Disambiguations:
Bradley N. Seeman [3]Bradley Seeman [1]Brad Seeman [1]
  1.  9
    Bradley N. Seeman (2016). The “Paradox of Self‐Constitution” and Korsgaard's Two Conceptions of Maxims for Action. Metaphilosophy 47 (2):233-250.
    This article argues that Christine Korsgaard gives two accounts of maxims, the identity-priority account and the form-priority account. There is a tension between the accounts because Korsgaard's form-priority maxims account cannot function apart from the identity of a well-formed agent that precedes and tests maxims to determine if they should count as reasons or laws, and Korsgaard's identity-priority maxims account needs the form of the maxim to precede, bind, and constitute the well-formed agent. This tension mirrors the two sides of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  31
    Brad Seeman (2003). What If the Elephant Speaks? Kant's Critique of Judgment and an Übergang Problem in John Hick's Philosophy of Religious Pluralism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 54 (3):157-174.
    In the Critique of Judgment, Kantattempts to unravel the problem of Übergang that threatens his CopernicanRevolution. Having opened up a ``chasm'' betweensensible and supersensible, betweenepistemological and ontological, Kant facesboth the specter of empirical chaos in whichthe noumenal refuses to conform to theunderstanding's attempts to legislate over themanifold of intuition, and the problem offinding a place for freedom to have effectswithin the seamless phenomenal realm ofefficient causality. Central to Kant's attemptto overcome these problems is his notion of theheautonomy of reflective judging, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3.  7
    Bradley N. Seeman (2004). Whose Rationality? Which Cognitive Psychotherapy? International Philosophical Quarterly 44 (2):201-222.
    Richard Brandt’s “Second Puzzle” for utilitarianism asks: What is meant to count as benefit or utility? In addressing this puzzle, Brandt dismisses “objective” theories of utility as prejudging substantive moral issues and opts for “subjective” theories of utility based either on desire-satisfaction or happiness, so as to welcome people with a variety of substantive moral commitments into his utilitarian system. However, subjective theories have difficulties finding principled grounds for elevating one desire over another. Brandt attempts to circumvent the difficulties through (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography