Magazine et Edition

Volume 14 (2022): Edition 64 (May 2022)

Volume 13 (2021): Edition 61 (November 2021)

Volume 13 (2021): Edition 60 (May 2021)

Volume 12 (2020): Edition 59 (December 2020)

Volume 12 (2020): Edition 58 (December 2020)
SPECIAL ISSUE: ON THE VERY IDEA OF LOGICAL FORM

Volume 12 (2020): Edition 57 (November 2020)

Volume 12 (2020): Edition 56 (May 2020)

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 55 (December 2019)
Special Edition: Chalmers on Virtual Reality

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 54 (December 2019)
Special Edition: III Blasco Disputatio, Singular terms in fiction. Fictional and “real” names

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 53 (November 2019)

Volume 11 (2019): Edition 52 (May 2019)

Volume 10 (2018): Edition 51 (December 2018)
SYMPOSIUM ON JASON STANLEY’S “HOW PROPAGANDA WORKS”

Volume 10 (2018): Edition 50 (December 2018)

Volume 10 (2018): Edition 49 (November 2018)

Volume 10 (2018): Edition 48 (May 2018)

Volume 9 (2017): Edition 47 (December 2017)

Volume 9 (2017): Edition 46 (November 2017)

Volume 9 (2017): Edition 45 (October 2017)

Volume 9 (2017): Edition 44 (May 2017)

Volume 8 (2016): Edition 43 (November 2016)

Volume 8 (2016): Edition 42 (May 2016)

Volume 7 (2015): Edition 41 (November 2015)

Volume 7 (2015): Edition 40 (May 2015)

Volume 6 (2014): Edition 39 (November 2014)

Volume 6 (2014): Edition 38 (May 2014)

Volume 5 (2013): Edition 37 (November 2013)

Volume 5 (2013): Edition 36 (October 2013)
Book symposium on François Recanati’s Mental Files

Volume 5 (2013): Edition 35 (May 2013)

Volume 4 (2012): Edition 34 (December 2012)

Volume 4 (2012): Edition 33 (November 2012)

Volume 4 (2012): Edition 32 (May 2012)
New Perspectives on Quine’s “Word and Object”

Volume 4 (2011): Edition 31 (November 2011)

Volume 4 (2011): Edition 30 (May 2011)
XII Taller d'Investigació en Filosofia

Volume 4 (2010): Edition 29 (November 2010)
Petrus Hispanus 2009

Volume 3 (2010): Edition 28 (May 2010)

Volume 3 (2009): Edition 27 (November 2009)
Homage to M. S. Lourenço

Volume 3 (2009): Edition 26 (May 2009)

Volume 3 (2008): Edition 25 (November 2008)

Volume 2 (2008): Edition 24 (May 2008)

Volume 2 (2007): Edition 23 (November 2007)
Normativity and Rationality

Volume 2 (2007): Edition 22 (May 2007)

Volume 2 (2006): Edition 21 (November 2006)

Volume 1 (2006): Edition 20 (May 2006)

Volume 1 (2005): Edition 19 (November 2005)

Volume 1 (2005): Edition 18 (May 2005)

Volume 1 (2004): Edition 17 (November 2004)

Volume 1 (2004): Edition 16 (May 2004)

Volume 1 (2003): Edition 15 (November 2003)

Volume 1 (2003): Edition 14 (May 2003)

Volume 1 (2002): Edition 13 (November 2002)

Volume 1 (2001): Edition 11 (November 2001)

Volume 1 (2002): Edition 11-12 (May 2002)

Volume 1 (2001): Edition 10 (May 2001)

Volume 1 (2000): Edition 9 (November 2000)

Volume 1 (2000): Edition 8 (May 2000)

Volume 1 (1999): Edition 7 (November 1999)

Volume 1 (1999): Edition 6 (May 1999)

Volume 1 (1998): Edition 4 (May 1998)

Volume 1 (1997): Edition 3 (November 1997)

Volume 1 (1998): Edition s2 (November 1998)
Special Edition: Petrus Hispanus Lectures 1998: o Mental e o Físico, Guest Editors: Joao Branquinho; M. S. Lourenço

Volume 1 (1997): Edition 2 (May 1997)

Volume 1 (1996): Edition 1 (December 1996)

Volume 1 (1998): Edition s1 (June 1998)
Special Edition: Language, Logic and Mind Forum, Guest Editors: Joao Branquinho; M. S. Lourenço

Détails du magazine
Format
Magazine
eISSN
2182-2875
Première publication
16 Apr 2017
Période de publication
4 fois par an
Langues
Anglais

Chercher

Volume 2 (2007): Edition 23 (November 2007)
Normativity and Rationality

Détails du magazine
Format
Magazine
eISSN
2182-2875
Première publication
16 Apr 2017
Période de publication
4 fois par an
Langues
Anglais

Chercher

6 Articles
Accès libre

Introduction

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 153 - 160

Résumé

Accès libre

Is Rationality Normative?

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 161 - 178

Résumé

Abstract

Rationality requires various things of you. For example, it requires you not to have contradictory beliefs, and to intend what you believe is a necessary means to an end that you intend. Suppose rationality requires you to F. Does this fact constitute a reason for you to F? Does it even follow from this fact that you have a reason to F? I examine these questions and reach a sceptical conclusion about them. I can find no satisfactory argument to show that either has the answer ‘yes’. I consider the idea that rationality is normative for instrumental reasons, because it helps you to achieve some of the things you ought to achieve. I also consider the idea that rationality consists in responding correctly to reasons. I reject both.

Accès libre

Belief and normativity

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 179 - 203

Résumé

Abstract

The thesis that mental content is normative is ambiguous and has many forms. This article deals only with the thesis that normativity is connected to our mental attitudes rather than with the content of the attitudes, and more specifically with the view that it is connected to belief. A number of writers have proposed various versions of a ‘norm of truth’ attached to belief. I examine various versions of this claim, and defend it against recent criticisms according to which this norm lacks normative force, that it violates the principle that ‘ought implies can,’ and that it is viciously circular. I defend the view that we should distinguish the statement of the objective norm and the way it is regulated, and that this distinction can answer most of the criticisms of the norm of truth for belief.

Accès libre

Intentionality, Knowledge and Formal Objects

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 205 - 228

Résumé

Abstract

What is the relation between the intentionality of states and attitudes which can miss their mark, such as belief and desire, and the intentionality of acts, states and attitudes which cannot miss their mark, such as the different types of knowledge and simple seeing? Two theories of the first type of intentionality, the theory of correctness conditions and the theory of satisfaction conditions, are compared. It is argued that knowledge always involves knowledge of formal objects such as facts and values, that emotions are reactions to (apparently) known values and that beliefs are reactions to known or apparently known facts or to the objects of relational states.

Accès libre

Acting Without Reasons

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 229 - 246

Résumé

Abstract

In this paper, I want to challenge some common assumptions in contemporary theories of practical rationality and intentional action. If I am right, the fact that our intentions can be rationalised is widely misunderstood. Normally, it is taken for granted that the role of rationalisations is to show the reasons that the agent had to make up her mind. I will argue against this. I do not object to the idea that acting intentionally is, at least normally, acting for reasons, but I will propose a teleological reading of the expression ‘for reasons.’ On this reading, it is quite possible to act for reasons without having reasons to act. In a similar way, paradigmatic cases of cogent practical reasoning do not require the transference of justification from the premises to the practical conclusion.

Accès libre

What is Normativity?

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 247 - 269

Résumé

Abstract

The thesis that the concept of a reason is the fundamental normative concept is in the air. In this paper, I examine what it amounts to, how to formulate it, and how ambitious it should be. I distinguish a semantic version, according to which any normative predicate is definitionally reducible to a reason predicate, and a conceptual version, according to which the sole normative ingredient in any normative concept is the concept of a reason. Although I reject the semantic version, I examine its potential in some detail. And I claim that the conceptual version is plausible.

6 Articles
Accès libre

Introduction

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 153 - 160

Résumé

Accès libre

Is Rationality Normative?

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 161 - 178

Résumé

Abstract

Rationality requires various things of you. For example, it requires you not to have contradictory beliefs, and to intend what you believe is a necessary means to an end that you intend. Suppose rationality requires you to F. Does this fact constitute a reason for you to F? Does it even follow from this fact that you have a reason to F? I examine these questions and reach a sceptical conclusion about them. I can find no satisfactory argument to show that either has the answer ‘yes’. I consider the idea that rationality is normative for instrumental reasons, because it helps you to achieve some of the things you ought to achieve. I also consider the idea that rationality consists in responding correctly to reasons. I reject both.

Accès libre

Belief and normativity

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 179 - 203

Résumé

Abstract

The thesis that mental content is normative is ambiguous and has many forms. This article deals only with the thesis that normativity is connected to our mental attitudes rather than with the content of the attitudes, and more specifically with the view that it is connected to belief. A number of writers have proposed various versions of a ‘norm of truth’ attached to belief. I examine various versions of this claim, and defend it against recent criticisms according to which this norm lacks normative force, that it violates the principle that ‘ought implies can,’ and that it is viciously circular. I defend the view that we should distinguish the statement of the objective norm and the way it is regulated, and that this distinction can answer most of the criticisms of the norm of truth for belief.

Accès libre

Intentionality, Knowledge and Formal Objects

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 205 - 228

Résumé

Abstract

What is the relation between the intentionality of states and attitudes which can miss their mark, such as belief and desire, and the intentionality of acts, states and attitudes which cannot miss their mark, such as the different types of knowledge and simple seeing? Two theories of the first type of intentionality, the theory of correctness conditions and the theory of satisfaction conditions, are compared. It is argued that knowledge always involves knowledge of formal objects such as facts and values, that emotions are reactions to (apparently) known values and that beliefs are reactions to known or apparently known facts or to the objects of relational states.

Accès libre

Acting Without Reasons

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 229 - 246

Résumé

Abstract

In this paper, I want to challenge some common assumptions in contemporary theories of practical rationality and intentional action. If I am right, the fact that our intentions can be rationalised is widely misunderstood. Normally, it is taken for granted that the role of rationalisations is to show the reasons that the agent had to make up her mind. I will argue against this. I do not object to the idea that acting intentionally is, at least normally, acting for reasons, but I will propose a teleological reading of the expression ‘for reasons.’ On this reading, it is quite possible to act for reasons without having reasons to act. In a similar way, paradigmatic cases of cogent practical reasoning do not require the transference of justification from the premises to the practical conclusion.

Accès libre

What is Normativity?

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 247 - 269

Résumé

Abstract

The thesis that the concept of a reason is the fundamental normative concept is in the air. In this paper, I examine what it amounts to, how to formulate it, and how ambitious it should be. I distinguish a semantic version, according to which any normative predicate is definitionally reducible to a reason predicate, and a conceptual version, according to which the sole normative ingredient in any normative concept is the concept of a reason. Although I reject the semantic version, I examine its potential in some detail. And I claim that the conceptual version is plausible.

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo