Reply to Bridges

Mind 118 (470):369-376 (2009)
Abstract
Bridges argues that the ‘Transparency Account’ of Kolodny 2005 has a hidden flaw. The TA does not, after all, account for the fact that in our ordinary, engaged thought and talk about rationality, we believe that, when it would be irrational of one of us to refuse to A, he has, because of this, conclusive reason to A. My reply is that this was the point. For reasons given in Kolodny 2005, is false. The aim of the TA is to offer an interpretation of our engaged thought and talk that is compatible with the falsity of and that helps to explain why, when reflecting on our thought and talk, we are so prone to misrepresent what it involves. After making these points, I consider alternative senses in which rationality might be, or be taken by us to be, ‘normative’ and conclude that these alternatives have little bearing on the TA
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/mind/fzp059
Options
 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: 30,719
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Rational Requirements and 'Rational' Akrasia.Edward Hinchman - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (3):529-552.
Rational Planning Agency.Michael E. Bratman - 2017 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 80:25-48.
The Normativity of Rationality.Benjamin Kiesewetter - 2017 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
62 ( #87,748 of 2,197,286 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #298,964 of 2,197,286 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature