David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 118 (470):369-376 (2009)
Bridges argues that the ‘Transparency Account’ of Kolodny 2005 has a hidden flaw. The TA does not, after all, account for the fact that in our ordinary, engaged thought and talk about rationality, we believe that, when it would be irrational of one of us to refuse to A, he has, because of this, conclusive reason to A. My reply is that this was the point. For reasons given in Kolodny 2005, is false. The aim of the TA is to offer an interpretation of our engaged thought and talk that is compatible with the falsity of and that helps to explain why, when reflecting on our thought and talk, we are so prone to misrepresent what it involves. After making these points, I consider alternative senses in which rationality might be, or be taken by us to be, ‘normative’ and conclude that these alternatives have little bearing on the TA
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Edward Hinchman (2013). Rational Requirements and 'Rational' Akrasia. Philosophical Studies 166 (3):529-552.
Similar books and articles
Niko Kolodny (2003). Love as Valuing a Relationship. Philosophical Review 112 (2):135-189.
Jason Bridges (2009). Rationality, Normativity, and Transparency. Mind 118 (470):353-367.
Niko Kolodny (2005). Why Be Rational? Mind 114 (455):509-563.
John Broome (2007). Wide or Narrow Scope? Mind 116 (462):359-370.
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited. Religious Studies 41 (3):287-303.
H. M. Malm (1989). Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum. Hypatia 4 (3):128-135.
J. Bridges, N. Kolodny & W. Wong (eds.) (forthcoming). The Possibility of Philosophical Understanding: Essays for Barry Stroud. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads59 ( #77,457 of 1,938,821 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #125,144 of 1,938,821 )
How can I increase my downloads?