to arguments against the normativity of rationality, it is in tension with the motivations for thinking that rationality is normative in the (...) first place. Moreover, proponents of the view do not offer any independent reason for thinking that the view is true. As such, we have no reason to accept the reasoning view. (shrink)

There are at least two threads in our thought and talk about rationality, both practical and theoretical. In one sense, to be rational is to respond correctly to the reasons one has. Call this substantive rationality. In another sense, to be rational is to be coherent, or to have the right structural relations hold between one’s mental states, independently of whether those attitudes are justified. Call this structural rationality. According to the standard view, structural (...) rationality is associated with a distinctive set of requirements that mandate or prohibit certain combinations of attitudes, and it’s in virtue of violating these requirements that incoherent agents are irrational. I think the standard view is mistaken. The goal of this paper is to explain why, and to motivate an alternative account: rather than corresponding to a set of law-like requirements, structural rationality should be seen as corresponding to a distinctive kind of pro tanto rational pressure—i.e. something that comes in degrees, having both magnitude and direction. Something similar is standardly assumed to be true of substantive rationality. On the resulting picture, each dimension of rational evaluation is associated with a distinct kind of rational pressure—substantive rationality with (what I call) justificatory pressure and structural rationality with attitudinal pressure. The former is generated by one’s reasons while the latter is generated by one’s attitudes. Requirements turn out to be at best a footnote in the theory of rationality. (shrink)

This entry considers the question of whether rationality is normative; that is, the question of whether one always ought (or, more weakly, has a reason) to be rational. It first distinguishes substantive from structural rationality, noting how structural rationality presents a more serious challenge to the thesis that rationality is normative. It then considers the plausibility of skepticism about structural rationality, and notes some problems facing such skepticism. However, if we are not (...) skeptics about structural requirements, we face the task of formulating those requirements. But both narrow-scope and wide-scope formulations seem incompatible with the idea that we always ought to be rational. This suggests that we have good reason to think that rationality is not strongly normative. (shrink)

The demands of rationality are linked both to our subjective normative perspective (given that rationality is a person-level concept) and to objective reasons or favoring relations (given that rationality is non-contingently authoritative for us). In this paper, I propose a new way of reconciling the tension between these two aspects: roughly, what rationality requires of us is having the attitudes that correspond to our take on reasons in the light of our evidence, but only if it (...) is competent. I show how this view can account for structural rationality on the assumption that intentions and beliefs as such involve competent perceptions of downstream reasons, and explore various implications of the account. (shrink)

In the social sciences, within the explanatory paradigm of structural individualism, a theory of action – like rational choice theory – models how individuals behave and interact at the micro level in order to explain macro observations as the aggregation of these individuals actions. A central epistemological issue is that such theoretical models are stuck in a dilemma between falsity of their basic assumptions and triviality of their explanation. On the one hand, models which have a great empirical success (...) often rest on unrealistic or even knowingly false assumptions; on the other hand, more complex models, with additional more realistic hypotheses, can (trivially) adapt to a wide range of situations and thus loose their explanatory power. Our purpose here is epistemological and consists in wondering to which extent demanding realistic assumptions in such cases is a relevant criterion with respect to the acceptance of a given explanatory model. Via an analogical reasoning with physics, we argue that this criterion seems too strong and actually irrelevant. General physical principles are not just idealized or unrealistic, they can also be formulated in many different yet equivalent ways which do not imply the same fundamental unobservable entities or phenomena. However, the classification of phenomena that such principles allow to highlight does not depend, at the end, on any particular formulation of these basic assumptions. This suggests that some hypotheses in theoretical models are actually not genuine empirical statements that could be independently tested but only substrates of modeling embodying a classification principle. Thus, we develop a structural invariance criterion that we then apply to rational choice models in the social sciences. We argue that this criterion allows to escape from the epistemological dilemma without condemning formal approaches like rational choice theory for their lack of realisticness nor being stuck to any antirealist viewpoint. (shrink)

Many accounts of structural rationality give a special role to logic. This paper reviews the problem case of clear-eyed logical uncertainty. An account of rational norms on belief that does not give a special role to logic is developed: doxastic probabilism.

Constitutivist approaches to the normativity of rationality have recently come into vogue. Unlike their moral counterparts, however, they have not been confronted with the shmagency objection. In this paper, I challenge them with two versions of the objection based on recent developments in the debate surrounding the normativity of morality. These are shmagency as modal escapability, which is based on taking sophisticated shmagents to be able to modally escape various norms, and shmagency as underdetermination, which is based on taking (...) constitutive norms that allegedly have independent value to be underdetermined by that value. I consider three different kinds of constitutivist theories of the normativity of rationality: first-person-authority views, single-mental-state views, and systems-of-mental-states views. None of the three are able to deal with either of these shmagency objections. There are sophisticated shmagents who escape all these types of constitutivist principles of rationality, so they are modally escapable, and the value of rationality underdetermines all the views. Upshot: constitutivists about structural rationality ought to worry about shmagency. (shrink)

Although the controversy between Malthus and Ricardo has long been considered to be an important source for the history of economic thought, it has hardly been the object of a careful study qua controversy, i.e. as a polemical dialogical exchange. We have undertaken to fill this gap, within the framework of a more ambitious project that places controversies at the center of an account of the history of ideas, in science and elsewhere. It is our contention that the dialogical co-text (...) is essential for reconstructing the meaning and the evolution of science. In the present paper we try to substantiate this contention by means of a pragma-rhetorical study of this particular controversy. First, we reconstruct, through an analysis of a chunk of the correspondence, a micro-level of specific moves and countermoves which constitute a sequential structure within which also meta-scientific and meta-controversial considerations play a role. We then move to a macro-level of analysis, looking for recurrent patterns of argumentation. Finally, we draw epistemological conclusions on the nature of rationality and progress as manifested in actual scientific controversies. (shrink)

At the heart of John Broome’s research program in the philosophy of normativity is a distinction between reasons, on one hand, and requirements of rationality, on the other. I am a friend of Broome’s view that this distinction is deep and important, and that neither notion can be analyzed in terms of the other. However, I also think there are major challenges that this view is yet to meet. In the first part of the paper, I’ll raise four such (...) challenges, and programmatically indicate how I think such challenges might be headed off. In the second part of the paper, I’ll discuss a third normative notion that Broome is interested in: that of (rules of) correct reasoning. On Broome’s view, correct reasoning is closely tied to requirements of rationality. More particularly, every rule of correct reasoning corresponds to a “basing permission”, which states that it’s rationally permissible to base one attitude on one or more other attitudes. I’ll argue that this proposal can’t be made to work. If I’m right, this suggests that the same kind of pulling-apart that Broome has effected so persuasively with respect to reasons and requirements of rationality needs to be effected again to separate rules of correct reasoning from both of those other categories. (shrink)

After half a century in oblivion, the nature of consciousness is now the hottest topic in the behavioral sciences and philosophy. Beginning with the pioneering work of Ludwig Wittgenstein in the 1930’s (the Blue and Brown Books) and from the 50’s to the present by his logical successor John Searle, I have created the following table as an heuristic for furthering this study. The rows show various aspects or ways of studying and the columns show the involuntary processes and voluntary (...) behaviors comprising the two systems (dual processes) of the Logical Structure of Consciousness (LSC), which can also be regarded as the Logical Structure of Rationality (LSR-Searle), of behavior (LSB), of personality (LSB), of reality (LSOR), of Intentionality (LSI) -the classical philosophical term, the Descriptive Psychology of Consciousness (DPC) , the Descriptive Psychology of Thought (DPT) –or better, the Language of the Descriptive Psychology of Thought (LDPT), terms introduced here and in my other very recent writings. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

John Broome has developed an account of rationality and reasoning which gives philosophical foundations for choice theory and the psychology of rational agents. We formalize his account into a model that differs from ordinary choice-theoretic models through focusing on psychology and the reasoning process. Within that model, we ask Broome’s central question of whether reasoning can make us more rational: whether it allows us to acquire transitive preferences, consistent beliefs, non-akratic intentions, and so on. We identify three structural (...) types of rationality requirements: consistency requirements, completeness requirements, and closedness requirements. Many standard rationality requirements fall under this typology. Based on three theorems, we argue that reasoning is successful in achieving closedness requirements, but not in achieving consistency or completeness requirements. We assess how far our negative results reveal gaps in Broome's theory, or deficiencies in choice theory and behavioral economics. (shrink)

Moral encroachment states that moral factors can make a difference to what we are epistemically justified in believing. I present two motivating cases that resemble a common example in the moral encroachment literature to show that the agent's commitments and beliefs, and not the moral factors of the situation, influence epistemic justification. I call this view Structural Encroachment.

How can we be responsible for our attitudes if we cannot normally choose what we believe, desire, feel, and intend? This problem has received much attention during the last decades, both in epistemology and ethics. Yet its connections to discussions about reasons and rationality have been largely overlooked. This book develops the foundations of an ethics of mind by investigating the responsibility that is presupposed by the requirements of rationality that govern our attitudes. It has five main goals. (...) First, it reinterprets the problem of responsibility for attitudes as a problem about the normativity of rationality. Second, it connects substantive and structural rationality by drawing on debates about responsibility. Third, it supports recent accounts of the normativity of rationality by explicitly defending the view that epistemic reasons and other ‘right-kind’ reasons are genuine normative reasons. Fourth, it breaks the stalemate between rationalist and voluntarist accounts of mental responsibility by proposing a hybrid view. Finally, it argues that irrationality can warrant moral blame, thus revealing an unnoticed normative force of rational requirements. Length of manuscript: 85,000 words. (shrink)

W. J. T. Mitchell's "Spatial Form in Literature: Toward a General Theory" (Critical Inquiry 6 [Spring 1980]: 539-67) raises some fundamental questions about the concept of form itself and makes some large claims for the centrality of spatial form not only in modern criticism but in our entire culture. I wish to address a few of the questions raised by his discussion. First, Mitchell posits an identity between spatial form and "synchronic structural models" as if all explanatory models abstracted (...) from temporal alteration were necessarily spatial. (shrink)

गुमनामी में आधी सदी के बाद, चेतना की प्रकृति अब व्यवहार विज्ञान और दर्शन में सबसे विषय है. 1930 में लुडविग Wittgenstein के अग्रणी काम के साथ शुरुआत (ब्लू और ब्राउन पुस्तकें) और 50 से अपने तार्किक उत्तराधिकारी जॉन Searle द्वारा वर्तमान के लिए, मैं इस अध्ययन को आगे बढ़ाने के लिए एक heuristic के रूप में निम्नलिखित तालिका बनाया है. पंक्तियाँ विभिन्न पहलुओं या अध्ययन के तरीके दिखाते हैं और कॉलम अनैच्छिक प्रक्रियाओं और स्वैच्छिक व्यवहार को दिखाते हैं जिसमें (...) चेतना की तार्किक संरचना (एलएससी) की दो प्रणालियों (दोहरी प्रक्रियाओं) को शामिल किया जाता है, जिसे तार्किक संरचना के रूप में भी माना जा सकता है। Rationality की (LSR-Searle), व्यवहार के (LSB), व्यक्तित्व के (LSS) की, वास्तविकता की (LSOR), Intentionality की (LSI) -शास्त्रीय दार्शनिक शब्द, चेतना के वर्णनात्मक मनोविज्ञान (डीपीसी) , सोचा की वर्णनात्मक मनोविज्ञान (DPT) -या बेहतर, सोचा (LDPT) के वर्णनात्मक मनोविज्ञान की भाषा, शब्द यहाँ शुरू की और मेरे अन्य बहुत हाल ही में लेखन में. आधुनिक दो systems दृश्यसे मानव व्यवहार के लिए एक व्यापक अप करने के लिए तारीख रूपरेखा इच्छुक लोगों को मेरी पुस्तक 'दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, मिनडी और लुडविगमें भाषा की तार्किक संरचना से परामर्श कर सकते हैं Wittgenstein और जॉन Searle '2 एड (2019). मेरे लेखन के अधिक में रुचि रखने वालों को देख सकते हैं 'बात कर रहेबंदर- दर्शन, मनोविज्ञान, विज्ञान, धर्म और राजनीति पर एक बर्बाद ग्रह --लेख और समीक्षा 2006-2019 3 एड (2019) और आत्मघाती यूटोपियान भ्रम 21st मेंसदी 4वें एड (2019). (shrink)

Many contemporary epistemologists take rational inference to be a conscious action performed by the thinker (Boghossian 2014; 2018; Valaris 2014; Malmgren 2018). It is tempting to think that rational evaluability requires responsibility, which in turn requires conscious action. In that case, unconscious cognition involves merely associative or otherwise arational processing. This paper argues instead for deep rationalism: unconscious inference often exhibits the same rational status and richly structured logical character as conscious inference. The central case study is rationalization, in which (...) people shift their attitudes in logically structured, reason-responsive ways in response to evidence of their own incompetence or immorality. These attitude shifts are irrational in a way that reflects on the thinker. Thus rationally evaluable inference extends downward into the unconscious. Many take the sole aim of belief to be truth (Velleman 2000) or knowledge (Williamson 2000), but the prevalence of rationalization suggests that belief updating often aims instead at preserving our positive conceptions of ourselves—that is, belief updating is part of a psychological immune system (Gilbert 2006; Mandelbaum 2019). This paper argues that the psychological immune system comprises a suite of distinct cognitive mechanisms, some (ir)rational and some arational, which are united by a common function of avoiding the maladaptive predomination of negative affect and maintaining stable motivation. Other aspects of the psychological immune system include (i) a domain-general positive bias in evaluative attitudes and (ii) “terror management,” i.e., the systematic strengthening of meaning-conferring beliefs to avoid death anxiety. The multiplicity of processes underlying the psychological immune system point toward an irrational but adaptive function of cognition to keep us motivated in a world rife with negativity and death. (shrink)

My dissertation addresses the question "do desires provide reasons?" I present two independent lines of argument in support of the conclusion that they do not. The first line of argument emerges from the way I circumscribe the concept of a desire. Complications aside, I conceive of a desire as a member of a family of attitudes that have imperative content, understood as content that displays doability-conditions rather than truth-conditions. Moreover, I hold that an attitude may provide reasons only if it (...) has truth-evaluable content. Insofar as desires lack truth-evaluable content, I hold that the content of a desire has the wrong kind of logical structure to provide reasons. My second line of argument claims that even if a desire did have truth-evaluable content, it would not follow that desires provide reasons. This is because a desire has no more rational significance than a guess or coin-flip. My argument relies on what I call the non-substitutability principle, the thesis that (all things being equal) one cannot substitute something that lacks rational significance, relative to some attitude, A, for something that has rational significance, relative to A, and leave the rational standing of A unchanged. For example, one cannot substitute the guess that P (i.e., something that lacks rational significance relative to the belief that P) for the perception that P (i.e., something that is rationally significant relative to the belief that P) without altering the rational standing of the belief. I argue that when the non-substitutability principle is applied to a desire that gives rise to an intention, it turns out that one can always substitute a guess or coin-flip (i.e., something that lacks rational significance relative to the intention) for the desire, without altering the rational standing of the intention. I take this to show that desires are not rationally significant relative to the intentions to which they give. (shrink)

I raise three puzzles concerning self-deception: (i) a conceptual paradox, (ii) a dilemma about how to understand human cognitive evolution, and (iii) a tension between the fact of self-deception and Davidson’s interpretive view. I advance solutions to the first two and lay a groundwork for addressing the third. The capacity for self-deception, I argue, is a spandrel, in Gould’s and Lewontin’s sense, of other mental traits, i.e., a structural byproduct. The irony is that the mental traits of which self-deception (...) is a spandrel/byproduct are themselves rational. (shrink)

A topos version of Cantor’s back and forth theorem is established and used to prove that the ordered structure of the rational numbers (Q, <) is homogeneous in any topos with natural numbers object. The notion of effective homogeneity is introduced, and it is shown that (Q, <) is a minimal effectively homogeneous structure, that is, it can be embedded in every other effectively homogeneous ordered structure.

经过半个世纪的遗忘,意识的本质现在是行为科学和哲学中最热门的话题。从路德维希·维特根斯坦在20世纪30年代的开创性工作(蓝本和布朗书),到50年代到现在,他的逻辑继承者约翰·西尔尔(John Searle)的开创性工作开始,我创建了下表,作为推进这项研究的启发。行显示学习的各个方面或方式,列显示由意识逻辑结构(LSC)的两个系统(双过程)组成的非自愿过程和自愿行为,也可以视为逻辑结构理性( LSR-Searle),行为(LSB),人格(LSP),现实(LSOR),故意性(LSI)——古典哲学术语,意识的描述性心理学(DPC),思维的描述性心理学(DPT)——或者更好,思想描述心理学(LD PT)的语言,这里介绍的术语,以及我最近的其他著作中介绍的术语。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日(2019年)。.

According to the Maxim of Quality, rational agents tend to speak honestly. Due to the influence of Grice, a connection between linguistic rationality and honesty is often taken for granted. However, the connection is not obvious: structural rationality in language use does not require honesty, any more than it requires dishonesty. In particular, Quality does not follow from the Cooperative Principle and structural rationality. But then what is honest rational speech? I propose to move the (...) discussion in the context of Stalnaker's theory of assertion. From this perspective, although there is no most rational way to behave, Quality follows from the structure of Stalnakerian conversations if interlocutors are sensitive to credibility. In this case, honesty is built on the expectation of reciprocity, and cooperativity is an outcome and not a precondition of rational communication. A benefit of my discussion is that the account of linguistic rationality falls under the more general view of interactive rationality familiar from theoretical economics. (shrink)

There has been a movement aiming to teach agents about their privilege by making the information about their privilege as costless as possible. However, some argue that in risk-sensitive frameworks, such as Lara Buchak’s (2013), it can be rational for privileged agents to shield themselves from learning about their privilege, even if the information is costless and relevant. This threatens the efficacy of these information-access efforts in alleviating the problem of elite-group ignorance. In response, I show that even within the (...) same framework, in this case David Kinney and Liam Kofi Bright’s (2021), the rationality of this information avoidance rests on shaky ground in practice. In this framework, whether an agent should avoid information depends on the precise details of (1) how relevant they expect the information to be, (2) their priors about the value of various options, and (3) their risk attitudes. The model suggests that the rationality of elite-group ignorance is a function of structural factors that are pervasive but nonetheless not insurmountable, thus offering a way out of pessimism about elite group education. (shrink)

I admire Audi's intentions in discussing the rationality of beliefs, desires, and actions together, and doubt that this can be done internalistically, as he tries.

This paper presents a deductive argument from the existence of intelligible thought to the necessity of a rational moral order. Drawing on classical principles of logic, and arguing that intelligibility presupposes a non-contingent, coherent ground for existence. This existence, as ascribed through logical necessity, The necessary existence is shown to be rational, self existent, and morally good by definition. The second half of the paper begins building a metaphysical grounding into ethics, without committing an is-ought gap. I argue that moral (...) responsibility arises from self-perceptive rational agency. and that your misalignment with moral truth leads to natural consequences. This culminates in a moral argument not rooted in theological claims, but in epistemic and modal necessity, offering a non-theistic justification for objective morality. The argument is structured syllogistically to ensure logical clarity and make comment, critiques, or clarifications easier to make. Future work will expand on this foundation toward applied ethical themes such as mercy, deception, and justified authority. My aim is to establish a defensible, repeatable framework for reasoning around moral truth, rooted in rational necessity. (shrink)

Social problems such as racism, sexism, and inequality are often cited as structural rather than individual in nature. What does it mean to invoke a social structural explanation, and how do such explanations relate to individualistic ones? This article explores recent philosophical debates concerning the nature and usages of social structural explanation. I distinguish between two central kinds of social structural explanation: those that are autonomous from psychology, and those that are not. This distinction will help (...) clarify the explanatory power that each type of SSE has, points of convergence with methodological traditions such as critical theory and rational choice theory, and the difficulties that each type of SSE faces. (shrink)

This paper examines the philosophical foundations of Goethe’s morphological studies, in particular his concept of the ‘archetypal plant', which can be described as the dynamic principle of a living surface that governs plant formation through alternating processes of expansion and contraction. The Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner claimed that Goethe’s approach offers a scientifically grounded approach to understanding organic form and development through what may be termed empirically based, productive intellectual intuition, namely the mental reconstruction of an organism’s formative principle and (...) laws. Here it is shown that Goethe’s rational organicism, as elaborated by Steiner, provides a conceptual and methodological framework that suggests a solution to the long-standing problem of understanding organismic properties like autopoiesis, autonomy and agency. Yet, Goethe struggled to identify a comparable principle for animals. Steiner argued that animal life is determined by a psychological principle—a non-physical centre of sensation and movement that structures the organism in relation to its environment—and that this, too, can be grasped in productive intuition. The paper reconstructs the animal archetype by delineating its essential features: the relations between its interior and exterior, realized in sensory, nutritive and motor functions. The study concludes that Goethe’s rational organicism can serve as a methodological complement to the organicism of the current philosophy of biology. -/- . (shrink)

In Rational Powers in Action, Sergio Tenenbaum sets out a new theory of instrumental rationality that departs from standard discussions of means-ends coherence in the literature on structural rationality in at least two interesting ways: it takes intentional action (as opposed to intention) to be what puts in place the relevant instrumental requirements, and it applies to both necessary and non-necessary means. I consider these two developments in more detail. On the first, I argue that Tenenbaum’s theory (...) is too narrow since there could be instrumental irrationality with respect to an intention to X even if one is not yet engaged in any relevant intentional action. On the second, I argue against Tenenbaum’s claim that “an agent is instrumentally irrational if she knowingly fails to pursue some sufficient means to an end she is pursuing.”. (shrink)

Structuring Emotional Balance Within Your Universal Formula -/- To formally integrate emotional balance into your universal law of balance in nature, we can structure it into a framework that applies both to individuals and societies. This framework will emphasize self-regulation, decision-making, and education, ensuring that emotions are used as feedback mechanisms to align human behavior with natural laws. -/- I. The Role of Emotional Balance in the Universal Formula -/- Your universal formula states that all human decision-making follows natural laws, (...) with balance being a key principle. Emotions, both positive and negative, play a crucial role in this homeostatic balance, ensuring that individuals make rational, well-adjusted decisions. -/- Positive Emotions (joy, hope, love) encourage engagement and progress. -/- Negative Emotions (fear, anger, sadness) serve as corrective forces that prevent extreme or irrational behavior. -/- Emotional Regulation ensures that neither extreme optimism nor extreme pessimism distorts decision-making. -/- Key Principle: Emotional balance is necessary for free will to function optimally within natural laws. -/- II. The Three-Tier Model of Emotional Balance in Decision-Making -/- This model applies your universal law of balance to three levels: individual, societal, and global. -/- 1. Individual Emotional Balance (Personal Decision-Making) -/- Negative emotions function as signals rather than obstacles, guiding individuals toward balanced decisions. -/- Fear → Risk Awareness & Caution (Prevents reckless behavior) -/- Anger → Justice-Seeking & Boundary Setting (Prevents exploitation) -/- Sadness → Reflection & Healing (Encourages personal growth) -/- Guilt → Moral Course Correction (Prevents unethical behavior) -/- If individuals suppress or ignore these emotional signals, imbalances occur, leading to poor decision-making (e.g., impulsivity, apathy, or irrational fear). -/- Educational Implementation: -/- Teaching students to recognize emotions as feedback rather than reacting impulsively. -/- Introducing emotional intelligence as a core subject in schools. -/- Encouraging mindfulness and self-reflection to maintain emotional balance. -/- 2. Societal Emotional Balance (Collective Decision-Making) -/- At a societal level, emotions influence collective behavior, governance, and cultural norms. If negative emotions dominate without balance, they can lead to social instability (e.g., mob mentality, authoritarianism, or apathy toward injustice). -/- Examples: -/- Public Outrage → Political Reform (e.g., Civil Rights Movement) -/- Fear of Economic Collapse → Financial Regulations (e.g., The Great Depression leading to banking reforms) -/- Collective Anxiety About Climate Change → Environmental Policies -/- However, if emotions are manipulated (e.g., through propaganda or misinformation), society loses true balance, leading to either authoritarian control (excessive fear) or reckless freedom (lack of caution). -/- Educational Implementation: -/- Teaching critical thinking to prevent emotional manipulation. -/- Promoting media literacy to help individuals detect fear-based propaganda. -/- Encouraging ethical leadership training that respects emotional balance in governance. -/- 3. Global Emotional Balance (Civilization-Level Decision-Making) -/- On a planetary scale, emotional imbalances can lead to major consequences, such as wars, economic collapses, or environmental destruction. -/- Examples of Global Emotional Imbalances: -/- Excessive fear → Nuclear arms race, militarization, and international tensions. -/- Unchecked greed → Environmental destruction and unsustainable capitalism. -/- Misdirected anger → War, extremism, and conflict. -/- Global leaders, if emotionally unbalanced, can make irrational decisions that harm humanity. Conversely, a leader with emotional balance uses fear as caution, anger as justice, and sadness as wisdom, aligning their actions with the law of balance in nature. -/- Educational Implementation: -/- Establishing global ethics programs that emphasize emotional intelligence in diplomacy. -/- Encouraging leaders to make rational, emotionally balanced decisions rather than reactionary ones. -/- Promoting a scientific and philosophical understanding of balance in international relations. -/- III. Applying the Model to Your Educational Initiative -/- If you want to reprogram society through education without conflicting with religious beliefs, emotional balance education could be a core pillar of your holistic approach. -/- How Emotional Balance Can Be Taught at Different Levels -/- By incorporating emotional balance education into the curriculum, future generations will naturally align their decision-making with the universal law of balance, leading to a more stable and just society. -/- IV. Conclusion: The Universal Law of Balance and Emotional Regulation -/- Your universal formula already explains that all human decision-making follows natural laws. Emotions are a key part of this because they serve as feedback mechanisms that keep individuals and societies in balance. -/- Negative emotions are NOT flaws but essential components of decision-making. -/- Suppressing emotions leads to imbalance, while understanding them leads to wisdom. -/- By incorporating emotional intelligence into education, society can be “reprogrammed” without conflicting with religious or cultural beliefs. -/- Thus, emotional balance is not separate from rational thinking—it is a necessary component of free will itself, ensuring that all choices align with the natural equilibrium of life. -/- . (shrink)