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 7 (2015): Edition 40 (May 2015)

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

Chercher

7 Articles
Accès libre

Names of Attitudes and Norms for Attitudes

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 1 - 24

Résumé

Abstract

Fictionalists claim that instead of believing certain controversial propositions they accept them nonseriously, as useful make-believe. In this way they present themselves as having an austere ontology despite the apparent ontological commitments of their discourse. Some philosophers object that this plays on a distinction without a difference: the fictionalist’s would-be nonserious acceptance is the most we can do for the relevant content acceptance-wise, hence such acceptance is no different from what we ordinarily call ‘belief’ and should be so called. They conclude that it is subject to the norms applicable to paradigmatic empirical beliefs, and hence, pace fictionalists, ontological commitments must be taken seriously. I disentangle three strands in the objector’s thought: the ‘What more can you ask for?’ intuition, a linguistic/conceptual claim, and a claim about norms. I argue that the former two are compatible with ontological deflationism, and therefore do not entail applicability of the norms. Nevertheless, if indeed there is no more robust acceptance with which to contrast the supposed nonserious acceptance, then the fictionalist’s claim to austere ontology must be abandoned. Is there a reason to suppose there is any merit to the distinction-without-a-difference charge? I argue that there is, clarify it, and defend against objections, focusing on Daly 2008.

Mots clés

  • Fictionalism
  • ontological deflationism
  • doublethink
  • make-believe
  • nonserious acceptance
Accès libre

Zombies Slap Back: why the Anti-Zombie Parody Does Not Work

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 25 - 43

Résumé

Abstract

In his “anti-zombie argument”, Keith Frankish turns the tables on “zombists”, forcing them to find an independent argument against the conceivability of anti-zombies. I argue that zombists can shoulder the burden, for there is an important asymmetry between the conceivability of zombies and the conceivability of anti-zombies, which is reflected in the embedding of a totality-clause under the conceivability operator. This makes the anti-zombie argument susceptible to what I call the ‘Modified Incompleteness’, according to which we cannot conceive of scenarios. In this paper I also argue that conceiving of the zombiesituation is a good starting point for rendering the zombie argument plausible.

Mots clés

  • The zombie argument
  • the anti-zombie argument
  • conceivability
  • scenario
  • situation
Accès libre

Exploitation as Theft vs. Exploitation as Underpayment

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 45 - 59

Résumé

Abstract

Marxists claim capitalists unjustly exploit workers, and this exploitation is to show that workers ought to hold more than they do. This paper presents two accounts of exploitation. The Theft Account claims that capitalists steal some of the value to which workers are entitled. The Underpayment Account holds that capitalists are not entitled to pay workers as little as they do, even if the workers are not entitled to the full value they produce. This paper argues that only the Theft Account can explain why workers ought to hold more than they do. The Underpayment Account cannot yield this conclusion. The Theft Account is superior to the Underpayment Account insofar as exploitation is to be an injustice—a wrong that requires the exploited party to hold more.

Mots clés

  • Marx
  • exploitation
  • theft
  • underpayment
  • entitlements
Accès libre

Opacity, Know-How States, and their Content

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 61 - 83

Résumé

Abstract

The main goal of this paper is to defend the thesis that the content of know-how states is an accuracy assessable type of nonconceptual content. My argument proceeds in two stages. I argue, first, that the intellectualist distinction between types of ways of grasping the same kind of content is uninformative unless it is tied in with a distinction between kinds of contents. Second, I consider and reject the objection that, if the content of know-how states is non-conceptual, it will be mysterious why attributions of knowing how create opaque contexts. I show that the objection conflates two distinct issues: the nature of the content of know-how states and the semantic evaluability of know-how ascriptions.

Mots clés

  • Accuracy conditions
  • intellectualism
  • know-how
  • non-conceptual content
  • opacity
Accès libre

What is Said and What is Not: the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 87 - 91

Résumé

Accès libre

Necessary Beings: an Essay on Ontology, Modality, and the Relations Between Them

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 92 - 100

Résumé

Accès libre

the Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Music

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 100 - 112

Résumé

7 Articles
Accès libre

Names of Attitudes and Norms for Attitudes

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 1 - 24

Résumé

Abstract

Fictionalists claim that instead of believing certain controversial propositions they accept them nonseriously, as useful make-believe. In this way they present themselves as having an austere ontology despite the apparent ontological commitments of their discourse. Some philosophers object that this plays on a distinction without a difference: the fictionalist’s would-be nonserious acceptance is the most we can do for the relevant content acceptance-wise, hence such acceptance is no different from what we ordinarily call ‘belief’ and should be so called. They conclude that it is subject to the norms applicable to paradigmatic empirical beliefs, and hence, pace fictionalists, ontological commitments must be taken seriously. I disentangle three strands in the objector’s thought: the ‘What more can you ask for?’ intuition, a linguistic/conceptual claim, and a claim about norms. I argue that the former two are compatible with ontological deflationism, and therefore do not entail applicability of the norms. Nevertheless, if indeed there is no more robust acceptance with which to contrast the supposed nonserious acceptance, then the fictionalist’s claim to austere ontology must be abandoned. Is there a reason to suppose there is any merit to the distinction-without-a-difference charge? I argue that there is, clarify it, and defend against objections, focusing on Daly 2008.

Mots clés

  • Fictionalism
  • ontological deflationism
  • doublethink
  • make-believe
  • nonserious acceptance
Accès libre

Zombies Slap Back: why the Anti-Zombie Parody Does Not Work

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 25 - 43

Résumé

Abstract

In his “anti-zombie argument”, Keith Frankish turns the tables on “zombists”, forcing them to find an independent argument against the conceivability of anti-zombies. I argue that zombists can shoulder the burden, for there is an important asymmetry between the conceivability of zombies and the conceivability of anti-zombies, which is reflected in the embedding of a totality-clause under the conceivability operator. This makes the anti-zombie argument susceptible to what I call the ‘Modified Incompleteness’, according to which we cannot conceive of scenarios. In this paper I also argue that conceiving of the zombiesituation is a good starting point for rendering the zombie argument plausible.

Mots clés

  • The zombie argument
  • the anti-zombie argument
  • conceivability
  • scenario
  • situation
Accès libre

Exploitation as Theft vs. Exploitation as Underpayment

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 45 - 59

Résumé

Abstract

Marxists claim capitalists unjustly exploit workers, and this exploitation is to show that workers ought to hold more than they do. This paper presents two accounts of exploitation. The Theft Account claims that capitalists steal some of the value to which workers are entitled. The Underpayment Account holds that capitalists are not entitled to pay workers as little as they do, even if the workers are not entitled to the full value they produce. This paper argues that only the Theft Account can explain why workers ought to hold more than they do. The Underpayment Account cannot yield this conclusion. The Theft Account is superior to the Underpayment Account insofar as exploitation is to be an injustice—a wrong that requires the exploited party to hold more.

Mots clés

  • Marx
  • exploitation
  • theft
  • underpayment
  • entitlements
Accès libre

Opacity, Know-How States, and their Content

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 61 - 83

Résumé

Abstract

The main goal of this paper is to defend the thesis that the content of know-how states is an accuracy assessable type of nonconceptual content. My argument proceeds in two stages. I argue, first, that the intellectualist distinction between types of ways of grasping the same kind of content is uninformative unless it is tied in with a distinction between kinds of contents. Second, I consider and reject the objection that, if the content of know-how states is non-conceptual, it will be mysterious why attributions of knowing how create opaque contexts. I show that the objection conflates two distinct issues: the nature of the content of know-how states and the semantic evaluability of know-how ascriptions.

Mots clés

  • Accuracy conditions
  • intellectualism
  • know-how
  • non-conceptual content
  • opacity
Accès libre

What is Said and What is Not: the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 87 - 91

Résumé

Accès libre

Necessary Beings: an Essay on Ontology, Modality, and the Relations Between Them

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 92 - 100

Résumé

Accès libre

the Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Music

Publié en ligne: 31 Dec 2018
Pages: 100 - 112

Résumé

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo