Michael Pendlebury

When an agent performs an action because she takes something as a reason to do so, does she take it as a normative reason for the action or as an explanatory reason? In Reasons Without Rationalism, Setiya criticizes the normative view and advances a version of the explanatory view. This paper advances a version of the normative view and shows that it is not subject to Setiya's criticisms. It also shows that Setiya's explanatory account is subject to two fatal flaws, viz., that it raises questions about the occurrence of one motivational "because" within the scope of another which it cannot answer, and that it cannot accommodate the fact that, if an agent can φ for the reason that p, then she could take p as a reason to φ without φ-ing

According to the propositional view of belief, a belief situation involves a believer’s standing in the relation of belief to a proposition. It is argued that the propositional view has unacceptable implications concerning the identity conditions of belief situations involving beliefs with indexical contents, especially where such beliefs are held over a period of time during which background circumstances change. After a critical discussion of Perry’s alternative to the propositional view, a version of the adverbial theory of belief, which accounts satisfactorily for the identity conditions of belief situations, is advanced. This theory, which avoids the standard objections to adverbialism, is defended against the charge that it cannot provide an account of the semantics of sentences attributing the same belief to two or more believers. In the course of this defense it is argued that the standard propositional account of such sentences is insensitive to everyday language.

According to “the careerist conception of well-being,” a worthwhile life must involve the realization of a life plan that the agent has freely, consciously, and reflectively chosen from a position of self-knowledge and realistic foresight about her like future circumstances; that it includes the setting of short-, medium, and long-term challenges based on that overall plan, and ongoing success at meeting these challenges. This conception of well-being expresses a live philosophical position, but it should be rejected on the ground that it is exclusionary, for it cannot accommodate the hopes and fears, pleasures and pains, and dreams and disappointment of numerous forms of human life.

According to a straightforward, conservative account of English demonstratives, simple and complex demonstratives are referring expressions belonging to the same semantic category (but they could be understood as either terms or quantifiers); the denotation of a complex demonstrative “dF” (if it has one) must satisfy the nominal “F” in “dF”; and both simple and complex demonstratives function as rigid designators. According to a recent alternative advanced by Lepore and Ludgwig, simple and complex demonstratives belong to different semantic categories (the former being terms while the latter are restricted quantifier phrases); the denotation of a complex demonstrative “dF”(if it has one) need not satisfy the nominal “F”; and complex demonstratives can have narrow scope, which implies that they do not always function as rigid designators. This paper provides evidence that supports the conservative account against the claims of Lepore and Ludwig’s alternative.

Facts, I am pleased to observe, are back in fashion. For some time now they have had staunch friends in the American Midwest, and these days they are embraced as far afield as Sydney and San Francisco. But what are facts, and what facts are there? My answer to the first part of this question, which I shall not pursue further, is the same as Russell’s and the early Wittgenstein’s: Facts are what constitute the objective world, and what make true sentences and thoughts true and false sentences and thoughts false. But what is the nature of the relation between facts and truths whereby the former make the latter true? This is the central question of my paper. I naturally do not claim to give a full and adequate answer to it, but only to present some considerations which tend to favour one type of answer over another. The main burden of the paper is to show that it is in principle neither necessary nor desirable to admit negative, molecular, and general facts in order to allow for an adequate account of making true.

This article is an explication and defense of Kant’s view that ‘imagination is a necessary ingredient of perception itself’ (Critique of Pure Reason, A120, fn.). Imagination comes into perception at a far more basic level than Strawson allows, and it is required for the constitution of intuitions (= sense experiences) out of sense impressions. It also plays an important part in explaining how it is possible for intuitions to have intentional contents. These functions do not involve the application of contents, and I offer a schematic account of how they arise from preconceptual synthesis.

In this paper I advance an account of Kant’s Schematism according to which a schema in general is a pattern of imaginative synthesis that explains how intuitions have the content required for them to fall under a concept corresponding to the schema. An empirical schema is a pattern of imaginative synthesis that is responsive to the qualities of the sensations involved in the intuition which it synthesizes. A transcendental schema, in contrast, is not responsive to the particular qualities of the sensations involved in intuitions but only to structural relations between intuitions. So a transcendental schema is a form of imaginative synthesis that explains how intuitions have the content required for them to fall under a category corresponding to the schema. This account can be grounded in the text of the Critique of Pure Reason, and it also does justice to Kant’s commitment to sensible and empirical schemata as well as transcendental schemata, his association of schemata with imagination and imaginative synthesis, and his claim that “schematism … is an art concealed in the depths of the human soul” (A141/B180).

According to a common account, grammatical mood is merely a conventional indicator of force with no semantic significance. Focusing on indicatives, interrogatives and imperatives, I advance two reasons to reject this “force treatment” of mood. First, it can be shown that the mood of a subordinate clause can have semantic significance that affects the sense of a sentence in which it is embedded—which the force treatment cannot accommodate. Second, the speech acts of asserting, asking and ordering have something in common even when they do not involve the same descriptive content, namely, the commitment that is present when one speaks seriously for oneself. The force treatment cannot accommodate the fact that when we subtract this positive force from the act, what we are left with is not bare descriptive content, but the mere expression of a proposition, question or order (as appropriate). I conclude by suggesting that the sense of a mood indicator is a function from descriptive content to a proposition, question or order.

This article defends the view that nonlinguistic animals could be capable of thought (in the sense in which the mere possession of beliefs and desires is sufficient for thought). It is easy to identify flaws in Davidson's arguments for the thesis that thought depends upon language if one is open to the idea that some nonlinguistic animals have beliefs. It is, however, necessary to do more than this if one wishes to engage with the deeper challenge underlying Davidson's reasoning, viz., that of providing a principled account of what it takes for a representer to qualify as a thinker. Heil attempts to construct a Davidsonian account on the basis of the hypothesis that the semantic opacity essential to thought is rooted in second-order representation (which Davidson ties to language), but it can be shown that second-order representation is neither necessary nor sufficient for opacity. A reasonable non-Davidsonian account of thought in terms of which sufficiently sophisticated nonlinguistic animals qualify as thinkers is, however, possible. S. Afr. J. Philos. Vol.21(3) 2002: 200-218

Realism about affirmations of a given type is the view that these affirmations are to be understood as assertions that attempt to describe a largely independent reality, and that they are correct if and only if they manage to do so (regardless of whether they can be known to be correct). Objectivisim about affirmations of a given type is the view that they are subject to adequate, non-arbitrary standards of correctness, and that there are a significant number of non-trivial affirmations of this type that can be known to be correct. On this understanding, realism, objectivism, and their denials can be combined in four possible ways: realism with objectivism, realism with antiobjectivism, antirealism with objectivism, and antirealism with antiobjectivism. This paper clarifies the distinction between realism and objectivism, illustrates it applications in various fields of philosophy, and draws attention to its value.