Robert Brandom claims that language expressing pro-attitudes makes explicit proprieties of practical inference. This thesis is untenable, especially given certain premises which Brandom himself endorses. Pro-attitude vocabulary has the wrong grammatical structure; other parts of vocabulary do the job he ascribes to pro-attitude vocabulary; the thesis introduces implausible differences between the inferential consequences of desires and intentions, and distorts the interpretation of conditional statements. Rather, I suggest, logical vocabulary can make proprieties of practical inference explicit, just as the inferentialist says it can for theoretical inference. © The Editors of The Philosophical Quarterly, 2003.
CITATION STYLE
White, H. (2003). Brandom on practical reason. Philosophical Quarterly. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9213.00332
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.