Konrad Werner

The word “as” enables one to make contexts and aspects of things explicit while attributing properties or descriptions to them. For example “John is rational as a mathematician”; “John is irrational as a driver.” This paper examines the idea according to which all propositions containing “as” should be targeted as potential inferences about the subject; as for the examples given—about John. If the inference is valid—the conception in question holds—one can get rid of “as.” I argue against that view by bringing up several contexts in which “as” is not supposed to express an inference. On this basis I come up with a different (non-inferential) typology which does justice, I believe, to ordinary as well as philosophical uses of the little word at stake.

Aspectual shape is widely recognized property of intentionality. This means that subject’s access to reality is necessarily conditioned by applied concepts, perspective, modes of sensation, etc. I argue against representational and indirect-realist account of this phenomenon. My own proposition—presentational and direct realist—is based on the recognition of historical contexts, in which the phenomenon of aspectuality should be reconsidered; on the other hand—it is based on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s conception of aspectual perception. Moreover I apply some results from the area of logicophilosophical investigations called qua theory.

This chapter examines various theories concerning questions. It turns out that both questions and answers are to some degree semantically undetermined when approached separately, and should therefore be considered together as parts of larger structures composed of desiderata (requests for information) and what the chapter refers to as saturata (information that answers the request). Then the chapter argues that it is impossible to account for all desideratum-saturata pairs in terms of instructions and logical operations on propositions. If the whole structure of knowledge built on answers to specific requests for information is supposed to refer to more than the realm of mental representations, it is necessary to postulate a direct erotetic link with our surroundings. In this context the chapter puts forward the provisional idea of erotetic intuition: the intuitive capacity to problematize, to invite certain things, metaphorically speaking, to present themselves qua problems.

This introductory chapter situates the proposal to be set forth in the book within the context of contemporary debates on philosophical intuition and competence. It outlines the structure of the book, especially the fact that each chapter to some degree belongs to a different tradition, a different theoretical context, to the effect that the reader may agree with the conclusions of one chapter but reject the conclusions of the others. Moreover, these introductory remarks elicit the institutional approach to philosophy, tacitly implemented in research practice, for example, when experimental philosophers distinguish between what “professional philosophers” hold and what laypeople in contrast believe. As an alternative, the chapter flags an approach making the case that philosophical competence should be thought of as a special skill—grounded on the capacity to problematize—or way of looking at things, attributable to a living, experiencing and (self)reflecting being, coupled with, but also contemplating its environment.

This chapter argues that beliefs—including those articulated by philosophers—are answers to specific questions. This means that beliefs, when scrutinized properly, should be taken together with the questions they reply to; the latter being represented by sets of propositions called contrastive alternatives. Two beliefs are comparable if their contrastive alternatives have common elements. Comparability is a matter of degree. As for the philosophical beliefs and beliefs that may seem related to philosophy on the surface but are articulated by a person acting in a different capacity, they can be juxtaposed only if their comparability has been proven first.

This chapter provides a simple functional model of the pursuit of problematization, based on a cluster of theories that have not been tried out in the area of metaphilosophy, such as embodied cognition, enactivism and niche construction theory. Problematization is taken as a biological phenomenon: the capacity to extract information from relatively stable and remotely predictable parts of the environment that initially—thus prior to problematization—do not convey any information. It is argued that while the cognizer has several strategies of dealing with uncertainty in its environment—which is a widely held perspective—the cognizer also needs a cognitive capacity designed to deal with too much certainty. This is the role of problematization. Within this context philosophical problematization is also unpacked: it is the pursuit of problematization in pure form, and—in a sense—a natural consequence (a kind of completion) of the evolution of human problematizing skills.

This chapter answers the question of what is special about the acts of problematization pursued by philosophers. The chapter relies on various metaphilosophical ideas formulated by Bertrand Russell, Edmund Husserl, Rudolf Carnap and Ludwig Wittgenstein, but it does not start with a ready-made list of utterances that are usually assumed to express a philosophical puzzle or belief. Instead, the chapter points out what actually distinguishes a philosophical act of problematizing from other such acts, independently of how this act is subsequently articulated and of whether the act is pursued by a professional philosopher. Namely, what makes philosophical problematizations specific is as an act referred to as the recognition of one’s epistemic position. The latter is articulated in the form of boundary concepts and boundary questions.

This short closing chapter briefly argues against a possible misinterpretation of the results of the book, especially Chap. 5, that is, against an idea according to which the pursuit of philosophizing can be seen as nothing more, but a byproduct of certain adaptations given rise by the evolution of man. The point is that what was initially a byproduct can in turn become a major factor in evolution or in any other creative process. So, byproduct or not, traditional philosophizing was and continues to be a major factor in the evolution of the human cognitive (epistemic, scientific, cultural, etc.) environment.

This book provides the first explicit examination of the underlying ontology of the ecological/embodied cognition philosophical project. More specifically, it examines the locative concepts used by defenders of representationalism and the more environmentally oriented, ecological/embodied views on cognition. The book's main argument is that ecological/embodied cognition is embedded in various philosophical traditions. It establishes that there is a lack of clarity in how we conceptualize locative relations in contexts having to do with cognition. The book tackles questions of what it means that internal representations are internal, that the external world is external, that the extended mind is extended, how we should understand the claim that cognition and consciousness are in the head, or, alternatively, in the environment. Additionally, it addresses what it means that cognition enacts an environment, which is likely the most controversial claim made in some branches of embodied cognition. The goal of the book is to capture the essential traits of cognition thought of as an ecological phenomenon-as a factor determining a specific locus-and thereby elicit how cognition takes part in the creation of the world as we know it. The Ontology of Ecological Cognition will appeal to scholars and graduate students working in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and metaphysics.

Some of our beliefs are institutional; that is, beliefs whose content is to a large extent shaped by institutions, such as beliefs about intellectual property, trade policy, or traffic rules. In this chapter, we propose a novel account of institutional beliefs, as we call them. In particular, we argue that institutional beliefs are primarily attributable to social entities, such as groups or collectives, and only secondarily to individual agents. This is because institutional beliefs respond to specific problems that, in principle, only collectives face. However, existing methodology in behavioural science primarily relies on eliciting beliefs through individual choice data, which presents challenges for empirically modelling our proposed concept of institutional beliefs. To address this challenge, we propose to speak of institutional beliefs attributable to individual agents as ‘qua beliefs’. That is, institutional beliefs attributable to individual agents acting qua members of certain institutionally shaped groups. Within this framework, individuals’ qua actions occur in a shared realm of problems that can only be addressed through collective efforts. The relationship between individuals and their groups can be rendered tractable under formalised conditions. Under these conditions, choice data collected from individuals need not obstruct the elicitation of institutional beliefs for empirical study at both the collective and the individual level. We refer to these conditions as “IS conditions”, which are developed based on the synthesis between an interpretationist understanding of mental states and standard models of revealed preference theory as used in experimental economics. For an illustration of how this approach can be operationalised experimentally, we direct our readers to chapter 10 of this volume, where an experimental study applied our account of institutional beliefs.

The capacity to distinguish reliable or rationally believable claims from a huge pool of views available within the public arena has never been as critical an issue as it is today. We live in a world full of bizarre, unwarranted beliefs and conspiracy theories, some of which may seem, at least on the face of it, quite well justified. Moreover, some of them may even turn out to be true. This poses a significant social-epistemological as well as practical problem. Here I propose to single out a group of beliefs known as confined truths. These are true beliefs belonging to a pathological question-answer system. The paper first provisionally articulates this idea and then makes the case for an ecological account of questioning and answering, thought of as social pursuits made possible by the capacity for problematization. The latter shall be characterized as part of cognitive engineering or niche construction. In the final part of the paper, various possible dysfunctionalities of the social/ecological pursuit of problematization are elicited and suitable examples thereof are briefly discussed.

This paper argues that institutions are higher-level autonomous systems enacted by patterns of participatory sense-making. Therefore, unlike in the standard equilibrium theory, institutions are not themselves thought of as behavioural patterns. Instead, they are problem domains that these patterns have brought forth. Moreover, these are not merely any patterns, but only those devoted to maintaining a specific strategy of problem solving, called the strategy of ‘letting be’. The latter refers to, following Hanne de Jaegher, a balance between underdetermination and overdetermination of individual behaviour by a collective. Such an understanding of institutions becomes an option once a hybrid ‘equilibrium + rules’ theory of institutions, such as the one proposed by Frank Hindriks, is supplemented with insights from enactivism. In this light, drawing a connection between these two areas is the additional, meta-theoretical goal of this paper. This connection is beneficial, I argue, in particular since it allows for a satisfactory, in-depth account of the normative character of institutions as well as their local character.

This paper targets the concept of enactment as a genuinely metaphysical idea. Its goals are two-fold. First, a reappraisal of enactment in its proper historical context, as well as an articulation of the core innovations enactment brings to traditional metaphysics. Here the idea of 'productive' cognition, as I provisionally term it, comes to the fore. The second goal is a reinterpretation of certain themes from traditional metaphysics, including the key question of why there is something rather than nothing, so as to make it more open to insights originating from enactivism. For that, the concept of 'situated metaphysics' is introduced and elaborated upon.

Open peer commentary on the article “A Defence of Starmaking Constructivism: The Problem of Stuff” by Bin Liu. Abstract: I first problematize the conditions under which the “problem of stuff” can function as a genuine concern for a constructivist ontology. These conditions have to do with the Cartesian ideal of “radical beginning” and the absolute foundation of knowledge, which was transplanted to contemporary (analytic) ontology/metaphysics through its concentration on language. Finally, I argue that the “problem of stuff” is not an urgent problem.

The paper develops the idea that institutions are enablers. However, they do not only enable individuals and collectives to achieve their goals; first and foremost, they enable individuals and collectives to have a goal, to select and recognize certain possible states of affairs as targets of action, and as a result, to have a demand – especially a demand for further institutions. I make the case that properly functioning institutions are dedicated to making these states of affairs epistemically acquaintable. What I will stress in particular is that acquaintance is first realized in the form of questions, which are linguistic expressions of acts of problematization. However, I will discuss less what an individual subject questions, but rather what the social dynamic of questioning is. This dynamic will be conceptualized in terms of epistemic dependence, and it will be singled out as the dynamic that gives rise to institutions.

Olga Tokarczuk’s masterpiece Flights highlights one of the most profound metaphysical, moral and religious conundrums – a tension, but also an intimate bond, between stability and structuredness, on the one hand, and the power of change, movement and transgression on the other. The paper is devoted to unveiling what I dub the paradox of embodied agency. In simple terms, structuredness makes the known world organized and predictable; yet, at the same time, these very structures are vehicles of change, movement, sometimes even destruction. I make the case that this profound aspect of Flights deserves more recognition.

This paper answers a philosophical challenge that emerges when we problematize the seemingly trivial "fact" that, on the one hand, through our senses we are presented with a realm that is not of our own making; while, on the other hand, various perceivers are acquainted with diverse presentations of this realm, depending on their perspective and cognitive machinery. The challenge is dubbed here the problem of presentations. The paper draws on the idea of situation-dependent properties proposed by Susanna Schellenberg. However, the paper takes the notion of situation more seriously and introduces a number of basic notions borrowed from situated cognition—a cluster of ideas that have recently emerged in the philosophy of mind. These make it possible to introduce the perceiver in such a way as not to endanger the objective character of situation-dependent properties. Thought of this way, situation-dependent properties are in turn described as the building blocks of presentations.

The book is the first formulation of a meta-philosophical scheme rooted in the embodied cognition paradigm. The latter views subjects capable of cognition and experience as living, embodied creatures coupled with their environments. On the other hand, the emergence of experimental philosophy has given rise to a new context in which philosophers have begun to search for a more thorough definition of philosophical competence. The time is ripe for these two trends to join their efforts. Therefore, the book discusses what it means for a human being thought of as a living subject to pursue philosophy. In this context, in contrast to the existing literature, philosophical competence must not be conflated with competence in philosophy. The former is a skill or attitude. The book refers to this peculiar attitude as the recognition of one’s epistemic position.

Abstract:This paper places the debate on intrinsic value taking place in environmental ethics within the context of the traditional controversy between realism and antirealism. It lays the groundwork for a new kind of realism with respect to intrinsic value. The latter does not claim that intrinsic value is real in the sense that it exists in an external, mind-independent reality; nor does it claim that that there are objective truthmakers of valuing statements. First, it aims at acts of valuing instead of values. So, the question is whether there are cases in which something merits an act of intrinsic valuing. We propose that the core of realism with regard to intrinsic value is the endorsement of what might be is provisionally called the axiological rule of excluded middle; it says that for a given subject or group of subjects any entity either merits an act of intrinsic valuing or does not. However, for the proposed account to work, the paper also seeks a new account of meriting an act of valuing itself, endowing this specific relation with a new, more "embodied" sense.

Two major philosophical movements have sought to fundamentally rethink the relationship between humans and their environment(s): environmental ethics and enactivism. Surprisingly, they virtually never refer to or seek inspiration from each other. The goal of this analysis is to bridge the gap. Our main purpose, then, is to address, from the enactivist angle, the conceptual backbone of environmental ethics, namely the concept of intrinsic value. We argue that intrinsic value does indeed exist, yet its "intrinsicality" does not boil down to being independent of the interests and needs of humans. Rather, it is brought forth by what we callshared enactionof an axiological domain. The latter is built upon such core posits of enactivism as autonomy, enaction, participatory sense-making as well as the most recent concept of loving as knowing proposed by Hanne De Jaegher.

Open peer commentary on the article “Conflatingion with Empirical Observation: The False Mind-Matter Dichotomy” by Bernardo Kastrup. Upshot: This commentary is centered around one issue: it describes a possibility that, contrary to what the target article brings, not only the notion of matter, but also the notion of mind is a theoretical postulate devoted to unpacking our complex, concrete and pre-conceptual embodiment in the world. Therefore, the commentary suggests that there may be no difference in abstraction between the two notions at stake.

Philosophical intuition has become one of the most debated problems in recent years, largely due to the rise of the movement called experimental philosophy which challenged the conviction that philosophers have some special insight into abstract ideas such as being, knowledge, good and evil, intentional action, etc. In response to the challenge, some authors claim that there is a special cognitive faculty called philosophical intuition which delivers justification to philosophical theses, while some others deny it based on experimental results. A relatively smaller group of researchers aim at clarifying what the alleged intuition is. I follow the latter path. In this paper I argue that philosophical intuition is in the first place the capacity enabling one to what I refer to as the recognition of one’s epistemic position. The latter means becoming aware of the seemingly trivial “fact” that the way in which the world manifests itself depends on the cognitive apparatus one has, thereby propelling one to draw a distinction between appearances and reality. The recognition at stake is a very specific capacity to approach the world solely as it is experienced. This capacity, I argue, is the core and the defining feature of philosophical intuition. As part of my argumentation I also distinguish between the intuition in question and its different manifestations; and then introduce a novel notion of erotetic intuition. My argument is called “old-fashion” to emphasize the fact that I draw mostly on four figures who were pivotal in the twentieth- century philosophy and whose influence on the current debate concerning philosophical intuition should be, I believe, stronger than it is; I mean Russell, Carnap, Wittgenstein, and Husserl.

This paper aims to elucidate a kind of ignorance that is more fundamental than a momentary lack of information, but also not a kind of ignorance that is built into the subject’s cognitive apparatus such that the subject can’t do anything about it. The paper sets forth the notion of cognitive confinement, which is a contingent, yet relatively stable state of being structurally or systematically unable to gain information from an environment, determined by patterns of interaction between the subject and the world. In order to unpack the idea of cognitive confinement the paper discusses niche construction theory, and then, in greater detail, the notion of cognitive niche once proposed by John Tooby and Irven DeVore. Cognitive confinement is here imagined as a pathologized form of cognitive niche. This posit is substantiated by referring to a case that has come to the fore in recent years and raised debate around the world: the rise of so-called filter bubbles. They turn out to be instantiations of a more general phenomenon of cognitive confinement.

The word “as” enables one to make contexts and aspects of things explicit while attributing properties or descriptions to them. For example “John is rational as a mathematician”; “John is irrational as a driver.” This paper examines the idea according to which all propositions containing “as” should be targeted as potential inferences about the subject; as for the examples given—about John. If the inference is valid—the conception in question holds—one can get rid of “as.” I argue against that view by bringing up several contexts in which “as” is not supposed to express an inference. On this basis I come up with a different (non-inferential) typology which does justice, I believe, to ordinary as well as philosophical uses of the little word at stake.