Abstract

In this work, I try to further specify what practical coherence should amount to. Any account of practical reasoning ought to be able to say something about how we ought to go about specifying our goals. One possibility is coherence theory. But coherence theory as it is normally conceived cannot be sufficient for rationality. Practical reasoning, which takes place over time, poses special difficulties for the coherence theorist. There is a danger that unless coherence theory has some element of stability over time, we will chase coherence at our peril, as what counts as the most coherent theory changes radically with even minor changing circumstances. However, sometimes these paradigm shifts can work to our advantage, by allowing us to see the world in new, unanticipated ways. Therefore, it's important that we remain flexible and open to change early on. A proper view of the early stages of plan development will help us to remain flexible, while at the same time answering some traditional objections to coherence theory. On the other hand, later stages of planning will require a certain amount of inertia and stability. ;I do not propose any radical new theory of coherence. Rather, I merely try to further specify what coherence amounts to---a task that needs to be done, as the term 'coherence' is still bandied about in a variety of ways, without much being done to spell out exactly what it's supposed to be. At the same time, I try to say something about what the proper specification of ends is like, and how such specification can be informed by coherence considerations. Hopefully my remarks will help to further a rough sketch of what both specification and coherence should look like