Against the Construction of Animal Ethical Standing

This chapter argues against ‘standing egalitarianism’, the idea that there is a unique locus of ethical standing or status, and urges also that we should resist the idea that all entities who have ethical standing have it equally. It does so by engaging with Korsgaard’s recent work on animals and challenging its distinctive grounds for resisting standing egalitarianism. Drawing on the work of Tyler Burge, it argues for a different theory of the origin of value: values that matter came into the world with the first conscious beings; reasons were first possessed by the first judging beings; and moral obligations were first possessed by the first critically rational beings.

Introduction and Overview

Tyler Burge and Crispin Wright both distinguish two forms of warrant: entitlement and justification. But they use these terms in very different ways. Entitlement for Wright is a non-evidential, a priori rational right to claim knowledge against the skeptic. Wright’s project engages the skeptic. Entitlement for Burge is a truth-conducive good route to knowledge that does not involve reasons. Justification is the route that involves reasons. Burge’s project falls within moderate foundationalist, competence-based approaches to knowledge. Burge’s project examines the structure of knowledge. The chapters of the volume are introduced. The chapters in Part I engage Burge’s project. Part II engages and extends competence and moderate foundationalist approaches. Part II engages Wright’s project.

Sincerity and the Reliability of Testimony

“Content Preservation” by Tyler Burge is one of the most influential articles in the epistemology of testimony. Burge argues for three theses: (1) That we enjoy a prima facie entitlement to take testimony (presentations-as-true) at face value, (2) That this entitlement has an a priori basis, based in the nature of reason, and (3) That in some cases testimony-based beliefs are warranted a priori. Most of the debate in the testimony literature is over the truth of (1). Most of the criticism of Burge’s paper focuses on (3). Burge has since abandoned (3). What about (2)? Burge’s argument for (2) is compressed; the underlying nuts and bolts are difficult to understand. This chapter reconstructs Burge’s overall teleo-functional reliabilist framework and then reconstructs Burge’s overall argument for (2) in some detail. Three criticisms are then offered of the argument. Even granting (1), Burge’s argument does not establish (2).

Narrow Content

Narrow mental content, if there is such a thing, is content that is entirely determined by the goings-on inside the head of the thinker. A central topic in the philosophy of mind since the mid-1970s has been whether there is a kind of mental content that is narrow in this sense. It is widely conceded, thanks to famous thought experiments by Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge, that there is a kind of mental content that is not narrow. But it is often maintained that there is also a kind of mental content that is narrow, and that such content can play various key explanatory roles relating, inter alia, to epistemology and the explanation of action. This book argues that this is a forlorn hope. It carefully distinguishes a variety of conceptions of narrow content and a variety of explanatory roles that might be assigned to narrow content. It then argues that, once we pay sufficient attention to the details, there is no promising theory of narrow content in the offing.

Introduction

The Introduction outlines the history of the narrow content debate. It introduces the famous thought experiments by Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge, discusses why the debate only came to prominence in the 1970s, and outlines what is to come.

Narrow content and ur-content

In Chapter 3 we explore how the question of whether the ordinary notion of content—what we call ‘ur-content’—is narrow, trying as best as we can, on behalf of the internalist, to fend off well-known objections that emerge from the work of Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge. Those objections turn out not to be completely decisive. However, the project of arguing that ur-content is narrow is portrayed as deeply unpromising.

O paradoxo socrático: a ideia de saber que nada se sabe

O presente artigo tem como objetivo analisar o problema epistemológico do paradoxo socrático. Em uma primeira parte do trabalho, apresentaremos o problema segundo Brickhouse and Smith, após a apresentação do problema, em seguida apresentaremos uma objeção feita sobre a honestidade de Sócrates e como uma possível desonestidade resolveria o problema facilmente. Após isso, trabalharemos a divisão entre dois tipos de conhecimento onde um torna seu possuidor um sábio e outro não. Ainda, ao longo do trabalho, estudaremos as três vias principais de obtenção de conhecimento para Sócrates: divinatória, senso comum e elenchos. Apresentaremos também uma explicação sobre o artigo Individualism and the mental, de Tyler Burge onde apresentaremos um experimento mental descrito pelo autor para demonstrar a formação não insular de conceitos e a ideia proposta por ele sobre o entendimento incompleto. Feito isso, ao final, apresentaremos uma proposta alternativa e complementar a teoria de Brickhouse and Smith para a resolução desse aparente paradoxo.