David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Normativity is one of the keywords of contemporary philosophical discussions. It is clear that philosophy has to do not only with theories, but also with norms (especially in ethics); but more and more current philosophers are busy arguing that, in addition, those parts of philosophy where norms are prima facie not in high focus, such as philosophy of language or philosophy of mind, have kinds of "normative dimensions". However, not everybody subscribes to this enthusiasm for normativity. Within philosophy, there is, for example, an ongoing fierce discussion between 'normativists' and 'anti-normativists' about the normativity of meaning1 . A similar, thought I think both much broader and much deeper discussion concerning normativity has been launched within the context of philosophical and scientific accounts for human societies. Should we, explaining how a society works, merely state the facts concerning the behavior of the members of the society in the way natural scientists describe the behavior of ants in an anthill, or how they describe the 'behavior' of particles in an atom, or do we, over and above this, need to take a recourse to some 'normative facts'? This dispute, of course, partly reincarnates of traditional debate about the differences between Geisteswissenschaften and Naturwissenschaften as we know it from Dilthey, Schleimermacher or Max Weber; in this very specific form it, however, acquires a rather 2 transparent shape, in which it seems it might be resolvable by critical scrutiny . The current dispute is fuelled by the anti-normativists' rejection of normativism as the general claim that to account for human societies (and their products, such as meanings), we need to account for something over and above ordinary, causal, scientific facts; whereas the 'normativists' argue that to have a truly explanatory account of human societies, human languages or human practices we cannot make do stating what there is – that in some sense we need to say something about what ought to be..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Krist Vaesen (2006). How Norms in Technology Ought to Be Interpreted. Techne 10 (1):117-133.
John Fennell (2013). “The Meaning of 'Meaning is Normative' ”. Philosophical Investigations 36 (1):56-78.
Sergei Gepshtein (2009). Closing the Gap Between Ideal and Real Behavior: Scientific Vs. Engineering Approaches to Normativity. Philosophical Psychology 22 (1):61 – 75.
Julia Tanney (1999). Normativity and Judgment II. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73 (73):45-61.
Julia Tanney (1999). Normativity and Judgement. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 73 (1):17 - 61.
Ken O'Day (1998). Normativity and Interpersonal Reasons. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1 (1):61-87.
David Enoch (2011). Reason-Giving and the Law. In Leslie Green & Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
Christine Tappolet & Alan Voizard (2011). The Philosophy of Normativity, or How to Try Clearing Things Up a Little. Dialogue 50 (02):233-238.
Claude Debru (2011). The Concept of Normativity From Philosophy to Medicine: An Overview. Medicine Studies 3 (1):1-7.
Adolf Rami (2005). Über Die Sogenannte Normativität der Bedeutung. Grazer Philosophische Studien 68 (1):81-117.
David Copp (1995). Morality, Normativity, and Society. Oxford University Press.
Kathrin Glüer & Åsa Wikforss (2009). Against Content Normativity. Mind 118 (469):31-70.
Chase Wrenn (2004). Hypothetical and Categorical Epistemic Normativity. Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):273-290.
Added to index2011-06-08
Total downloads19 ( #73,427 of 1,005,066 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,743 of 1,005,066 )
How can I increase my downloads?