Ana Gavran Miloš

This paper examines recent challenges to traditional philosophical theories of well-being and proposes a revised framework grounded in the capability approach. Classical theories (hedonism, desire-fulfillment, and objective list accounts) have long dominated philosophical discourse on what constitutes a good life. However, these theories have come under increasing criticism for their abstractness and limited applicability to empirical research and policy-making. Anna Alexandrova (2017) argues that philosophical theories of well-being are too general and removed from real-life concerns, advocating instead for a contextual and pluralist understanding of the concept. Ingrid Robeyns (2020) incorporates this critique into the capability approach, claiming that it is particularly suited to reflect pluralism, contextual variation, and interdisciplinary use. In response, this paper accepts the contextual sensitivity of well-being but rejects the idea that it is a fundamentally plural concept. Drawing on Fletcher (2019) and Hawkins (2019), I argue that different applications of the concept still rely on a unified underlying notion of well-being. Thus, the goal should not be to abandon philosophical theorizing but to develop a context-sensitive yet normatively robust account. The capability approach provides a promising structure for this purpose, but it cannot remain procedurally open-ended. I argue for a monistic version of capabilitarian well-being, grounded in a normatively justified set of capabilities. The paper proceeds by reviewing standard theories of well-being, analyzing Alexandrova’s contextual critique, assessing Robeyns’s proceduralism, and finally defending a unified, normatively grounded version of capabilitarian well-being that retains contextual sensitivity without sacrificing philosophical coherence.

The subject of this paper is the debate between externalism and internalism about mental content presented by Tim Crane in Chapter 4 of his book Elements of Mind. Crane’s sympathies in this debate are with internalism. The paper attempts to show that Crane’s argumentation is not refuting the Twin Earth argument and externalism, and that in its basis it does not differ much from externalism itself Crane’s version of the argument for externalism features two key premises: (1) The content of a thought determines what the thought is about/what it refers to (the Content Determines Reference Principle); and (2) Twins are referring to different things when they use the word “water”. From these, in a few simple steps, Crane’s externalist infers: Therefore, their thoughts are not “in their heads”. Crane suggests denying the Content Determines Reference Principle in the light of indexical thoughts. In the first stage, Crane reduces “content” to “some aspect of content”, although he needs all aspects of content to secure identity of thoughts. However, his view then comes close to something acceptable to externalists. In the second stage, Crane makes content relative to context, but then reference still determines content.

Prema Epikurovoj epistemologiji svi su opažaji istiniti. Ta teza podrazumijeva da naša osjetila nikada ne griješe, te da nam opažaji uvijek daju točne izvještaje o vanjskom svijetu. Iako se na prvi pogled čini vrlo neuvjerljivom, podrobnija analiza Epikurovih tekstova pokazuje da je ona potkrijepljena zanimljivim argumentima. Pokazuje se da je jasna motivacija Epikura za obranu te teze leži u prihvaćanju radikalnog empirizma i težnji da izbjegne skeptičke opasnosti u koje je zapao Demokrit. Nadalje, opravdanje te teze leži u Epikurovu objašnjenju samog opažajnog procesa, tj. u fizikalnom objašnjenju mehanizma opažanja, koje se uklapa u atomističku sliku svijeta. Opažajni proces pokazuje da su opažaji sirovi podaci koji ne mogu biti lažni, budući da su samo puke reakcije osjetilnog organa na vanjske podražaje, te kao takvi ne mogu biti neistiniti.According to Epicurean epistemology all perceptions are true. The thesis implies that our senses do not ever err and that perceptions give us always correct report of the external world. Although it seems very problematic and counterintuitive, careful investigation of the main sources shows us that Epicurus ’ claim for the truth of perceptions is not so hasty but supported with some serious arguments. Epicurus ’ main concern was to show that we can attain knowledge about the external world. In order to secure the possibility of knowledge Epicurus proposed to rely on perceptions as incorrigible foundation of our knowledge and argue that all perceptions are true. The defense of the thesis and explanation how can it be the case that all perceptions are true is provided by the theory of what happens in the process of perceiving a physical object. In this paper I try to show that his epistemological remarks on infallibility of the senses become more convincing and plausible if properly placed within Epicurus ’ general physical theory. His theory explains perceptions as a raw material which cannot be false since it is a mere response of a sense organ on the impact from the outside, namely from g*T8. Because g*T8 are true and secure reports of external objects, truthfulness of all perceptions is guaranteed. The truth of all perceptions simply follows from the mechanical explanation of the way they are produced, so the truthfulness of perceptions must be accepted on the basis of their origin.

The paper deals with one of the key notions in Epicurean epistemology, preconception. Together with perceptions, preconceptions are the second criterion of truth. The aim of the paper is to explore their epistemological status on the basis of their origin and formation. I argue that the process of formation of preconception is purely empirical, since they are produced through repeated perceptions of individual instances of a particular type of thing. Given the way they are formed, I claim that preconceptions are the means by which we recognize types of object and as such are fundamental to Epicurus’ account of how we gain knowledge of things. Exactly this gives them a distinctive criterial role, since preconceptions––unlike perceptions––enable us to engage in the process of interpretation of perceptual content.

Epicurean epistemology is usually summarised in a controversial thesis according to which all perceptions are true. Although it seems very problematic and counterintuitive, careful investigation of the main sources shows us that Epicurus ’ claim for the truth of perceptions is not so hasty but is supported with some serious arguments. In the paper, I examine the thesis according to which “all perceptions are true”, but my main focus is to analyse the content of Epicurean perception through the following questions: what kind of content do Epicurean perceptions have; what are the proper objects of perception; can we ascribe to such content truth and falsity? In the first part, I say something general about the thesis and point out some basic characteristics of perceptions due to which they serve as a criterion of truth. Next I try to show that the proper objects of perceptions are eidola and not external objects because only in that case can Epicurus maintain the truth of all perceptions, including illusions, hallucinations, dreams and other misperceptions. In the third part, I argue that such Epicurean perceptual content can be explained by the modern notion of non-conceptual content, which helps us to understand the special feature of Epicurean perceptions and also the important difference between perception and belief in Epicurean epistemology. In the final part, I discuss the notion of alethes which I suggest implies that perception is “factive”.

The subject of this paper is the debate between externalism and internalism about mental content presented by Tim Crane in Chapter 4 of his book Elements of Mind. Crane’s sympathies in this debate are with internalism. The paper attempts to show that Crane’s argumentation is not refuting the Twin Earth argument and externalism, and that in its basis it does not differ much from externalism itself Crane’s version of the argument for externalism features two key premises: (1) The content of a thought determines what the thought is about/what it refers to (the Content Determines Reference Principle); and (2) Twins are referring to different things when they use the word “water”. From these, in a few simple steps, Crane’s externalist infers: Therefore, their thoughts are not “in their heads”. Crane suggests denying the Content Determines Reference Principle in the light of indexical thoughts. In the first stage, Crane reduces “content” to “some aspect of content”, although he needs all aspects of content to secure identity of thoughts. However, his view then comes close to something acceptable to externalists. In the second stage, Crane makes content relative to context, but then reference still determines content