In this article we aim to reconstruct some aspects of Davidson's idea of triangulation, and against this reconstruction, ask whether the idea is viciously circular. We begin by looking at the claim that without a triangularn setting, there is no saying what the cause of a being's responses is. In the first section we discuss the notion of relevant similarity, and what difference the presence of a second non?linguistic being could make for the individuation of a common focus of attention. (...) In the second section we look at the role of a second person in language?acquisition. It is important that being corrected to ?go on as others do? does not yet presuppose thought, and similarity standards can be applied to a learner's reactions even before she is aware of these standards. We also show why Davidson is not committed to any consensus view of correctness. In the last section we discern three charges of circularity that can be levelled against the idea of triangulation. We argue that Davidson can respond to the first two charges, and point to a way of answering the third. But the response we propound raises a new question, namely, why does the second being have to be a speaker or thinker even before the learner is aware of the three points of the triangle? (shrink)
We provide a brief overview of the shift toward the intrinsic view of brain activity, describing in particular the structural and functional connectivity patterns of the “Default mode network”. We then consider the Default mode network in a specifically cognitive setting and ask what changes the focus on the Default mode network and other sorts of intrinsic activity require from models put forward by cognitive neuroscientists.
Studie recenzuje díla: Sam HARRIS, The Moral Landscape a Patricia Smith CHURCHLAND, Braintrust. Cílem recenzní stati je vyzdvihnout hlubokou shodu v naturalistickém pojetí etiky u obou autorů a upozornit na některé nedostatky jejich argumentace.
The introductory section of the paper attempts to clarify the theoretical frame-work of truth-relativism. The paper then presents three obstacles to those who would like to relativise truth of a statement. These concern the distinction between absolutely and relatively true statements, the identity of a proposition across different perspectives and the possibility of distinguishing between various ways of construing the truth predicate.
The paper distinguishes between various versions of conceptual relativism and tries to reduce their number to two final alternatives: those of weak and strong conceptual relativism. The author argues that while a weak, pluralist version of conceptual relativity might be acceptable, the stronger version, as defined in the paper, cannot be coherently formulated. The argument of the paper draws on recent criticism of conceptual relativism by Anthony Brueckner, and tries to extend it further.
The aim of the paper is twofold. First, it expounds the thesis of ‘conceptual relativity’ propounded in a series of writings of the well-known philosopher Hilary Putnam and indicates the alleged manner in which the thesis, according to Putnam, undermines the foundations of metaphysical realism. Second, a critical examination of Putnam’s anti-metaphysical-realist argument is offered. It is argued that Putnam offers examples only of a trivial, so-called indexical relativity, and that his strategy leaves the foundations of metaphysical realism intact.
The paper addresses the recurrent charge that Richard Rorty is a “linguistic idealist”. I show what the charge consists of and try to explain that there is a charitable reading of Rorty’s works, according to which he is not guilty of linguistic idealism. This reading draws on Putnam’s well-known conception of “internal realism” and accounts for the causal independence of the world on our linguistic practices. I also show how we can reconcile this causal independence of things and the sense (...) of our discourse being guided by them with our autonomy with regard to the construction of various “vocabularies” with which we describe, or cope with, reality. In the final part, I address in some detail Rorty’s animadversions concerning the idea of the intrinsic nature of reality. I show them to be only partly successful. (shrink)
Článek se pokouší o koherentní interpretaci Quinových nečetných vyjádření na téma realismus. Autor konstatuje, že Quinovy názory vykazují různorodé tendence: Quine ve svých textech přechází od úvah, které bychom označili za idealistické , k pozici spíš realistické. Článek má dvě části. První je věnována Quinovu chápání positů a jeho tezím o naturalizaci filosofie a imanenci pravdy teorii. Druhá část pak obsahuje úvahu o Quinově známé tezi o nevymezitelnosti reference a jejích důsledcích pro otázku realismu. Autor dochází k závěru, že diskrepance (...) epistemologického a ontologického hlediska, přítomná v mnoha Quinových pracích, vede k permenantnímu rozštěpu dvou hledisek na realitu vnějšího světa, která se zdají být neslučitelná v jedné koherentní filosofické pozici. (shrink)
The paper adresses the debate between Donald Davidson and W. V. O. Quine on the nature of meanings and knowledge. It is argued that Davidson’s misgivings, though interesting, are not devastating for Quine’s version of empiricism, which is not easily translateble into traditional philosophical categories.