J.L. Mackie insists that ordinary evaluative thought presents itself as a matter of sensitivity to aspects of the world. And this phenomenological thesis seems correct. When one or another variety of philosophical non-cognitivism claims to capture the truth about what the experience of value is like, or (in a familiar surrogate for phenomenology) about what we mean by our evaluative language, the claim is never based on careful attention to the lived character of evaluative thought or discourse. The idea is, (...) rather, that the very concept of the cognitive or factual rules out the possibility of an undiluted representation of how things are, enjoying, nevertheless, the internal relation to 'attitudes' or the will that would be needed to count as evaluative. On this view the phenomenology of value would involve a mere incoherence, if it were as Mackie says--a possibility that then tends (naturally enough) not to be so much as entertained. But, as Mackie sees, there is no satisfactory justification for supposing that the factual is, by definition, attitudinatively and motivationally neutral. This clears away the only obstacle to accepting his phenomenological claim; and the upshot is that non-cognitivism must offer to correct the phenomenology of value, rather than give an account of it. -/- In Machie's view the correction is called for. In this paper I want to suggest that he attributes an unmerited plausibility to this thesis, by giving a false picture of what one is committed to if one resists it. (shrink)

Challenging the fashionable belief that the Constitution should be interpreted in relation to the times, the distinguished contributors to Our Peculiar Security argue that the Constitution has a dual character. On the one hand it is law, in a binding and judicially enforceable sense. On the other hand, it is a decidedly political document.

(NOTE: This is a transcript of the class. FOR THE FULL PAPER please click on "Maxson J McDowell" above.) An edited transcript of an experiment performed within a class on dream interpretation. Knowing only the dreamer’s age and gender, we interpreted his dream from its text. Our interpretation included predictions about the dreamer's psychological issues, and about his defenses. It also identified a series of jokes within the dream which would tend to penetrate the dreamer's defenses. When we had (...) finished our 'blind' interpretation, the bringer of the dream gave us more information about the dreamer against which we tested the accuracy of our predictions. A paper on this experiment has been submitted for publication. (shrink)

(NOTE: This is a transcript of the class. FOR THE FULL PAPER, please click on "Maxson J. McDowell".) A complete transcript of an experiment performed within a class on dream interpretation. Knowing only the dreamers age and gender, we interpreted his dream from its text. Our interpretation included predictions about the dreamer's psychological issues, and about his defenses. It also identified a series of jokes within the dream which would tend to penetrate the dreamer's defenses. When we had finished (...) our 'blind' interpretation, the bringer of the dream gave us more information about the dreamer against which we tested the accuracy of our predictions. A paper on this experiment has been submitted for publication. A link to an AUDIO-RECORDING of this class is given on the first page of this transcript. (shrink)

L’esprit et le monde est un classique de la philosophie contemporaine. Il montre qu’il n’est pas possible de prendre position sur les questions traditionnelles de la philosophie sans un travail technique sur des points précis. Conciliant la rigueur des enquêtes conceptuelles selon la méthode analytique et des vues synthétiques plus coutumières de la philosophie dite « continentale », John McDowell se revendique aussi bien de Wittgenstein que de Gadamer, de Sellars que de Marx, pour proposer une philosophie de la (...) « seconde nature », restituant ainsi la philosophie analytique dans l’enjeu, naguère accaparé par l’herméneutique, de la définition de la philosophie comme « science de la compréhension ». (shrink)

Un fondement putatif dunon-cognitivisme à propos des valeurs, réside dans une conception qui voudrait que les descriptions du monde soient intelligibles sans se placer à un point de vue spécial, là où les assignations de valeur seraient par essence effectuées du sein d’une forme de vie affectivement et conativement informée (§ 1). J’émets plus que des réserves quant à l’idée qu’on puisse faire passer une suite d’applications d’un concept axiologique pour des cas de continuer de la même manière, sur un (...) mode qui soit cohérent avec ce genre de non-cognitivisme, en les expliquant comme une suite de réponses à des instances d’une espèce identifiable sur un mode non-axiologique (§ 2). L’examen par Wittgenstein de ce que c’est que suivre une règle sape l’un des motifs de supposer que l’application d’un concept axiologique ne saurait avoir d’autre cohérence qu’une cohérence de ce genre (§ 3). Je m’attache au lien que cela a avec un argument récurrent qui argue de ce que les jugements moraux sont des guides de l’action pour préconiser le non-cognitivisme (§ 4). Je conclus par la recommandation suivante : cette conception de la cohérence de la pensée axiologique ne saurait être aisément désavouée par les partisans du non cognitivisme (§ 5). (shrink)

Propose le concept de seconde nature, selon lequel l'être humain engage ses capacités naturelles dans la connaissance, la moralité, la perception et le langage.

Un fondement putatif dunon-cognitivisme à propos des valeurs, réside dans une conception qui voudrait que les descriptions du monde soient intelligibles sans se placer à un point de vue spécial, là où les assignations de valeur seraient par essence effectuées du sein d’une forme de vie affectivement et conativement informée (§ 1). J’émets plus que des réserves quant à l’idée qu’on puisse faire passer une suite d’applications d’un concept axiologique pour des cas de continuer de la même manière, sur un (...) mode qui soit cohérent avec ce genre de non-cognitivisme, en les expliquant comme une suite de réponses à des instances d’une espèce identifiable sur un mode non-axiologique (§ 2). L’examen par Wittgenstein de ce que c’est que suivre une règle sape l’un des motifs de supposer que l’application d’un concept axiologique ne saurait avoir d’autre cohérence qu’une cohérence de ce genre (§ 3). Je m’attache au lien que cela a avec un argument récurrent qui argue de ce que les jugements moraux sont des guides de l’action pour préconiser le non-cognitivisme (§ 4). Je conclus par la recommandation suivante : cette conception de la cohérence de la pensée axiologique ne saurait être aisément désavouée par les partisans du non cognitivisme (§ 5). (shrink)

In previous work I urged that the perceptual experience we rational animals enjoy is informed by capacities that belong to our rationality, and - in passing - that something similar holds for our intentional action. In his Presidential Address, Hubert Dreyfus argued that I thereby embraced a myth, "the Myth of the Mental". According to Dreyfus, I cannot accommodate the phenomenology of unreflective bodily coping, and its importance as a background for the conceptual capacities exercised in reflective intellectual activity. My (...) paper responds to this accusation. Dreyfus misreads my invocation of Aristotle, and is thereby led to suppose, wrongly, that I conceive rationality as detached, brought to bear on practical predicaments from a standpoint other than one of immersion in them. I urge that even unreflective bodily coping, on the part of rational animals, is informed by their rationality. Dreyfus mentions Heidegger’s distinction, which is picked up by Gadamer, between being oriented towards the world and merely inhabiting an environment. But he sets it aside, whereas it is crucial for the issue between us. Engaged bodily coping involves responsiveness to affordances, and responsiveness to affordances on the part of rational animals belongs to their relation to the world. I explain how the idea that conceptual capacities are actualized in our perceptual experience is connected with the thought that our perceptual experience opens us to the world. Finally, I suggest that the real myth in this area is the conception of rationality underlying Dreyfus’s resistance to my picture. (shrink)

Back in 1950, while a physics major at Harvard, I wandered into C.I. Lewis’s epistemology course. There, Lewis was confidently expounding the need for an indubitable Given to ground knowledge, and he was explaining where that ground was to be found. I was so impressed that I immediately switched majors from ungrounded physics to grounded philosophy.

Can we accept John McDowell’s Kantian claim that perception is conceptual “all the way out,” thereby denying the more basic perceptual capacities we seem to share with prelinguistic infants and higher animals? More generally, can philosophers successfully describe the conceptual upper floors of the edifice of knowledge while ignoring the embodied coping going on on the ground floor? I argue that we shouldn’t leave the conceptual component of our lives hanging in midair and suggest how philosophers who want to (...) understand knowledge and action can profit from a phenomenological analysis of the nonconceptual embodied coping skills we share with animals and infants, as well as the nonconceptual immediate intuitive understanding exhibited by experts. (shrink)

McDowell's claim that "in mature human beings, embodied coping is permeated with mindedness",1 suggests a new version of the mentalist myth which, like the others, is untrue to the phenomenon. The phenomena show that embodied skills, when we are fully absorbed in enacting them, have a kind of non-mental content that is non-conceptual, non-propositional, non-rational and non-linguistic. This is not to deny that we can monitor our activity while performing it. For solving problems, learning a new skill, receiving coaching, (...) and so forth, such monitoring is invaluable. But monitoring what we are doing as we are doing it degrades performance to at best competence. On McDowell's view, there is no way to account for such a degradation in performance since the same sort of content would be involved whether we were fully absorbed in or paying attention to what we were doing. McDowell claims that it is an advantage of his conceptualism that it avoids any foundationalist attempt to build up the objective world on the basis of an indubitable Given or any other ground-floor experience. And, indeed, if the world is all that is the case and our minds are unproblematically open to it, all experience is on the same footing. But one must distinguish motor intentionality, and the interrelated solicitations our coping body is intertwined with, from conceptual intentionality and the world of propositional structures it opens onto. The existential phenomenologist can then agree with McDowell in rejecting traditional foundationalisms, while yet affirming and describing the ground-floor role of motor intentionality in providing the support on which all forms of conceptual intentionality are based. (shrink)

In Discovering Levinas, Michael L. Morgan shows how this thinker faces in novel and provocative ways central philosophical problems of twentieth-century philosophy and religious thought. He tackles this task by placing Levinas in conversation with philosophers such as Donald Davidson, Stanley Cavell, John McDowell, Onora O'Neill, Charles Taylor, and Cora Diamond. He also seeks to understand Levinas within philosophical, religious, and political developments in the history of twentieth-century intellectual culture. Morgan demystifies Levinas by examining his unfamiliar and surprising vocabulary, (...) interpreting texts with an eye to clarity, and arguing that Levinas can be understood as a philosopher of the everyday. Morgan also shows that Levinas's ethics is not morally and politically irrelevant nor is it excessively narrow and demanding in unacceptable ways. Neither glib dismissal nor fawning acceptance, this book provides a sympathetic reading that can form a foundation for a responsible critique. (shrink)

The paper develops an account of semantic notions which occupies a middle ground between antirealism and traditional forms of realism, using some ideas from the work of John McDowell. The position is based on a contrast between two points of view from which we might attempt to characterize our linguistic practices from the cosmic exile s point of view and from the midst of language as a going concern. The contrast is drawn in terms of whether our characterization of (...) our linguistic practices is taken to result from engagement in the very same practices that we are trying to characterize. The position takes realism to be correct when understood as an account from the internal perspective, but incorrect when taken as an account from the external perspective. However, the intelligibility of the question as to what our practices would look like from the cosmic exile s point of view is presented as problematic. (shrink)

The paper deals with the interpretation of Wittgenstein's views on the power of occurrent mental states to sort objects or states of affairs as in accord or in conflict with them, as presented in the rule-following passages of the Philosophical Investigations. I shall argue first that the readings advanced by Saul Kripke and John McDowell fail to provide a satisfactory construal of Wittgenstein's treatment of a platonist account of this phenomenon, according to which the sorting power of occurrent mental (...) states is to be explained by reference to the mind's ability to grasp universals. I contend that the argument that Kripke extracts from Wittgenstein's discussion doesn't succeed in undermining the platonist position. Then I argue that McDowell's reading exhibits a more serious shortcoming: the position that he ascribes to Wittgenstein is indistinguishable from the platonist account. Then I put forward a proposal as to how to articulate the relationship between Wittgenstein's views and the platonist position. (shrink)

If you want to understand McDowell's spatial metaphors when he talks about perceptual knowledge, place him side-by-side with Dretske on perceptual knowledge. Though McDowell shows no evidence of reading Dretske's writings on knowledge from the late 1960s onwards (McDowell mentions "Epistemic Operators" once in passing), McDowell gives the same four arguments as Dretske for the conclusion that knowledge requires "conclusive" reasons that rule of the possibility of mistake. Despite various differences, we think it is best to (...) read McDowell as re-discovering Dretske on perceptual knowledge. Since Dretske is easy to understand, all of McDowell's metaphors become easy to understand. But what about McDowell's disjunctivism? Turns out McDowell is not an ontological disjunctivist, and his epistemological disjunctivism is really just the banal point that some perceptual experiences provide conclusive reasons for perceptual belief and some do not. Perceptual experiences are either conclusive or inconclusive. Dretske would agree. (shrink)

An account of predicate reference is presented which attempts to steer a middle course between reductionism, which construes the notion in terms of speakers' inclinations, and {transcendent) realism, which construes the notion in terms of properties. It is first introduced in the context of a discussion of the accounts of length (distance) advanced by Hans Reichenbach, Adolf Grünbaum and Hilary Putnam. A general account of predicate reference is then developed that explains the notion in terms of speakers' inclinations, while rejecting (...) the idea that this explanation should take the form of a reduction. The view is presented as a vindication of extreme nominalism, as it explains predicate reference solely in terms of the notion of qualia introduced by C.I. Lewis and developed by Nelson Goodman, which, it is argued, is definable in terms of speakers' classificatory propensities. Some connections are explored between the position that is presented and the views of Michael Dummett, John McDowell, Mark Johnston and Hilary Putnam, among others. (shrink)

Hilary Putnam and John McDowell have each argued against representational realist theories of perception and in favor of direct realist (or “common-sense realist”) alternatives. I claim that in both cases they beg the question against their representational realist opponents. Moreover, in neither case has any alternative been offered to the representational realist position where the solution to perceptual or demonstrative versions of Frege’s problem is concerned. In this paper I present a transcendental argument that some of our perceptions of (...) external objects must be direct in the sense that we perceive them and there is nothing else we perceive in virtue of which we do so. I also present a reply to standard objections to the claim that transcendental arguments can be used to support conclusions about the world and not simply about our own use of concepts. Finally, I present a theory in terms of which the relevant Frege problems can be solved without appeal to any of the sorts of representations in terms of which representational realism is defined. (shrink)

_ Virtue Ethics_ collects, for the first time, the main classical sources and the central contemporary expressions of virtue ethics approach to normative ethical theory. Edited and introduced by Stephen Darwall, these readings are essential for anyone interested in normative theory. Introduced by Stephen Darwall, this collection brings together classic and contemporary readings which define and advance the literature on virtue ethics. Includes six essays which respond to the classic sources. Includes a contemporary discussion on character and virtue by Gary (...) Watson. Includes classic essays by Aristotle, Francis Hutcheson and David Hume, and recent reactions to this work by philosophers including Philippa Foot, John McDowell, Alasdair MacIntyre, Annette Baier, Rosalind Hursthouse, and Michael Slote. (shrink)

Against various detractors , this book develops a foundationalist theory of epistemic justification. In contrast with Laurence BonJour and borrowing from John McDowell, the essential argument is that conceptualized perpetual experience provides a non-doxastic foundation for perceptual beliefs about physical objects.

This book compares Hume with Mencius, a fourth-century B.C.E. Chinese Confucian thinker, and according to his introduction, Liu aims to use Mencius and Hume to articulate and defend a particular meta-ethical position. This meta-ethical position, which he calls “Mencius-Hume moral theory”, is intended as an improved version of the so-called “sensibility theory” advocated by David Wiggins and John McDowell. The book is thus a work of constructive meta-ethics. However, Liu also resolutely defends particular interpretations of Mencius and Hume. Hence, (...) he may appear to be offering equally a historical study, but for reasons discussed below, the book is less convincing as a historical study and is instead best approached as a constructive enterprise. (shrink)

"Publié en 1994, traduit chez Vrin en 2007, L'esprit et le monde de John McDowell n'a cessé de susciter des débats dans le monde philosophique anglo-saxon, sur l'esprit, la connaissance, le langage et la nature, contribuant à définir de nouvelles questions. Pour la première fois, cette oeuvre, qui emprunte aussi bien à Wittgenstein, Strawson et Davidson qu'à Kant et Hegel, et tente de dépasser l'opposition traditionnelle entre la philosophie dite "continentale" et la philosophie dite "analytique", fait l'objet d'une lecture (...) critique en France. Les contributions ici rassemblées, ainsi que les réponses de John McDowell, font suite à une "première vague" de commentaires critiques qui lui furent adressés et qui le conduisirent à s'expliquer sur ses thèses et à en modifier légèrement quelques-unes (comme la thèse du contenu conceptuel de la perception). On trouvera ici, dans les différentes contributions, un éclairage sur les raisons et les portées de cette critique, et, dans les réponses, des formulations pour la plupart tout à fait inédites de McDowell."--Page 4 de la couverture. (shrink)

Les remarques qui vont suivre n?ont pas pour objectif de dire positive­ment ce qu? est l?intentionnalité, et nous voudrions seulement, de façon plus modeste, contribuer à l?examen d?un des problèmes fondamentaux que sou­lève cette notion, en posant la question de savoir ce que l?intentionnalité doit être pour que nous puissions en parler, c?est-à-dire pour qu?un discours descriptif puisse se donner une prise sur elle. Cette question, nous l?emprun­tons de façon un peu détournée à un livre récent de John McDowell, (...) Having the world in view , dans le contexte duquel il nous faut d?abord essayer de la resituer. Dans le dernier texte de cet ouvrage 1 , McDowell commente la lecture que Wilfrid Sellars avait proposée de la Critique de la raison pure , et il revient significativement à cette occasion sur les reproches que lui-même avait adressés à Kant quelques années plus tôt, dans Mind and World . McDowell en vient alors à opposer, sur un modèle qui rappelle très fortement la distinction classique entre oratio recta et oratio obliqua , notre façon habi­tuelle de parler du monde d?un côté, et, de l?autre, une façon proprement philosophique (que McDowell nomme également « transcendantale ») de faire usage du discours pour analyser ce rapport au monde qui se noue dans notre pratique ordinaire du langage. Lorsque nous affirmons quelque chose du monde, que nous discutons de tel ou tel sujet, que nous nous. (shrink)

John McDowell and Hubert L. Dreyfus are philosophers of world renown, whose work has decisively shaped the fields of analytic philosophy and phenomenology respectively. Mind, Reason, and Being-in-the-World: The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate opens with their debate over one of the most important and controversial subjects of philosophy: is human experience pervaded by conceptual rationality, or does experience mark the limits of reason? Is all intelligibility rational, or is there a form of intelligibility at work in our skilful bodily rapport (...) with the world that eludes our intellectual capacities? McDowell and Dreyfus provide a fascinating insight into some fundamental differences between analytic philosophy and phenomenology, as well as areas where they may have something in common. Fifteen specially commissioned chapters by distinguished international contributors enrich the debate inaugurated by McDowell and Dreyfus, taking it in a number of different and important directions. Fundamental philosophical problems discussed include: the embodied mind, subjectivity and self-consciousness, intentionality, rationality, practical skills, human agency, and the history of philosophy from Kant to Hegel to Heidegger to Merleau-Ponty. With the addition of these outstanding contributions, Mind, Reason, and Being-in-the-World is essential reading for students and scholars of analytic philosophy and phenomenology. (shrink)

Philosophers debate whether all, some or none of the represcntational content of our sensory experience is conccptual, but the technical term "concept" has different uses. It is commonly linked more or less closely with the notions of judgdment and reasoning, but that leaves open the possibility that these terms share a systematic ambiguity or indeterminacy. Donald Davidson, however, holds an unequivocal and consistent, if paradoxical view that there are strictly speaking no psychological states with representational or intentional content except the (...) propositional attitudes of language users, since thc source or fundamental bearer of intentionality is the employed sentence. Accordingly he claims that what has content in ordinary sense experience is not sensation, but propositional belief caused, but not justified, by sensation. John McDowell, sharing some ofDavidson's premises,holds a less paradoxical, but (l will argue) equivocal and incoherent view that post-infantile human sensory expcrience must have content in so far as it is what grounds perceptual belief but that this content is itself conceptual or propositional, dependent on language and culture. Reasons are givcn in the present article for rejecting both views, and their common premises. It is argued that perceptual or sensory states have intentional content which is no more conceptual or propositional than the world is. Recognition that perceptual content and conceptual content are, in a certain unsurprising way incommensurable allows for a more realistic understanding of the relationship between Language and the world as we experience it. (shrink)