Gustavo Arroyo

In recent years, the topic of deep disagreement has gained considerable interest. A central question in the debate is metaphysical and concerns the very nature of deep disagreement. The so-called metaphysical program aims to provide ways of arbitrating between the different conceptions of the nature of deep disagreements provided by scholarship. Two possible ways of implementing the metaphysical program are examined. The first approach interprets theoretical concepts as descriptions of the lay concept of deep disagreement and employs the method of cases to arbitrate between them. The second approach regards theoretical concepts as revisions of the lay concept of deep disagreement, relying on the criteria provided by revisionary analysis for their assessment. Both alternatives are rejected as inadequate. Theoretical models of deep disagreement are better conceived as explanatory analyses of the lay concept. A consequence of this is that the different accounts of the nature of the phenomenon are not mutually exclusive, as practitioners of the metaphysical program often assume. A second implication is that the concept of deep disagreement is not methodologically dispensable, as some recent critics of the metaphysical program have argued.

_Abstract: _The scholarship on deep disagreements presents us with a considerable number of seemingly disparate characterizations concerning the nature of these disputes. This paper is motivated by the desire to grasp what these characterizations are. An answer is provided through the method of reconstructive analysis. Two ideal and paradigmatic models of deep disagreements are defined initially. Then, individual characterizations found in the scholarship are examined against the background of such models. Special attention is given to Fogelin’s paper, the work that initiates modern discussion on deep disagreements. According to the interpretation provided in the following paper, both models inadvertently coexist in this seminal work. _ _ _Résumé: _Les études sur les désaccords profonds nous présentent un nombre considérable de propriétés apparemment disparates concernant la nature de ces conflits. La rédaction de cet article est motivée par le désir de comprendre quelles sont ces propriétés. Une réponse est fournie par la méthode de l'analyse reconstructive. Deux modèles idéaux et paradigmatiques des désaccords profonds sont d'abord définis. Ensuite, les propriétés individuelles trouvées dans les études sont examinées dans le contexte de ces modèles. Une attention particulière est accordée à l'article de Fogelin, l'ouvrage qui initie la discussion moderne sur les désaccords profonds. Selon l'interprétation fournie dans l'article suivant, les deux modèles coexistent par inadvertance dans cet ouvrage fondateur.

In recent years, the topic of deep disagreement has gained considerable interest. A central question in the debate is metaphysical and concerns the very nature of deep disagreement. The so-called metaphysical program aims to provide ways of arbitrating between the different conceptions of the nature of deep disagreements provided by scholarship. Two possible ways of implementing the metaphysical program are examined. The first approach interprets theoretical concepts as descriptions of the lay concept of deep disagreement and employs the method of cases to arbitrate between them. The second approach regards theoretical concepts as revisions of the lay concept of deep disagreement, relying on the criteria provided by revisionary analysis for their assessment. Both alternatives are rejected as inadequate. Theoretical models of deep disagreement are better conceived as explanatory analyses of the lay concept. A consequence of this is that the different accounts of the nature of the phenomenon are not mutually exclusive, as practitioners of the metaphysical program often assume. A second implication is that the concept of deep disagreement is not methodologically dispensable, as some recent critics of the metaphysical program have argued.

Philosophers often invite their readers to categorize imaginary objects. These objects are not only hypothetical: many of them cannot exist because of physical or technological reasons. They are unprecedented or unheard-of objects. By categorizing imaginary objects, philosophers expect to gain knowledge about our concepts. In this paper, I challenge this general assumption: not every conceivable object can be described in terms of our existing categories. Although prominent philosophers held similar views in the past, they made no effort to provide a satisfactory explanation for such impossibility. The argument that I will develop in the following pages rests mainly on three philosophical assumptions: a) that concepts whose content philosophers attempt to describe denote “monothetic classes”; b) that concept formation depends largely on “ecological salience” (a notion developed in the field of ethnobiology); c) that in any monothetic class, we can draw a proper distinction between definitional and correlated properties.

In this paper, I argue for a pragmatic theory of the motivations behind the practice of defining concepts in philosophy. The “correct” definition in philosophy is not, as is usually supposed, the definition that accurately describes some pre-philosophical meaning, but the definition which is useful for the achievement of certain theoretical goals. I consider different examples of definitional debates from the history of philosophy. The analysis of these examples also evidences why philosophers do not usually grant the incidence of pragmatic reason in their conceptual investigations. At the end of the paper, I provide some reasons that explain why the incidence of pragmatic reasons is inevitable.