Anna Boncompagni

The theme of common sense is strictly connected to central issues both in James’s psychology and his philosophy, to the point that paying attention to his treatment of common sense allows us to better understand and appreciate the intertwinement between psychology and philosophy in his approach, as well as the continuity between his early and late writings. From this perspective, James’s account of common sense becomes a lens through which his distinctive theoretical position becomes clearer and distinguishes itself from both traditional empiricism and idealism. My starting point in what follows is James’s Pragmatism lecture. The features that he here attributes to common sense will be examined in section 2. The willingness to honor the results of common sense and not to trespass the boundaries of what makes sense to common people on the one hand, and the urge to also see and warn against the shortcomings of common sense on the other, will be highlighted. Common sense, as we shall see, is conceived by James as a system of crystallized concepts, and this invites us to widen our analysis to his notion of concepts and the role it plays in his psychology and philosophy. Sections 3 and 4 will deal with these two aspects. Section 5 will bring into focus James’s alleged ambiguity on common sense as rooted in his pragmatist outlook on what it means, for human beings, to make sense (or ‘to make common sense’) of their experiences.

Wittgenstein suggests that our life is governed by certainties that, although ultimately ungrounded, stand fast for us and ground our practices. He sometimes uses the metaphor of hinges to describe them. In the moral domain, too, we judge and act on the basis of moral certainties that we just take for granted, and that shape our worldview. Intuitive examples are that killing is wrong or that one should not cause suffering. However, not all hinges, and not all moral hinges, hold for everyone, everywhere, and anytime. Some are culture-specific and, to a certain extent, changing, and “giveupable”. Some, I will argue, might even be wrong, and harmful: human history shows that moral standards change and that some deeply entrenched practices considered moral in the past later turned out to be prejudiced. One may wonder, therefore, whether some moral hinges on which we act now hide biases of which we are not aware and are in fact wrong. In order to tackle this issue, I start with a consideration put forth by Chris Ranalli in a recent paper on moral hinges. He claims that, contrary to ordinary disagreements, in moral deep disagreements when confronted with a different hinge we are not rationally mandated to revise our views. He defends this intuitive difference between the two cases (labelled “the asymmetry view”) by applying hinge epistemology to the moral domain. While this is unproblematic for largely basic and shared moral hinges, I argue that it can raise relevant questions if we are dealing with what I will call wrong hinges.

Wittgenstein often uses metaphors of imprisonment and liberation. This chapter explores this issue with special attention to three passages. In the first one, the later Wittgenstein of the Investigations, writing about the early Wittgenstein of the Tractatus, claims that "a picture held us captive," and that because such a picture lay in our language, we cannot get outside it (Philosophical Investigations, § 155). The second passage is Wittgenstein's famous statement that his aim in philosophy is "to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle" (Philosophical Investigations, § 310 ). In the third passage, Wittgenstein observes that a room with an unlocked door imprisons someone if the door opens only inwards and one thinks one must push, not pull, to exit (Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, IV, § 37). The examination will suggest that pictures themselves play a double role in Wittgenstein: they can imprison us, and they can set us free. The exercise of seeing aspects emerges therefore as crucial for the liberating practices of philosophy.

The starting point of this paper is a clarification of the forms that hermeneutical injustice takes for bisexual individuals. While it is often thought that bisexuals do not need special protections or politics because they easily “pass” for straight and thus enjoy so-called hetero privilege, this precise situation is a source of oppression, silencing, erasure, and discrimination for many of them within both straight and gay environments. Bi-invisibility, bi-erasure, and persistent negative stereotypes contribute to specific forms of hermeneutical injustice for this segment of the population. Reflection on these forms, however, as well as reflection on bisexual identity, highlights some problematic aspects connected to the metaphor of hermeneutical “gaps” and the underlying theoretical model that are often used or assumed in research on epistemic injustice. With the aim of clarifying and responding to such difficulties, I introduce Wittgenstein's notion of hinges as a conceptual tool to better understand these phenomena. The case of bisexuality shows that seeing hermeneutical injustice in the light of the metaphor of hinges, instead of that of gaps, helps better grasp its features, its causes, and the forms that it can assume.

Although research on epistemic injustice has focused on the effects of prejudice in epistemic exchanges, the account of prejudice that emerges in Fricker's (2007) view is not completely clear. In particular, I claim that the epistemic role of prejudice in the structure of testimonial justification is still in need of a satisfactory explanation. What special epistemic power does prejudice exercise that prevents the speaker's words from constituting evidence for the hearer's belief? By clarifying this point, it will be possible to address two more general issues concerning the nature of prejudice: its resistance to counterevidence and the steps involved in overcoming prejudice. I propose a hinge account of prejudice, based on the recent perspective of hinge epistemology, to help clarify these aspects. According to the hinge account, prejudices share a fundamental feature with hinges: they work as norms of evidential significance, and as such, they determine what can and cannot count as evidence for belief.

Wittgenstein mentions “forms of life” only on a limited number of occasions in his writings; however, this concept is at the core of his approach to language, as the vast literature on the subject shows. My aim in this paper is neither to adjudicate which of the many competing interpretations of “forms of life” is correct nor to propose a new one. I start with a methodological take on this notion and test it by applying it to a specific case. In my view, the notion of forms of life is a methodological tool that Wittgenstein uses to draw attention to the embeddedness of language in our lives and practices. This reading, I suggest, allows us to oppose those who want to see in Wittgenstein a conservative thinker, based on his remark on forms of life as “the given” that must be accepted. In particular, it becomes possible to put his notion to use in the study of linguistic and social change. Hence, I propose as an example the case of innovative language games in trans communities. In this context, the notion of forms of life enables us to see with more clarity how linguistic change occurs, which also helps us better understand phenomena such as disagreement, conflict, and hermeneutical injustice.

The question of what Wittgenstein meant by "forms of life" has attracted a great deal of attention in the literature, yet it is an expression that Wittgenstein himself employs on only a relatively small number of occasions, and that he does not explicitly define. This Element gives a description of this concept that also explains Wittgenstein's reluctance to say much about it. A short historical introduction examines the origins and uses of the term in Wittgenstein's time. The Element then presents a survey of Wittgenstein's employment of it, and an overview of the literature. Finally, the Element offers a methodological reading of this notion, interpreting it as a conceptual tool in Wittgenstein's wider inquiries into the workings of our language.

Recently, hinge epistemologists have applied Wittgenstein’s metaphor of hinges to religious belief. The most prominent proposal in this context is Pritchard’s “quasi-fideism”. This paper examines some historical precursors of the notion of religious hinges, with the aim of shedding more light on it. After outlining the framework of hinge epistemology and its application to religious belief, I briefly examine the views of Thomas Reid and John Henry Newman as acknowledged forerunners of this framework (or cognate views). Next, I turn to two hitherto unacknowledged forerunners, the pragmatists William James and Charles S. Peirce. I then focus on some insights that the pragmatists offer. On this basis, I conclude that religious beliefs are a special class of hinges. As such, while they can be defended through hinge epistemology, they cannot constitute a model through which we can interpret the nature of hinges in general.

Although research on epistemic injustice has focused on the effects of prejudice in epistemic exchanges, the account of prejudice that emerges in Fricker’s (2007) view is not completely clear. In particular, I claim that the epistemic role of prejudice in the structure of testimonial justification is still in need of a satisfactory explanation. What special epistemic power does prejudice exercise that prevents the speaker’s words from constituting evidence for the hearer’s belief? By clarifying this point, it will be possible to address two more general issues concerning the nature of prejudice: its resistance to counterevidence and the steps involved in overcoming prejudice. I propose a hinge account of prejudice, based on the recent perspective of hinge epistemology, to help clarify these aspects. According to the hinge account, prejudices share a fundamental feature with hinges: they work as norms of evidential significance, and as such, they determine what can and cannot count as evidence for belief.

This paper applies the framework of epistemic injustice to the context of the asylum process, arguing that asylum seekers are typically at risk of this kind of injustice, which consists in their not being considered credible and not being listened to due to prejudices toward their social identity. More specifically, I address hermeneutical injustice in the adjudication of LGBTQ asylum claims, as well as the possibility of developing practices of hermeneutical justice in this context. I start with a general analysis of epistemic injustice in the asylum process, examining the different ways in which stereotypes and prejudices hinder the process. Next, I focus on hermeneutical injustice in LGBTQ cases. In section 3, I expand on the possibility of developing hermeneutical justice in this context. Finally, I conclude by hinting at hinge epistemology as a feasible framework for research on hermeneutical injustice and justice, and at broader theoretical themes stimulated by this reflection.

In this commentary on Nuno Venturinha’s Description of Situations, after highlighting what in my view are the most significant and innovative features of his work, I focus on Venturinha’s infallibilist approach to knowledge. This topic allows for a wider discussion concerning the pragmatist aspects of the later Wittgenstein’s philosophy. I discuss this in three steps: first, by describing the general similarity between Wittgenstein and the pragmatists with respect to the emphasis on contexts; second, by focusing on the kind of fallibilism endorsed by the pragmatists and its compatibility with Charles S. Peirce’s concept of the “indubitables,” which I take as a precursor of Wittgenstein’s concept of hinges; and, finally, by advancing the hypothesis that it is possible to find a form of fallibilism in the later Wittgenstein too, notwithstanding his insistence on the impossibility of mistakes. My conclusion is that while Venturinha’s contextualism finds support in the later Wittgenstein’s writings, his infallibilism does not.

Enactivist approaches claim that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. An ongoing challenge for these approaches is the problem of accounting for normativity while avoiding overly reductionist outcomes. This article examines a few proposed solutions, including agent-environment dynamics, participatory sense-making, radical enactivism, the skillful intentionality framework, and enactivist cultural psychology. It argues that good examples of enacted normativity are gestures of appreciation/disapproval performed in the aesthetic domain. Both Wittgenstein and Dewey explore this issue and their ideas could be productively worked upon in an enactive account.

The influence of William James on Ludwig Wittgenstein has been widely studied, as well as the criticism that the latter addresses to the former, but one aspect that has only rarely been focused on is the two philosophers’ use of the image of the flux, stream, or river. The analysis of some notes belonging to Wittgenstein’s Nachlass support the possibility of a comparison between James’ stream of thought, as outlined in the Principles of Psychology, and Wittgenstein’s river-bed of thoughts, presented in On Certainty.

This paper explores the enactive approach in cognitive science with an eye on the later Wittgenstein’s philosophy. The aim is not that of answering the question: was Wittgenstein an ante litteram enactivist? He was not, because he was not an ante litteram (cognitive) scientist of any kind. The aim, conversely, is that of answering the question: can enactivism be Wittgensteinian? In answering positively, it will be argued that a Wittgensteinian framework can help enactive cognitive scientists in dissolving certain old problems which they sometimes seem not to be able to get rid of. After the Introduction, the first two sections of the paper concern the Wittgensteinian standpoint on psychological concepts (Section 2) and the enactivist approach in its general terms (Section 3). Section 4 attempts a closer examination of some key concepts – chiefly representations, the inner, the “explanatory gap”, the “hard problem” of consciousness – considering both the enactivists’ and Wittgenstein’s attitude towards them. The Conclusion surmises the benefits of a Wittgensteinian perspective also hinting at some other problems which it can help to clarify.

This paper offers a philosophical outlook on the subject of the communication of certainty and uncertainty, by focusing on the later Ludwig Wittgenstein’s image of “hinges”. Hinges are basic common sense certainties which ordinarily “go without saying”. In a sense, they even require not to be said. Lingering over the debate on the ineffability of hinges which is at the core of the Wittgensteinian secondary literature, but also hinting at some studies in psychopathology, the paper argues that in extraordinary contexts to assert explicitly a hinge-certainty is possible and may be important, while in ordinary contexts certainty can only be communicated through silence: when a certainty which “goes without saying” is explicitly said, the situation paradoxically results in uncertainty.

Influenzati entrambi in modo particolare da John Dewey, Sidney Hook e Morton White si caratterizzano per un impegno costante verso l'estensione dell'approccio naturalista da un ambito strettamente scientifico a uno piu' ampio, etico e sociale. Hook, coniugando l'ottica pragmatista con l'accentuazione dei caratteri conflittuali della realta', concepisce la democrazia stessa come un'applicazione dell'intelligenza sperimentale alla soluzione dei conflitti nella vita sociale e politica. White propone un pragmatismo olistico che mira a rimarginare non solo la dicotomia tra analitico e sintetico, ma anche la divisione tra credenze scientifiche e credenze morali e, piu' ingenerale, tra il piano descrittivo e il piano normativo. Se l'ampliamento del naturalismo e l!'nteresse per i temi epistemologici caratterizzano entrambi i pensatori, si puo' dire che il percorso di Hook si intreccia costantemente con la dimensione politica, mentre quello di White si sviluppa nel dialogo con la dimensione storica.

The paper compares the way in which Ludwig Wittgenstein and Charles S. Peirce deal with 'facts of life', or the ordinary. Starting from the former's well-known remark on forms of life as 'the given', it shows its proximity to some themes also explored by Peirce. This leads to examine in more detail the Peircean notion of habit and its connection with the everyday, an aspect on which the two philosophers bear interesting similarities. The examination of the only remark Wittgenstein expressed on Peirce, still largely neglected in literature, also highlights relevant differences. The paper concludes on how, differences notwithstanding, both thinkers consider 'facts of life' as the proper terrain of philosophical activity.

The paper examines some remarks Wittgenstein expresses on pragmatism in manuscripts and lectures during the first half of the Thirties. These remarks focus principally on the Jamesian conception of truth, very roughly summarized in the claim that a belief or a proposition is true if it is useful. Wittgenstein acknowledges that this conception is able to capture some characters of ordinary language, but at the same time, he criticizes some aspects of it, and his criticism strongly resembles Frank Ramsey’s attitude towards the same topics. In this sense, it is argued that Ramsey had a role both for Wittgenstein approaching pragmatism, and for the partly negative attitude with which he came to judge it, at least in this period. Yet, the two thinkers’ general perspectives diverge when it comes to the place of theory in philosophical activity.

Wittgenstein likens philosophy both to an illness and to a therapy. The reflections he dedicates to mental disturbance in On Certainty shed some light on this ambivalence, by pointing at the intertwined themes of common sense, doubt, mistake, reasonableness, and normality. Wittgenstein’s remarks have sometimes been compared to the description of the symptoms of what psychopathologists have called the loss of natural self-evidence, or the loss of common sense. Besides briefly recalling some of the outcomes of this debate in literature, I focus on Wittgenstein’s conception of “hinges”, the basic practical certainties which patients suffering from the loss of common sense seem to lack. By working on this comparison, I offer an interpretation of Wittgenstein’s idea of philosophy that clarifies both its insane and its therapeutic side.

This paper focuses on the first reference to pragmatism in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s manuscripts, dating back to the beginning of 1930. The remark refers to the pragmatist conception of truth. In what follows, I will offer ahistorical framework for as better understanding of this reflection, and show how it was embedded within a philosophical atmosphere in which the roots of various philosophical perspectives merged into each other. Different possible sources of Wittgenstein’s perception of pragmatism will be examined, including William James’ and Charles S. Peirce’s writings and Wittgenstein’s conversations with Frank P. Ramsey in 1929. The analysis is meant to illustrate the relevance of this early “encounter” with the pragmatist tradition for the development of Wittgenstein’s thought.

“Our later and more critical philosophies are mere fads and fancies compared with this natural mother-tongue of thought”, says William James in his lecture on common sense. The deep bond connecting language, common sense and nature is also one of the main concerns of the later Wittgenstein. The aim of this paper is to compare the two philosophers in this respect, particularly focusing on James’ Pragmatism and on Wittgenstein’s On Certainty. Similarities, but also differences, will be highlighted. A further element will be offered by the analysis of a fragment of Wittgenstein’s Nachlass, which anticipates his image of the river-bed of thought through the critique of James’ stream of thought. By means of this comparison, I will question Wittgenstein’s explicit refusal of pragmatism. I will argue that his late philosophy can be said to be even more pragmatist than James’, in that it delineates a conception of the common sense certainties which shape our Weltbild (world-picture) as practically, and not merely epistemically, connected to our life.