Greg Detre
Thursday, 17 January, 2002
Dr Tasioulas
make sure I don't miss Nagel
Nagel � structure of norms governing our reasoning activity
are these norms objective, when you trace their nature?
precursor: reasoning capacities/abilities � this is my focus
am I committing the sin of psychologism � discovering logical laws by looking at how people reason?
is this distinction spurious? Bermudez articles (Kornblith�s 3 questions)
�meaning is use� (Wittgenstein) � the distinction isn't very important/correct �/span> psychologism
why include psychological evidence? what�s it got to do with objective norms??? Nagel�s approach may be wrong
ought � can extends to any norms
Bermudez psychologism � have to look at the forms of life that instantiate the norms
McDowell � �rules as rails�
≈ form of relativism � not, because couldn't imagine different forms
nouns � argument from queerness � it�s the �oughtness� that�s weird
normative is part of any realm involving norms, including rationality
clarify �rational objectivism/subjectivism�
false vs vacuous
unpack objectivity
re-consider Crane, physicalism
fill out the naturalism
cf philosophy of history
naturalism as methodology/ontology � embodies both
Brian Leitner � naturalised legal philosophy in �Analyzing Law� � Bix (ed) pp 80-92
objectivity � operate with Nagel�s terms
Mackie + morons
is our environment data input enough to generalise from???