Greg Detre
@11 on Friday, 16 November, 2001
Dr Tasioulas
Rorty and his critics � Rob Brandom
�Vocabularies of pragmatism�
�Between Hegel and Darwin� in Truth and Moral Progress � Rorty
Stroud � The charm of naturalism � Presidential address to the American Philosophical Association in the early 90s(???)
�The problem of naturalism� � Craig in The mind of God and works of man, pg 10
�Putnam and the relativist menace� in Truth and moral progress � Rorty
3 notions of objectivity � cross-cultural notions
Wiggins (pg 351-6 in Needs values and truth)
incompleteness of the evolutionary explanation
�On the very idea of a conceptual scheme�
�Radical interpretation�
Evidence and Enquiry by Susan Haack � �Vulgarm pragmatism� � against all naturalism, attacks Rorty + Stich - critique of FoR
McGinn � in �Inquiry�, reprinted in Singer evolutionary explanation of ethics (1983???) � evolutionary explanation must be incomplete
Tim Crane � Elements of mind� � �There is no question of physicalism�, Mind, 1990
Crane + Mellor � naturalism as false or vacuous? because of sci�s huge conceptual revolutions
Kitcher � �The naturalists return�
Nagel, �Davidson�s new cognitivsm� in Hahn, The philosophy of Donald Davidson
materialism + relativism
Putnam � �Does evolution explain representation?� in Renewing philosophy
Haack, Rorty (vs Putnam), Stroud, Kitcher
Rorty has moved on since Mirror � synthesis of naturalist/historicist Hegelian/Darwinian
1. too focused on specific writings
define objectivity, rationality
agree with Nagel? objectivity as universally valid
does reason claim objectivity or is it a philosophical fantasy � just because they did in the past�
perhaps adopt an evolutionary approach to reason
2. what are the consequences of an evolutionary explanation of reason, assuming it�s correct?
Rorty thinks there are no bad consequences
Stich vs Nagel
Nozick (1/2 way house) � what are you left with if you reject the last bit about reason improving itself � not what he wanted to show, certainly�
3. is an evolutionary explanation the best explanation to rationality???
self-refuting
incomplete form of explanation � if it was complete it would be self-refuting
can you localise/exempt some areas?
how it�s emerged is different from what it�s become
one sci theory with a limited remit
tLW strategy � evolutionary explanation must compete with other first-order explanations � �vindicatory explanation� (Wiggins)
Davidsonian objection � evolution implies that under different circumstances we might have found very different norms to be rational
but there are very powerful a priori constraints
presume vast background of agreement
in order for there to be evolution, it would lead to this sort of universe???
then McGinn-type empirical mystery vs normative/genuine/senseless unintelligibility
is Davidson subject to the Descartes criticism that just because I can�t conceive of how it could be so �
can he escape the charge of ethnocentrism, because I can change my views
could there be things that we couldn�t make sense of with conceptual enrichment? they just wouldn�t be intelligible
4. defend evolutionary account as global vs local explanation (cf Nagel)?
realm of rational thought, e.g. ethics
Nagel rationality is self-reinforcing
the gap is in evolutionary theory
unless you are a priori committed to naturalism (like me???)
naturalism � comprehensive???
ontological or methological thesis
can�t account for scientific rationality itself
see Nagel and Rorty vs Putnam
avoid truth
stick to: naturalistic, reason, objectivity
reasoning as epistemic notion � a good reason for believing X, but X might not be true
truth in terms of (super-)assertibility
primitive + unanalysable, circular
does what Rorty suggests amount to swapping intelligence for rationality � functional, words as tools???
what sort of modern world view isn�t a priori committed to naturalism???
depends on whether you see it as a comprehensive picture of rationality