Marko Jurjako

In his long-awaited book On What Matters Parfit develops a normative theory that covers a whole range of normative concepts, from reasons and rationality to questions of moral progress and meaning of life. This paper focuses on Parfit*s view on reasons and rationality, and especially concentrates on three theses that are implicitly or explicitly endorsed by Parfit. The theses are: 1) the concept of a normative reason cannot be explicated in a non-circular way, 2) rationality of non-normative beliefs never influences the rationality of desires and actions, and 3) there are no desire-based reasons. The main aim of the paper is to critically evaluate the plausibility of the latter three theses.

The crucial problem in the philosophy of psychiatry is to determine under which conditions certain behaviors, mental states, and personality traits should be regarded as symptoms of mental illnesses. Participants in the debate can be placed on a continuum of positions. On the one side of the continuum, there are naturalists who maintain that the concept of mental illness can be explained by relying on the conceptual apparatus of the natural sciences, such as biology and neuroscience. On the other side of the continuum, there are normativists who maintain that the appropriate characterization of the concept of mental illness cannot avoid reference to epistemic, moral and other social values. Although, this article is primarily an introduction to the debate, we stress the importance of the normativist positions.

Zašto se baviti istraživanjem ljudskog genoma ili dokazivanjem postojanja Higgsove čestice? Što te probleme čini značajnima ili vrijednima istraživanja? U novijim raspravama iz područja epistemologije može se pronaći bar dva shvaćanja problema epistemičke značajnosti: istraživačko pitanje ili spoznajni problem može biti praktično značajan ili intrinzično epistemički značajan, ovisno o tome da li su razlozi koji podržavaju značajnost problema praktični ili epistemički. U ovom radu bavim se pitanjem mogućnosti određivanja značajnosti problema iz čisto epistemičke perspektive. U tom pogledu argumentiram da ne postoje čisto epistemički razlozi koji bi mogli odrediti važnost spoznajnog problema. Argument je baziran na trima prigovorima: epistemička dužnost neopravdano se poistovjećuje s epistemičkim opravdanjem, ne uzima se u obzir ovisnost epistemičkih razloga o konceptualnim shemama i zanemaruje se neograničenost opravdavalačkog potencijala evidencijske građe

In his seminal paper ‘Reflection on Reflective Equilibrium’ Robert Cummins argued that if intuitions are to serve as reliable guides to philosophical truths then we should be able to check their reliability in particular cases. However, if we can check the reliability of intuitions then that means that we have an independent non-intuitive access to the domain that intuitions are supposed to disclose, which in effect makes intuitions obsolete. Overgaard, Gilbert and Burwood in their book ‘An Introduction to Metaphilosophy’ respond to Cummins’ argument by claiming that at least logical intuitions do not demand independent validation because they provide cases of obvious noncontroversial truths. In this paper I discuss one aspect of the question concerning the reliability of philosophical intuitions. In particular, by relying on the so-called Curry’s paradox, I argue that even the intuitions concerning the validity of the basic logical rules, such as the modus ponens, can be problematized. In this respect, I argue that Cummins’ argument remains a viable challenge for those who think that intuitions provide special and undisputed authority in philosophical theorising.