Volume 14 (2022): Issue 66 (December 2022) Special Issue: Varieties of Context-Sensitivity in a Pluri-Propositionalist Reflexive Semantic Framework
Volume 14 (2022): Issue 65 (November 2022)
Volume 14 (2022): Issue 64 (May 2022)
Volume 13 (2021): Issue 63 (December 2021) Special Issue on Nothing to Come by Correia & Rosenkranz
Volume 13 (2021): Issue 62 (December 2021) Ethics and Aesthetics: Issues at Their Intersection
Volume 13 (2021): Issue 61 (November 2021)
Volume 13 (2021): Issue 60 (May 2021)
Volume 12 (2020): Issue 59 (December 2020)
Volume 12 (2020): Issue 58 (December 2020) SPECIAL ISSUE: ON THE VERY IDEA OF LOGICAL FORM
Volume 12 (2020): Issue 57 (November 2020)
Volume 12 (2020): Issue 56 (May 2020)
Volume 11 (2019): Issue 55 (December 2019) Special Issue: Chalmers on Virtual Reality
Volume 11 (2019): Issue 54 (December 2019) Special Issue: III Blasco Disputatio, Singular terms in fiction. Fictional and “real” names
Volume 11 (2019): Issue 53 (November 2019)
Volume 11 (2019): Issue 52 (May 2019)
Volume 10 (2018): Issue 51 (December 2018) SYMPOSIUM ON JASON STANLEY’S “HOW PROPAGANDA WORKS”
Volume 10 (2018): Issue 50 (December 2018)
Volume 10 (2018): Issue 49 (November 2018)
Volume 10 (2018): Issue 48 (May 2018)
Volume 9 (2017): Issue 47 (December 2017)
Volume 9 (2017): Issue 46 (November 2017)
Volume 9 (2017): Issue 45 (October 2017)
Volume 9 (2017): Issue 44 (May 2017)
Volume 8 (2016): Issue 43 (November 2016)
Volume 8 (2016): Issue 42 (May 2016)
Volume 7 (2015): Issue 41 (November 2015)
Volume 7 (2015): Issue 40 (May 2015)
Volume 6 (2014): Issue 39 (November 2014)
Volume 6 (2014): Issue 38 (May 2014)
Volume 5 (2013): Issue 37 (November 2013)
Volume 5 (2013): Issue 36 (October 2013) Book symposium on François Recanati’s Mental Files
Volume 5 (2013): Issue 35 (May 2013)
Volume 4 (2012): Issue 34 (December 2012)
Volume 4 (2012): Issue 33 (November 2012)
Volume 4 (2012): Issue 32 (May 2012) New Perspectives on Quine’s “Word and Object”
Volume 4 (2011): Issue 31 (November 2011)
Volume 4 (2011): Issue 30 (May 2011) XII Taller d'Investigació en Filosofia
Volume 4 (2010): Issue 29 (November 2010) Petrus Hispanus 2009
Volume 3 (2010): Issue 28 (May 2010)
Volume 3 (2009): Issue 27 (November 2009) Homage to M. S. Lourenço
Volume 3 (2009): Issue 26 (May 2009)
Volume 3 (2008): Issue 25 (November 2008)
Volume 2 (2008): Issue 24 (May 2008)
Volume 2 (2007): Issue 23 (November 2007) Normativity and Rationality
Volume 2 (2007): Issue 22 (May 2007)
Volume 2 (2006): Issue 21 (November 2006)
Volume 1 (2006): Issue 20 (May 2006)
Volume 1 (2005): Issue 19 (November 2005)
Volume 1 (2005): Issue 18 (May 2005)
Volume 1 (2004): Issue 17 (November 2004)
Volume 1 (2004): Issue 16 (May 2004)
Volume 1 (2003): Issue 15 (November 2003)
Volume 1 (2003): Issue 14 (May 2003)
Volume 1 (2002): Issue 13 (November 2002)
Volume 1 (2001): Issue 11 (November 2001)
Volume 1 (2002): Issue 11-12 (May 2002)
Volume 1 (2001): Issue 10 (May 2001)
Volume 1 (2000): Issue 9 (November 2000)
Volume 1 (2000): Issue 8 (May 2000)
Volume 1 (1999): Issue 7 (November 1999)
Volume 1 (1999): Issue 6 (May 1999)
Volume 1 (1998): Issue 5-2 (November 1998) Special Issue: Petrus Hispanus Lectures 1998: o Mental e o Físico, Guest Editors: Joao Branquinho; M. S. Lourenço
Volume 1 (1998): Issue 5-1 (June 1998) Special Issue: Language, Logic and Mind Forum, Guest Editors: Joao Branquinho; M. S. Lourenço
Published Online: 08 Dec 2020 Page range: 137 - 165
Abstract
Abstract
I argue that time travel to the past is impossible, given a certain metaphysical theory, namely, The Dynamic Theory of Time. I first spell out my particular way of capturing the difference between The Dynamic Theory of Time and its rival, The Static Theory of Time. Next I offer four different arguments for the conclusion that The Dynamic Theory is inconsistent with the possibility of time travel to the past. Then I argue that, even if I am wrong about this, it will still be true that The Dynamic Theory entails that you should not want to travel back to the past. Finally, I conclude by considering a puzzle that arises for those who believe that time travel to the past is metaphysically impossible: What exactly are we thinking about when we seem to be thinking about traveling back in time? For it certainly does not feel like we are thinking about something that is metaphysically impossible.
Published Online: 08 Dec 2020 Page range: 167 - 180
Abstract
Abstract
This work offers a challenge to the orthodox view that descriptive rules are non-normative and passive in their role and usage. It does so by arguing that, although lacking in normativity themselves, descriptive rules can be sources of normativity by way of the normative attitudes that can develop around them. That is, although descriptive rules typically depict how things are, they can also play a role in how things ought to be. In this way, the limited role that this type of rule can play as either a basis for the development of normative reasons, or as explanatory reasons for action is identified and clarified. One desirable outcome of the analysis is a more complete view of what descriptive rules are and how they are utilized by agents.
Published Online: 08 Dec 2020 Page range: 181 - 198
Abstract
Abstract
I argue that inquiry can be defined without reference to the attitudes inquirers have during inquiry. Inquiry can instead be defined by its aim: it is the activity that has the aim of answering a question. I call this approach to defining inquiry a “naive” account. I present the naive account of inquiry in contrast to a prominent contemporary account of inquiry most notably defended by Jane Friedman. According to this view of inquiry, which I call an attitude-centric view, inquiry is appropriately defined not by the aim of the activity but by the attitudes that inquirers have during inquiry. After developing the naive view, I defend it against the objection that it collapses into the attitude-centric view.
I argue that time travel to the past is impossible, given a certain metaphysical theory, namely, The Dynamic Theory of Time. I first spell out my particular way of capturing the difference between The Dynamic Theory of Time and its rival, The Static Theory of Time. Next I offer four different arguments for the conclusion that The Dynamic Theory is inconsistent with the possibility of time travel to the past. Then I argue that, even if I am wrong about this, it will still be true that The Dynamic Theory entails that you should not want to travel back to the past. Finally, I conclude by considering a puzzle that arises for those who believe that time travel to the past is metaphysically impossible: What exactly are we thinking about when we seem to be thinking about traveling back in time? For it certainly does not feel like we are thinking about something that is metaphysically impossible.
This work offers a challenge to the orthodox view that descriptive rules are non-normative and passive in their role and usage. It does so by arguing that, although lacking in normativity themselves, descriptive rules can be sources of normativity by way of the normative attitudes that can develop around them. That is, although descriptive rules typically depict how things are, they can also play a role in how things ought to be. In this way, the limited role that this type of rule can play as either a basis for the development of normative reasons, or as explanatory reasons for action is identified and clarified. One desirable outcome of the analysis is a more complete view of what descriptive rules are and how they are utilized by agents.
I argue that inquiry can be defined without reference to the attitudes inquirers have during inquiry. Inquiry can instead be defined by its aim: it is the activity that has the aim of answering a question. I call this approach to defining inquiry a “naive” account. I present the naive account of inquiry in contrast to a prominent contemporary account of inquiry most notably defended by Jane Friedman. According to this view of inquiry, which I call an attitude-centric view, inquiry is appropriately defined not by the aim of the activity but by the attitudes that inquirers have during inquiry. After developing the naive view, I defend it against the objection that it collapses into the attitude-centric view.