Himanshu Parcha

This paper seeks to bring out the difference between the later Wittgenstein’s and Davidson’s view of actions with a special focus. Initially it contrasts their respective approaches to the correlative notions of wish, will (intention) and actions, an issue which has customarily been categorized as reason-approach of Wittgenstein as against the mental causation theory endorsed by Davidson. The ultimate aim of this paper is to integrate the ontology of actions with the semantic issue of the distinction between reference and description action-words, or that between the extensionalist and intensionalist approach to actions. The author demonstrates how Davidson in spite of conscientiously problematising the task of separating the mental causal antecedent from the action, goes on to undertake a hair-splitting analysis to sustain the split; and thereby preserve the extensional identity of actions. This extensional identity in Davidson’s scheme turns out to be as brute physical events with bare spatio-temporal outlines - lying beyond the various intensional ascriptions. For Wittgenstein on the other hand, actions are not caused by mental antecedents, but blend with wish, will and the so-called mental antecedents to forge an indissoluble whole, leaving no scope for the proposed bare extension to take shape. The paper concludes with a brief indication of McDowell’s treatment of this cause/reason polemics phrased in terms of the non-conceptualist versus conceptualist debate suggesting a new direction to engage with Wittgenstein’s insights on action.

This work takes off with the clear intention of weaving a single anti-foundationalist narrative that will connect the later Wittgenstein’s views on ‘ordinary’ language with those on the ‘specialist’ regime of mathematical language. Some popular notions about his later views—those that confuse his idea of indeterminacy with mere ambiguity, or read him as substituting sociological or physiological foundations for the classical ones, or brand his anti-foundationalism as a form of relativism—are all addressed within this single thematic unity. This book avoids the intensely detailed analyses of technical issues as much as possible, attempting to steer such issues towards epistemological enquiries into the nature of mathematical cognition - creating overall a style of narrative where the philosophy of mathematics will be merged with philosophies of logic, psychology and action in an immaculate whole. However, what the author has attempted to achieve against the official foundations of mathematics, in an extremely general and non-technical manner, may hopefully be extended to the standard technical issues of mathematics by experts on the subject. Overall, this book can be used by all readers across all disciplines. It encourages problematising the ‘obvious’ and takes an incisive interest in what constitute the conditions of possibility of language and mathematics.

In my research, I will try to study the notion of epistemic injustice by focusing on Miranda Fricker’s work in the area of epistemic injustice. Miranda Fricker talks about two forms of epistemic injustice which, she believes, are distinctively epistemic in nature. These two forms of epistemic injustice are testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice which help us to understand the epistemic injustice faced by an individual or a social group. So we can say that these two categories provide us with the theoretical tools to formulate and theorize about distinct kinds of epistemic injustice, which can’t be easily formulated in Goldman’s VSE model1 and other models of social epistemology.