Hilan Bensusan

Holism about thought content – especially coupled with a measure of semantic externalism – can provide us with an attractive account of how thinking relates to the world. It can help us to tell a neat story that starts out with the inseparable entanglement of truth and intelligibility: in order to understand thought, to confront it to the world and to give verdicts about that confrontation, we need to grasp a considerable amount of truths. A variety of positions that emerge under the influence of Davidson’s arguments (see, for instance, his 1974) deny the possibility of severing the connection between thought and facts of the world. However, this holisticunderstanding of thought seems less attractive when it is forced to account for our capacities to engage with singularities. A (roughly) Davidsonian conception of thought faces serious problems when it tries to answer questions regarding singular thoughts, de re attitudes and beliefs, and the nature of items of the world that cannot be described or referred to without the aid of demonstratives. This tension between thought and singularity is a well-known one and shows up in different traditions of philosophy. We aim at easing the tension without giving up the intuitions behind holism.

Richard Moran has argued, convincingly, in favour of the idea that there must be more than one path to access our own mental contents. The existence of those routes, one first-personal—through avowal—the other third-personal—no different to the one used to ascribe mental states to other people and to interpret their actions—is intimately connected to our capacity to respond to norms. Moran’s account allows for conflicts between first personal and third personal authorities over my own beliefs; this enable some instances of Moore-paradoxical cases to be meaningful. In this paper we reflect on the consequences of this view for the acquisition of beliefs, and argue that, as in the moral case, excessive concentration on a thirdpersonal understanding of thought undermines the very idea of being directed to the world and of being capable to fully own our own beliefs. We suggest that maybe too much attention to epistemic virtues or tojustification is misdirected and could produce beliefs that are themself not first-personal enough.

Este texto considera algumas maneiras alternativas de pensar na verdade e no que queremos com ela. Analisa também os problemas com a concepção da verdade como correspondência e procura um diagnóstico do tipo de frustração que esses problemas trazem. Considera em seguida as alternativas deflacionistas e seus problemas em oferecer aquilo que comumente queremos de um predicado de verdade. Avalia então as vantagens e falhas das concepções da verdade como indefinível e da concepção de verdade como identidade

O trabalho considera as relações entre a escrita e o reconhecimento. Os esforços de Derrida começaram a mostrar que a distinção entre a oralidade e a escrita é filosoficamente importante – e que muitos problemas filosóficos são problemas da escrita. A partir dessa perspectiva, considero a distinção entre conotação e denotação e a ideia – abraçada por Mill e, mais recentemente, por teorias da denotação inspiradas em Kripke – de que a denotação prescinde, em grande medida, de conotação. A diferença entre conotação e denotação é então associada à diferença entre a oralidade e a escrita. Nesse contexto, o tema do reconhecimento aparece. O reconhecimento, tal como identificado em uma tradição kantiana, também tem nuances relativas à escrita e à oralidade e estas nuances são exploradas. As queixas de Lévinas com respeito ao reconhecimento são então exploradas e analisadas desde um ponto de vista gramatológico (isto é, um ponto de vista que dá atenção à escrita). O trabalho termina com algumas considerações gerais sobre o reconhecimento, a escrita e a

Transparency is commonly held to be a property of one’s beliefs: it is enough for me to examine an issue to establish my beliefs about it. Recent challenges to first-person authority over the content of one’s beliefs potentially undermine transparency. We start considering some consequences in terms of variations of Moore’s paradox. Then we study cases where, in the process of acquiring and managing beliefs, one pays excessive attention to how reliable, empirically adequate, coherent, or widely accepted they are from a third-personal point of view. We show that beliefs formed in a way that is insufficiently first-personal may not be transparently accessible to those holding them.