Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Issues 22 (1):316-333 (2012)
|Abstract||An area in the theory of action that has received little attention is how mental agency and world-directed agency interact. The purpose of the present contribution is to clarify the rational conditions of such interaction, through an analysis of the central case of acceptance. There are several problems with the literature about acceptance. First, it remains unclear how a context of acceptance is to be construed. Second, the possibility of conjoining, in acceptance, an epistemic component, which is essentially mind-to-world, and a utility component, which requires a world-to-mind direction of fit, is merely posited rather than derived from the rational structure of acceptance. Finally, the norm of acceptance is generally seen as related to truth, which turns out to be inapplicable in a number of cases. We will argue, first, that the specific context-dependence of acceptances is derived from their being mental actions, each embedded in a complex hierarchy of acceptances composing, together, a planning sequence. Second, that acceptances come in several varieties, corresponding to the specific epistemic norm(s) that constitute them. The selection of a particular norm for accepting answers to considerations of utility – to the association of an epistemic goal with an encompassing world-directed action. Once a type of acceptance is selected, however, the epistemic norm constitutive for that acceptance strictly applies. Third, we argue that context-dependence superimposes a decision criterion on the output of the initial epistemic acceptance. Strategic acceptance is regulated by instrumental norms of expected utility, which may rationally lead an agent to screen off her initial epistemic acceptance.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Raimo Tuomela (2000). Belief Versus Acceptance. Philosophical Explorations 3 (2):122 – 137.
Robert Audi (2006). Testimony as an a Priori Basis of Acceptance: Problems and Prospects. Philosophica 78.
Andrei Buleandra (2009). Doxastic Transparency and Prescriptivity. Dialectica 63 (3):325-332.
Philip Percival (2002). Epistemic Consequentialism. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76 (1):121–151.
Keith Frankish (2009). Adaptive Misbelief or Judicious Pragmatic Acceptance? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (6):520 - 521.
Patrick Maher (1992). Acceptance in Bayesian Philosophy of Science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:153 - 160.
Eleonora Cresto (2010). Belief and Contextual Acceptance. Synthese 177 (1):41-66.
Andrei A. Buckareff (2004). Acceptance and Deciding to Believe. Journal of Philosophical Research 29:173-190.
Jennifer McCrickerd (2001). Moral Judgments and the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction. Journal of Philosophical Research 26:423-433.
Patrick Maher (1990). Acceptance Without Belief. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1990:381 - 392.
Maria Miceli & Cristiano Castelfranchi (2001). Acceptance as a Positive Attitude. Philosophical Explorations 4 (2):112 – 134.
Keith Lehrer (1983). Belief, Acceptance, and Cognition. In Herman Parret (ed.), On Believing. De Gruyter.
Added to index2012-10-08
Total downloads8 ( #131,747 of 722,940 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,863 of 722,940 )
How can I increase my downloads?