Robust Intelligibility: Response to Our Critics

Robust realism is defended by developing further the account in Inquiry 42 (1999), pp. 49-78 of how human beings make things and people intelligible. Incommensurate worlds imply a violation of the principle of noncontradiction, but this violation does not have the consequences normally feared. Given our capacities to make things intelligible, some things, like human action, are most intelligible when they are understood as contradictory (e.g. free and determined). Things-in-themselves need not have contradictory features for multiple orders of nature to make sense. We can coherently suppose that both Western and Chinese science give two incommensurable and complete accounts of the functioning of the human body. Since things do not have contradictory properties, we would then have to suppose that, in the case of bodies, there are two independent functional orders. If this can be true for bodies, it can be true for the orders of nature as a whole. John Haugeland's account of systems and interfaces shows us how to make sense of necessary functional components of the universe. Finally, multiple realism makes more sense than Rorty's deflationary pragmatism because it explains how things can matter
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/002017499321534
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,749
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Heidegger, Measurement and the 'Intelligibility' of Science.Denis McManus - 2007 - European Journal of Philosophy 15 (1):82–105.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Practical Incommensurability and the Phenomenological Basis of Robust Realism.Mark A. Wrathall - 1999 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):79 – 88.
The Fragility of Robust Realism: A Reply to Dreyfus and Spinosa.Jeff Malpas - 1999 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):89 – 101.
Dreyfus and Spinosa on Things-in-Themselves.T. L. S. Sprigge - 1999 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 42 (1):115 – 124.
Adapting Aquinas.James Ross - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:41-58.
Ways of Being.Joshua Spencer - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (12):910-918.
Is the Concept of Nature Dispensable?Robin Attfield - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 5 (25):59-63.
On Laozi's Dao—An Attempt to Make Philosophy Speak Chinese.Ruohui Li - 2011 - Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (1):1-19.
Added to PP index

Total downloads
51 ( #106,240 of 2,197,351 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #97,221 of 2,197,351 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature