In the conclusion to this multi-part article I first review the discussions carried out around the six essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis – the position taken by Allen Frances on each question, the commentaries on the respective question along with Frances’ responses to the commentaries, and my own view of the multiple discussions. In this review I emphasize that the core question is the first – what is the nature of psychiatric illness – and that in some manner (...) all further questions follow from the first. Following this review I attempt to move the discussion forward, addressing the first question from the perspectives of natural kind analysis and complexity analysis. This reflection leads toward a view of psychiatric disorders – and future nosologies – as far more complex and uncertain than we have imagined. (shrink)

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role (...) of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances. (shrink)

Public education is not just a way to organise and fund education. It is also the expression of a particular ideal about education and of a particular way to conceive of the relationship between education and society. The ideal of public education sees education as an important dimension of the common good and as an important institution in securing the common good. The common good is never what individuals or particular groups want or desire, but always reaches beyond such particular (...) desires towards that which societies as a whole should consider as desirable. This does, of course, put the common good in tension with the desires of individuals and groups. Neo-liberal modes of governance have, over the past decades, put this particular educational set up under pressure and have, according to some, eroded the very idea of the common good. This set of contributions reflects on this state of affairs, partly through an exploration of the idea of publicness itself – how it can be rearticulated and regained – and partly through reflections on the current state of education in the ‘north’ and the ‘south.’. (shrink)

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role (...) of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances. (shrink)

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role (...) of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part 1 of this article took up the first two questions. Part 2 took up the second two questions. Part 3 now deals with Questions 5 & 6. Question 5 confronts the issue of utility, whether the manual design of DSM-III and IV favors clinicians or researchers, and what that means for DSM-5. Our final question, Question 6, takes up a concluding issue, whether the acknowledged problems with the earlier DSMs warrants a significant overhaul of DSM-5 and future manuals. As in Parts 1 & 2 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The technological revolution has created enormous opportunities for the provision of affordable, accessible, and flexible mental healthcare. Yet it also creates complexities and ethical challenges. While some of these challenges may be similar to face-to-face care, their nuance in the online milieu is different, as relationships, identities and boundaries in this setting are fluid, and there is an absence of physical presence. In this paper we consider the specific ethical complexities involved in the provision of a social networking intervention (...) for depression and problematic alcohol use involving providers and peers. We present a case in which clinicians encountered a participant who repeatedly expressed suicidal thoughts in this online forum, and reflect on how this situation was managed. In analyzing this case, we use relational ethics—which proposes that interpersonal relationships are the fulcrum for ethical decision-making and action—together with actor-network theory—which highlights the power of technology to transform and mediate social and ethical relationships. Our analysis demonstrates the need to move beyond human-centric approaches, to recognize the role of both human and non-human actors in shaping moral decisions and behavior in the provision of e-mental healthcare. (shrink)

En 1955, Hannah Arendt enseigne (principalement les théories politiques européennes) durant un semestre à l’université de Berkeley. Elle est arrivée en mai 1941 à New York, après avoir connu le Vel d’Hiv (avant la grande rafle) puis le camp d’internement de Gurs en France durant les plus éprouvantes semaines de sa vie. Cela lui inspirera le grand article « Werefugees » paru en janvier 1943 dans le n° 31 de la revue Menorah 1,consacré aux Juifs européens avant le nazisme (...) et sous Hitler, puis les pages sur les Sans-Droits et leurs droits dans le deuxième volume, L’Impérialisme, de la trilogie sur le totalitarisme qui assura sa renommée aux États-Unis. Ses positions sur l’apatridie seront reprises dans la Yale Law Review dans une discussion sur « L’expatriation act » de 1954, utilisées encore en 1957 contre ce dernier par le président de la Cour suprême (Earl Warren) qui le conteste comme fondement d’une décision de justice. Le 22 avril 1955, elle jette sur le papier les grandes lignes d’une conférence à venir sur cette condition spécifique des sans-États. (shrink)

Spoiled Distinctions investigates crises of evaluation in twentieth-century France. Taking Marcel Proust as its central figure, the book theorizes the disorienting force of everyday aesthetic experience. In a series of surprising readings, Hannah Freed-Thall frees Proust from his reputation as the most refined of high modernists. The author of In Search of Lost Time appears here as a journalist and newspaper enthusiast, a literary ventriloquist and connoisseur of popular scandals, and a writer attentive to the unsophisticated phenomenology of the (...) here and now.The final chapters of the book consider the legacy of Proust's experiments with inestimable worth. Authors Francis Ponge, Nathalie Sarraute, and Yasmina Reza also explore the underside of cultural distinction. With Proust, they elaborate modernist variations on the beautiful and sublime--from nuance to the "whatever" and from the awkward to the sickly-sweet. Spoiled Distinctions thus revitalizes the critical discourse on aesthetics. Mapping the intersection of phenomenology, aesthetic theory, and the sociology of culture, the book reveals how enchanting the ordinary can be. (shrink)

In this volume leading historians and anthropologists with an interest in law gather to analyse the nature and meaning of law in diverse societies. They start from the concept of legalism, taken from the anthropologist Lloyd Fallers, whose 1960s work on Africa engaged, unusually, with jurisprudence. The concept highlights appeal to categories and rules. The degree to which legalism in this sense informs people's lives varies within and between societies, and over time, but it can colour equally both 'simple' and (...) 'complex' law. Breaking with recent emphases on 'practice', nine specialist contributors explore, in a wide-ranging set of cases, the place of legalism in the workings of social life. The essays make obvious the need to question our parochial common sense where ideals of moral order at other times and places differ from those of modern North Atlantic governance. State-centred law, for instance, is far from a 'central case'. Legalism may be 'aspirational', connecting people to wider visions of morality; duty may be as prominent a theme as rights; and rulers from thirteenth-century England to sixteenth-century Burma appropriate, as much they impose, a vision of justice as consistency. The use of explicit categories and rules does not reduce to simple questions of power. The cases explored range from ancient Asia Minor to classical India, and from medieval England and France to Saharan oases and southern Arabia. In each case they assume no knowledge of the society or legal system discussed. The volume will appeal not only to historians and anthropologists with an interest in law, but to students of law engaged in legal theory, for the light it sheds on the strengths and limitations of abstract legal philosophy."--Publisher's description. (shrink)

Contre l'effrayante puissance d'anéantissement de l'idéologie mise au service de la tyrannie, Kostas Papaïoannou défendit les droits de la pensée critique. Contemporain d'Hannah Arendt, proche de Raymond Aron et d'Octavio Paz, il décrivit les rouages du totalitarisme et éclaira la condition de l'homme moderne. Lire Papaïoannou, ce n'est pas seulement se plonger au coeur de la pensée de Hegel, de Marx, lire Papaïoannou, c'est aussi et surtout retrouver la source fraîche et brûlante de la Grèce antique, le chaos et (...) la vigueur d'une pensée extraordinairement créative. (shrink)

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) is likely to be the first woman to join the canon of the great philosophers. Arendt's work has attracted a huge volume of scholarship. This collection reprints papers from the USA, Germany, France and the UK, where further scholarly work is emerging at an increasing pace. Given that there was vigorous debate of her work in her lifetime, that there have since been several waves of evaluation and re-evaluation, and because a new generation of scholars is (...) now coming to her work, a systematic collection of the critical assessments of her thought is extremely timely. (shrink)

Après Condition de l'homme moderne et La crise de la culture, l'essai De la révolution (1963) est le troisième ouvrage d'une série dans laquelle Hannah Arendt expose le nouveau paradigme du politique qu'elle entend développer ainsi qu'un nouveau paradigme de la révolution. Dans un contexte de Guerre froide, elle propose de tirer les leçons de l'histoire en opposant ce qu'elle nomme le "désastre" de la Révolution française aux leçons d'une révolution supposée réussie, incarnée par la "Déclaration des droits" américaine. (...) Les contributions des historiens et philosophes réunies dans ce volume, analysent la manière dont Arendt instrumentalise l'histoire des Révolutions américaine et française et se détermine par rapport à la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen. Elles étudient également la place qu'Arendt attribue au peuple au cours de ces processus et dans quel esprit elle se réfère, dans le dernier chapitre de son essai de 1963, aux "conseils" révolutionnaires. La formule arendtienne du "droit à avoir des droits" amorce-t-elle, comme certains le soutiennent aujourd'hui, un tournant politique dans la considération des droits de l'homme? Ne représente-t-elle pas plutôt une machine de guerre contre la notion même de droit naturel, qui se trouve au fondement de ces droits? Dès lors, que reste-t-il de l'idée d'humanité dans la perspective construite par Arendt?"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Assaulting Hannah Arendt: the banality of criticism -- Hannah and Heidegger: once more into the tangled web of emotions and politics -- Hannah Arendt: juridical critic of totalitarianism -- Totalitarian visions of the good society -- The revolutionary experience in France and America -- Making political philosophy -- Open societies and free minds -- Hannah's choice: social science or political philosophy -- Beyond totalitarianism: Hannah Arendt as radical conservative.

Hans-Georg GADAMER, Hermeneutische Entwürfe. Vorträge und Aufsätze ; Pascal MICHON, Poétique d’une anti-anthropologie: l’herméneutique deGadamer ; Robert J. DOSTAL, The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer ; Denis SERON, Le problème de la métaphysique. Recherches sur l’interprétation heideggerienne de Platon et d’Aristote ; Henry MALDINEY, Ouvrir le rien. L’art nu ; Dominique JANICAUD, Heidegger en France, I. Récit; II. Entretiens ; Maurice MERLEAU-PONTY, Fenomenologia percepţiei ; Trish GLAZEBROOK, Heidegger’s Philosophy of Science ; Richard WOLIN, Heidegger’s Children. Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans (...) Jonas and Herbert Marcuse ; Ivo DEGENNARO, Logos – Heidegger liest Heraklit ; O. K. WIEGAND, R. J. DOSTAL, L. EMBREE, J. KOCKELMANS and J. N. MOHANTY, Phenomenology on Kant, German Idealism, Hermeneutics and Logic ; James FAULCONER and Mark WRATHALL, Appropriating Heidegger. (shrink)

Ce livre étudie comment la philosophe Hannah Arendt pense la cité, ou encore le politique, cette dimension essentielle de la vie des hommes. Cheminant dans la tradition, avec des penseurs politiques comme Machiavel, Montesquieu et Tocqueville, Arendt bouleverse les rapports entre philosophie et politique. La pensée politique telle qu'elle la définit, en opposition à la philosophie politique classique, doit recevoir ses normes de l'expérience : le discours est second et puise à l'événement. Née en 1906 en Allemagne où elle (...) s'est formée à la philosophie, juive, exilée en France puis aux États-Unis, Hannah Arendt a été projetée dans l'étude de la pensée politique par la force de l'histoire. Longtemps considérée comme une historienne, une journaliste ou une essayiste, Hannah Arendt est désormais reconnue comme penseur central du XXe siècle. Il s'agit de comprendre à la fois le travail théorique qu'elle a mené et sa revendication d'être, non pas une « philosophe », mais une théoricienne du politique. Sa volonté de pratiquer la philosophie en se situant hors champ n'est pas une simple critique de la tradition : elle inaugure une nouvelle manière de philosopher, où l'expérimentation conceptuelle ouvre de nouveaux champs pour la pensée. (shrink)

Peut-on mieux caractériser autrement Hannah Arendt que par la passion de comprendre, par cette large appétence à saisir l'inédit du monde dans toute sa complexité? Introduite en France depuis une vingtaine d'années seulement, la philosophe, qui a toujours entretenu un rapport tumultueux avec la philosophie, y est considérée aujourd'hui comme un auteur majeur grâce à des ouvrages comme Les Origines du totalitarisme, La Crise de la culture ou La Condition de l'homme moderne. On ne cesse de la citer, de (...) la lire ou de s'y référer, tant dans le domaine philosophique que dans les sciences politiques ou sociales. Mais comment connaître davantage son itinéraire Intellectuel et l'articulation d'une pensée forte, qui touche à des domaines aussi divers? Comment percevoir les intuitions clés d'Hannah Arendt au-delà d'une seule approche événementielle? Philosophe de formation, elle aussi, Martine Leibovici invite ici à mieux découvrir ou redécouvrir la cohérence et l'originalité d'une réflexion qui marque en profondeur le XXe siècle. (shrink)

This article compares Hannah Arendt's famous essay on Adolf Eichmann's trial in Israel in 1961 to Simone de Beauvoir's little studied piece, "An Eye for an Eye," on the trial of Robert Brasillach in France in 1945. Arendt and Beauvoir each determine the complicity of individuals acting within a political order that seeks to eliminate certain forms of otherness and difference, but come to differing conclusions about the significance of the crimes. I explain Beauvoir's account of ambiguity, on which (...) she draws in her judgment of Brasillach and elaborates in her 1948 Ethics of Ambiguity, ana measure it against Arendt's account of Eichmann's thoughtlessness and its effects on the destruction of conditions of worldly plurality. Linking the failure of ethical judgment on the part of individuals to prior systemic political conditions, Beauvoir helps us recognize struggles over the meaning of bodies and conditions of inequality as central to politics. (shrink)

Deux préjugés ont grevé la réception de l'œuvre d'Arendt, en particulier en France. L'un : que l'étude des " origines du totalitarisme " et de sa nature (comme modèle politique portant bien au-delà du prototype nazi) ne définirait pas seulement le point de départ de ses questions, mais en bornerait les enjeux. L'autre : qu'à travers les étapes et les détours d'une pensée de la politique et de l'histoire contemporaines, elle n'aurait tendu qu'à rejoindre la tradition philosophique (la méditation sur (...) " la vie de l'esprit "). Convoquant tour à tour l'analyse des révolutions, la critique du travail et du mouvement ouvrier, le questionnement sur la publicité, la société du spectacle et la capacité de juger, le présent ouvrage entend restituer ce qui fait l'originalité de la réflexion d'Arendt sur l'histoire et la politique. Il la replace dans la lignée de Machiavel, de Montesquieu et de Tocqueville, dans la confrontation déterminante avec Marx, dans l'opposition constante à la philosophie politique. Justifiant la posture non-philosophique qu'elle n'a cessé de revendiquer. Démontrant par là même quel bénéfice réel la philosophie peut tirer d'une provocation qui l'expose à la puissance sauvage de l'événement, et à l'étonnement qu'il doit susciter. (shrink)

AU cœur de la vie politique des hommes gît un trésor, aujourd'hui perdu. Les révolutionnaires du XVIIIe siècle pouvaient encore le nommer. En Amérique on l'appelait " bonheur public ", dans la France des Lumières son nom était " liberté publique ". EN certaines circonstances, rares et précaires, ce trésor sans âge ressurgit dans l'action politique conduite à plusieurs, lorsqu'elle se crée un espace public où la liberté peut paraître. Alors un lien se noue, qui déploie entre les hommes un (...) monde commun. Tel est le bien public. En évoquant ce trésor perdu, la philosophie d'Hannah Arendt nous invite à retrouver, à l'écart de tout pragmatisme comme de tout moralisme, le sens instituant de l'action politique qui a le monde comme condition et comme fin. C'est dans la mesure où les actions sont politiques que le monde peut être partagé ; et dans la mesure où elles visent un monde commun que ces actions sont proprement politiques. Toute politique s'apprécie au regard du monde qu'elle est susceptible d'instaurer. N'est-ce pas pourtant à l'aliénation du monde que la politique moderne nous condamne au contraire? Le trésor serait-il pour nous définitivement perdu? Ce livre suggère que, loin de proposer une philosophie politique parmi d'autres, la réflexion arendtienne inaugure une intelligence de l'action politique qui redonne sens au " vivre-ensemble ". En son cœur se tient l'analyse originale et décisive de ce qu'on peut nommer l'acosmisme du monde moderne, cette perte du monde éprouvée aussi bien dans le système totalitaire que dans la prétention technoscientifique de nos sociétés à maîtriser les conditions de l'existence. (shrink)

I The intellectual relations between Heidegger and Arendt The publication of the correspondence between Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt in Germany in 1998 contributed new insight into the relations between these two 20th century thinkers. Arendt was Heidegger's student in Marburg in the mid-1920s and the correspondence has confirmed the intimate character of their relationship during this period. Subsequently, Arendt moved to Heidelberg to work with Karl Jaspers. Following Heidegger's support of the Hitler regime as rector of Freiburg University (...) in 1933–1934, communication ceased between Arendt and Heidegger and, during these years, Arendt emigrated, first to France and then to the United States. After the Second World War, the silence between them continued for a period of five years. During this period Arendt published an article highly critical of Heidegger's writings, entitled “What is Existenz-philosophy?”, in which she argued that Heidegger's thought belonged to the contemplative metaphysical tradition inaugurated by Plato that she saw it as her task to overcome. The Hannah Arendt – Martin Heidegger Briefwechsel has also documented the fact that in February 1950 Arendt and Heidegger once again resumed their friendship, which lasted for the remainder of their lives. (shrink)

Epistemology and Relativism Epistemology is, roughly, the philosophical theory of knowledge, its nature and scope. What is the status of epistemological claims? Relativists regard the status of epistemological claims as, in some way, relative— that is to say, that the truths which epistemological claims aspire to are … Continue reading Epistemology and Relativism →.

Philosophers ask just whose expression, if anyone’s, we hear in lyric poetry. Walton provides a novel possibility: it’s the reader who “uses” the poem (just as a speech giver uses a speech) who makes the language expressive. But worries arise once we consider poems in particular social or political settings, those which require a strong self-other distinction, or those with expressions that should not be disassociated from the subjects whose experience they draw from. One way to meet this challenge is (...) to consider the poem expressive of a plural subject, which frees us from looking for a particular individual whose voice we hear in the work, whether she be fictional or actual. Some lyrics give voice to a group whose experience is attended to in the work. This may be done through a posited fictional speaker, but the ontology of the speaker is shown to be less important. Attending to a group whose concerns are voiced allows us to explain how poems can manage to address our-worldly concerns even when lacking actual persons whose expressions we encounter in the poems. (shrink)

En France, la pensée de Hannah Arendt a longtemps souffert de l'ostracisme prononcé contre elle par le marxisme qui domina la scène intellectuelle après la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Aussi aura-t-il fallu attendre le déclin de celui-ci, à la fin des années soixante-dix, pour que l'intelligentsia française commence enfin à s'intéresser sérieusement à celle que plusieurs considèrent désormais, vingt-cinq ans après sa mort, comme le plus grand penseur politique du XXe siècle. Que cette sortie du purgatoire—qui, incidemment, doit beaucoup aux (...) efforts déployés par les intellectuels de la revue Esprit—soit maintenant accomplie, c'est ce que l'ouvrage d'Étienne Tassin confirme de la plus brillante façon, en nous offrant une lecture approfondie et rigoureuse de l'ensemble de l'œuvre, et qui se veut soucieuse avant tout de rendre sa véritable stature philosophique à l'auteure des Origines du totalitarisme. Entreprise qui ne manque pas d'audace, quand on sait qu'Arendt s'est toujours défendue de faire de la philosophie, sans pour autant jamais cesser de débattre avec les philosophes, de Platon à Heidegger en passant par Augustin, Kant et Marx. (shrink)

The philosophical case for extended cognition is often made with reference to ‘extended-memory cases’ ; though, unfortunately, proponents of the hypothesis of extended cognition as well as their adversaries have failed to appreciate the kinds of epistemological problems extended-memory cases pose for mainstream thinking in the epistemology of memory. It is time to give these problems a closer look. Our plan is as follows: in §1, we argue that an epistemological theory remains compatible with HEC only if its epistemic assessments (...) do not violate what we call ‘the epistemic parity principle’. In §2, we show how the constraint of respecting the epistemic parity principle stands in what appears to be a prima facie intractable tension with mainstream thinking about cases of propositional memory. We then outline and evaluate in §3 several lines of response. (shrink)

Divorce is not only a personal choice, but also a sign of the lack of confidence in the institution of marriage. The issue of divorce raises questions that are sociological, theological, experiential, philosophical and political. This article traces the arguments with particular reference to the situation in Taiwan where women have no right to initiate divorce. It surveys the biblical and theological arguments, locating issues of divorce in the area of gender justice within patriarchal systems. Marriage, as well as divorce, (...) is complex. To impose a monolithic definition of divorce is to fail to recognize the diversity of marital conflict and breakdown, generally to the advantage of a patriarchal society. This was as true of Hebrew society as it is of modern Taiwan, with its history of political struggle. The article concludes by challenging the Taiwanese churches to provide insights for people in their relationships with one another and with God. (shrink)

A conspicuous oversight in recent debates about the vexed problem of the value of knowledge has been the value of knowledge-how. This would not be surprising if knowledge-how were, as Gilbert Ryle [1945, 1949] famously thought, fundamentally different from knowledge-that. However, reductive intellectualists [e.g. Stanley and Williamson 2001; Brogaard 2008, 2009, 2011; Stanley 2011a, 2011b] maintain that knowledge-how just is a kind of knowledge-that. Accordingly, reductive intellectualists must predict that the value problems facing propositional knowledge will equally apply to knowledge-how. (...) We show, however, that this is not the case. Accordingly, we highlight a value-driven argument for thinking that knowledge-how and knowledge-that come apart. (shrink)

Epistemology and Relativism Epistemology is, roughly, the philosophical theory of knowledge, its nature and scope. What is the status of epistemological claims? Relativists regard the status of epistemological claims as, in some way, relative— that is to say, that the truths which epistemological claims aspire to are … Continue reading Epistemology and Relativism →.

Relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. Defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. Detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. Debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. From ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy (...) has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. Discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. And yet, despite a long history of debate going back to Plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. This entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized. (shrink)

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. More precisely, ‘relativism’ covers views which maintain that—at a level of high abstraction—at least some class of things have properties they have not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment, and correspondingly, that the truth of (...) claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. Relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established. Relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. Defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. Detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. Debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. From ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. Discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called ‘analytic and continental’ camps in philosophy. And yet, despite a long history of debate going back to Plato and a still developing large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. This entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which ‘relativism’ has been defined, explained, defended and criticized. (shrink)

Knowledge, like other things of value, can be faked. According to Hawley (2011), know-how is harder to fake than knowledge-that, given that merely apparent propositional knowledge is in general more resilient to our attempts at successful detection than are corresponding attempts to fake know-how. While Hawley’s reasoning for a kind of detection resilience asymmetry between know-how and know-that looks initially plausible, it should ultimately be resisted. In showing why, we outline different ways in which know-how can be faked even when (...) a given performance is successful; and in doing so, we distinguish how know-how can be faked (no less than know-that) via upstream and downstream indicators of its presence, and within each of these categories, we’ll distinguish (in connection with detection resilience) both faking symptoms and (various kinds of) criteria. The unappreciated resilience of faked knowledge-how to successful detection highlights a largely overlooked dimension of social-epistemic risk – risk we face not just in our capacity as recipients of testimony, but in our capacity as both (would-be) apprentices and clients of knowledge-how. (shrink)

I defend the normativity of meaning against recent objections by arguing for a new interpretation of the ‘ought’ relevant to meaning. Both critics and defenders of the normativity thesis have understood statements about how an expression ought to be used as either prescriptive or semantic. I propose an alternative view of the ‘ought’ as conveying the primitively normative attitudes speakers must adopt towards their uses if they are to use the expression with understanding.