Isaac Nevo

Many philosophers have reflected upon philosophy’s lack of progress in converging upon truth and its chronic condition of irresolvable disagreement. These reflections raise questions about the possibility of philosophical knowledge. Some philosophers remain “optimists” regarding these issues, believing that philosophical progress and knowledge are possible, some are “pessimists,” denying the possibility of progress and knowledge, and some attempt to “segregate” metaphilosophical skepticism, while leaving open a conceptual space for first-order philosophical theories to be taken “seriously.” I argue that segregated meta-philosophical skepticism is not a stable position, and that such skepticism rationally “trickles down” to object-level philosophizing. The position I wish to defend is that philosophy should be seen as primarily a critical practice, yielding self-reflection at the limits of human understanding (wonder), rather than a theoretical endeavor aiming at knowledge. Philosophy should be seen as a critical project, seeking Socratic aporia rather than Aristotelian theoria, the benefit of which is not knowledge but rather the independence of mind and freedom of thought that comes with a commitment to criticism.

In this paper, I discuss the tendency in philosophy to become an excessively theoretical enterprise, an enterprise aspiring to such highly generalized viewpoints on reality, mind, language, or ethics that its “findings” lose touch with lived experience and with broader intellectual concerns and become highly “scholastic,” wedded to abstractions, ideals, dichotomies, and principles that do not find any clear application in everyday life and discourse. I distinguish two types of reaction to this philosophical tendency, a quietist versus a pragmatist reaction, the one being entirely hostile to philosophical thought, the other attempting to revitalize philosophy with practical, or dynamic, models of philosophical activity. Following Dewey, I offer a diagnosis of over-theorizing in philosophy, and suggest a remedy, focusing on the inseparable connectedness of a philosophical observer with “objects” of her observation, be it reality, mind, value, or knowledge, which (so I claim) both motivates and delimits the philosophical aspiration for generality and transcendence. Along the way I discuss relevant contributions by Wittgenstein, James, Dewey, Putnam, Nagel, Elgin, Feyerabend, Williams, Quine, Kitcher, and Pettit.

In this introductory chapter we present the central motivations and rationales for this volume. We begin by identifying two radical anti-theory movements that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, one in philosophy of science and the other in ethics. Each of these movements was domain-specific—that is, each criticized the aspirations of philosophical theories within its own domain and advanced arguments aimed at philosophers within their own specific subfield. The guiding thought of this volume is that insights gleaned from the anti-theory movement in one domain can shed light on the other and that both can illuminate the limits of philosophical theorizing in general. This introduction also offers a brief overview of the essays collected in this volume and highlights ways in which they touch on its central themes.

This book brings together scholars from ethics and philosophy of science in order to identify ways in which insights gleaned from one subfield can shed light on the other. The book focuses on two radical Anti-Theory movements that emerged in the 1970’s and 1980’s, one in philosophy of science and the other in ethics. Both movements challenged attempts to supply general, systematized philosophical theories within their domains and thus invited the reconsideration of what philosophical theorizing can and should offer. Each of these movements was domain-specific – that is, each criticized the aspirations to philosophical theories within its own domain and advanced arguments aimed at philosophers within their own specific subfield. The innovative systematic comparative examination of these movements by scholars from each domain sheds new light on some familiar debates, offers new and exciting paths of research to pursue in each domain, provides insight into the place of science and ethics in contemporary life and culture, and enables a fresh view on the longstanding and alluring philosophical aspiration for a fully general, absolute theory of reality and an ultimate objective foundational theory of knowledge.

The aim of this paper is to argue against moral dualism in the understanding of the nature of evil, namely the conception of evil as an independent source of guidance, in opposition to the good, rather than a failure in pursuit of an apparent good. Focusing on moral evil as the intentional infliction of gratuitous pain and suffering by one human being on another, i.e., pain and suffering that are not required by a morally acceptable purpose, I argue against two forms of such dualism. Value dualism divides moral value into antithetical normative principles, good and evil, each with its own guiding power. On this view, evil can intelligibly be pursued for its own sake, rather than a failure of some kind in acting “under the guise of the good.” Agent dualism divides human agents, based on character and disposition, into followers of good and followers of evil. On this view, the pursuit of evil can be accounted for in terms of basic character traits and dispositions, not related to more fundamental motives, reasons, or choices. In both versions humanity is divided into two moral classes. I argue that the two forms of moral dualism discussed in this paper fail to render evil perpetrators intelligible in terms of reasons for action. While suggesting, in line with accounts by Arendt (1951, 1963, 1978), Anscombe (1963) and Neiman (2002), a non-dualist account of evil-doing as a dysfunction in the pursuit of intelligible goals, I will go on to criticize dualistic views of both kinds in the work of philosophers such as Velleman (1992), Silber (2012), Bernstein (2002), Hacker (2021), and Kekes (1990).

In this work I bring a conception of language and meaning as a shared institution to bear upon rule-following scepticism, i.e., upon the sceptical problem concerning the semantic determinacy of expressions involving infinite or indefinitely large and open extensions. Such scepticism proceeds from the observation that the extensions of expressions of this kind are not uniquely determined by epistemically accessible facts, to conclude that the expressions in question are indeterminate in point of extension, and that their meaning must consist in their use. ;In the first chapter of this work, I argue that rule-following considerations by themselves do not suffice to establish these conclusions, and that additional premises are needed. I consider both internalist and extensionalist schemes to supplement the sceptical argument. I find such schemes lacking in persuasive support. Chapter 2, in particular, concentrates on Kripke's well known exegesis of Wittgenstein's argument, and on the internalist requirements upon which it is based. ;In Chapter 3, I offer an externalist account of the normative aspect in rule following. On the account I give, the rule one is projecting is determined extensionally by one's position in a community in which his projections would be corrected and evaluated by other members, and from which one has acquired the rule in the first place through a chain of communication, rather than by one's own projections, taken in isolation, which constitute only a partial understanding of the rule in question. This account is not designed to refute scepticism; rather its aim is to account for the normativity of rule-following in ways which do not invoke the internalist requirement upon which rule following scepticism is based

Richard Rorty's discussions of "romanticism," a term by which he means a set of general philosophical themes, not merely a body of literary and philosophical work of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, are not univocal in their approach. Rorty endorses romanticism within an overall antirealistic view that he interprets as "pragmatism." In some respects, Richard Rorty's view of romanticism is diametrically opposed to Shelley's, for although Rorty invokes Shelley's appeal to poetry as "center and circumference," he has no interest in providing any access to a noumenal world. With logical positivism of the twentieth century, Rorty seems to presuppose that "eliminating metaphysics," where metaphysics would be any appeal to a reality beyond appearances, is not only possible, but highly desirable from an intellectual point of view. Given Rorty's ultimate aim, it is not surprising that Rorty's romantic idol will have his metaphysics up his sleeve.

Words and Life (= WL) is a bulky collection of 29 essays, edited and introduced by James Conant. Pragmatism: An Open Question (= P) is a much thinner collection, dedicated to Conant, of just three lectures. Taken together, the two books constitute an argument for pragmatism as a viable option in contemporary philosophy, and a new (pragmatic) basis for what remains viable in the philosophical and political ideals of the Enlightenment. As in a previous collection of essays (Putnam 1990), Conant’s role appears to be more than just editorial. In his own lengthy introductions, he gives Putnam’s work an interpretive ‘spin’, of which Putnam, for his part, seems to approve. Together, Putnam and Conant develop a strain of pragmatism which is well worth looking into.1 Putnam’s pragmatism is best captured by the quote from Cavell (1979: p. 125) which appears as the motto on the title page of the 1994 collection, and from which its title – ‘Words and Life’ – is derived. It is the view that although philosophy is an open ended practice of reflection, rather than a purely contemplative theory of one kind or another, the practice in question is at one and the same time a part of culture (immanence) and a step beyond it (transcendence). In Cavell’s language, the task of such reflection (‘philosophizing’) is ‘to confront culture with itself, along the lines in which it meets in me’, where the self in question – the individual qua philosopher – appears to be engulfed by culture even as he is confronting it from the outside. On this interpretation, Putnam’s appeal to practice in philosophy is part of an attempt to keep its transcendent, or critical, dimension alive, even while recognizing philosophy’s radical embeddedness in culture and tradition, and the futility of seeking some God’s-eye view from which reality as such is to be viewed.2 The question is whether, and how, these two perspectives can be held together. If our standards of rational criticism transcend any particular culture in terms of their scope and authority, how can they also be embedded in culture and immanent to it? Can pragmatism offer a coherent synthesis of these two dimensions..

My aim in this paper is to characterize the professional good served by the humanities as various academic disciplines, particularly in relation to the general academic good, namely, the pursuit of knowledge in theoretical and scholarly research, and to evaluate the public and ethical dimension of that professional good and the constraints it imposes upon practitioners. My argument will be that the humanities aim at both knowledge of objective facts and acknowledgement of the human status of their subject matter, and that there are facts about human life and society that are inaccessible except through such humanistic acknowledgement. As such, the humanities require the adoption of evaluative, other-oriented points of view, and they serve the public by advancing a reflective view of the very conditions of the public’s own constitution. In short, the humanities incorporate the view that practical and evaluative wisdom is not only essential for the full pursuit of truth, but that it is also an essential public good in any well-ordered society, especially in contemporary democracies. The discussion proceeds by examining various examples of both the professional and the public good in question, and focuses particularly on cases of excessive acknowledgement in the form of uncritical apologetics and excessive objectification in various forms of reductionism.

Following the argument wherever it leads is a piece of well-known and time-honored advice we give to students in philosophy. Using three instances drawn from the history of philosophy, we look at reasons for both adhering to this principle and for sometimes putting it aside in favor of other considerations. We find that the requirement of following the argument where it leads is not a simple demand of logic, but rather a complex norm that is sensitive to various considerations. Some of these have to do with the fact that consistency may be restored to one’s system of beliefs only at a price that one may judge, on cognitive or moral grounds, as too high. Following the argument wherever it leads is thus a norm about the place of reason in our intellectual and practical lives and is therefore a norm that must be evaluated in the context of various extra-logical considerations.

The aim of this paper is to highlight an individualist streak in both Davidson’s conception of language and Chomsky’s. In the first part of the paper, I argue that in Davidson’s case this individualist streak is a consequence of an excessively strong conception of what the compositional nature of linguistic meaning requires, and I offer a weaker conception of that requirement that can do justice to both the publicity and the compositionality of language. In the second part of the paper, I offer a comparison between Davidson’s position on the unreality of public languages, and Chomsky’s position regarding the epiphenomenal status of “externalized” languages. In Chomsky’s case, as in Davidson’s, languages are individuated in terms of the formal theories that serve to account for their systematic structure, and this assumption rests upon a similarly strong and similarly questionable understanding of what it is to employ finite means in pursuit of an infinite task. The alternative, at which I can only hint, is a view of language as a social and historical reality, i.e., a realm of social fact that cannot be exhausted by any formal theory and cannot be reduced to properties of individual speakers