M. Dolores García-Arnaldos

In philosophy, it is common for a concept to be modified according to the author and the role this concept will play in a theory. This is the case with the term “naturalism.” Various naturalistic approaches have emerged from disagreements on how the inquiry underlying the term “naturalism” should be understood. Consider the approach to naturalism designed in the early days of “institutional” philosophy of science (Hanna 2006) versus proposals such as Putnam’s liberal naturalism or Price’s subject naturalism. Our intuition is that the latter two positions defend reformulations of the meaning of the term and of the underlying inquiry that go so far that it is difficult to see any naturalism in them beyond the minimal demand that explanations or inquiries are to be compatible with science. The purpose of this paper is to see whether conceptual engineering can be useful to argue for the abovementioned intuition. Our tenet is that the case of liberal naturalism involves not just a change of meaning, but also a change of subject. To this purpose, we rely on Belleri’s (2021) notion of Progressive Semantic Inquiry and what counts as going too far in that change. The paper serves two objectives: on one hand, it helps to understand what is going on with the versions of naturalism mentioned above; on the other, it assesses Belleri’s solution to the change of subject objection.

We consider altruism as a core characteristic of human beings, grounded on an awareness of our interdependence. We address some of the difficulties that an altruist might encounter when promoting the well-being of those who are different from himself. In cases like this we can find that: the beneficiaries disagree with the altruist about what is good for them, what will benefit them or improve their well-being; and/or the 'goods' or benefits that the beneficiaries want the altruist to promote may actually conflict with the altruist's values. We will discuss whether or not the altruist should 'stay home' and refrain from exercising altruism with those who are different from him. We will offer (tentative) solutions that allow (at least I some instances) altruism to be promoted in cases in which the altruist and the beneficiaries have a different understanding of what would promote the well-being of the beneficiaries.

Drawing on the notions of deep disagreement and metalinguistic negotiation, we develop a new interpretation of the debate between scientific naturalism and liberal naturalism over the idea of naturalism. We argue that recent revisions of the debate suggest that the common perception of this as a case of metalinguistic negotiation is misleading. We trace this misperception back to the different ways in which scientific naturalism and liberal naturalism use the term ‘naturalism.’ Once this difference is considered, their seemingly contradictory claims on this issue can apparently be reconciled. It turns out to be a remarkably consequential metalinguistic negotiation over whether the term ‘naturalism’ should be reinterpreted or replaced for the purposes of positive philosophical theorizing. This interpretation explains the genuine disagreement that led scientific naturalism and liberal naturalism to engage in this debate and illuminates the broader meta-philosophical convictions that underlie each of their positions. Finally, we analyze how the development of the principle of charity acts as a mediating argumentative tool in disagreements.

Logical anti-exceptionalism, that is the idea that logic is not fundamentally different from other forms of inquiry such as science or mathematics, can be broadly characterized as being contrary to paradigmatic examples of exceptionalism about logic, such as the rationalist and semanticist conceptions. Logical inferentialism asserts that the meanings of logical expressions are determined by the basic rules prescribed for their correct application, such that comprehension of a logical expression is achieved through its use in accordance with the appropriate logical rule Brandom (Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, 1994); Boghossian (Blind Reasoning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 77(1), 225–248, 2003a), Boghossian (Epistemic Analyticity: A Defence. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66(1), 15–35, 2003b). Despite the fact that inferentialism may appear to be an exceptionalist theory given its semanticist approach, not all inferentialists keep to the exceptionalist tenets of logic. This paper scrutinizes the recent moderate anti-exceptionalist proposal of naturalized inferentialism by Peregrin and Svoboda (Moderate anti-exceptionalism and earthborn logic. Synthese 199 (3–4), 8781–8806, 2021). To contextualize Peregrin and Svoboda’s proposal, the paper presents a series of issues concerning the various anti-exceptionalist and exceptionalist theories; this discussion shows that naturalized inferentialism can resolve the adoption problem identified by Kripke, and Boghossian and Wright (Kripke, Quine, the “Adoption Problem” and the Empirical Conception of Logic. Mind, 133(529), 86–116, 2024) while remaining faithful to the anti-exceptionalism it seeks to advance, except for its adherence to the fundamental nature of logical human practice. Moreover, it illustrates that as anti-exceptionalist proposals reduce their aspirations, the distinction from exceptionalist positions progressively diminishes in clarity and precision.

La experiencia del pluralismo ha permitido profundizar en el diálogo entre culturas a lo largo de la historia. Si bien el diálogo intercultural es una oportunidad para reflexionar sobre esta experiencia, al mismo tiempo se enfrenta a los problemas propios de las relaciones entre culturas. Ante estos problemas, dos elementos que juega un rol fundamental son el reconocimiento y el perdón. Fricker (2019) distingue entre dos concepciones de perdón: el perdón de la justicia moral y el perdón donado. En el caso de este último, la idea de que el perdón tiene algo de don es acertada para las formas incondicionales de perdón, en las que se perdona incluso en ausencia de una disculpa. En cambio, en los casos condicionales parece que tenemos la obligación de perdonar. Analizaremos el papel del perdón a la luz de la noción de reconocimiento en el marco del pluralismo como horizonte de investigación.

El posthumanismo es un término que engloba numerosos análisis teóricos con un denominador común: el excepcionalismo humano, es decir, la posición privilegiada del ser humano respecto al resto del universo. El propósito de este artículo es analizar hasta qué punto la estructura no naturalista de lo humano ha difuminado la distinción tradicional entre lo humano y lo que no es humano y, al mismo tiempo, presentar brevemente el desacuerdo existente dentro del posthumanismo. El objetivo es cuestionar las múltiples formas en que el posthumanismo, en sus diversas configuraciones, es antiexcepcionalista y desafía nuestra noción de “lo humano”.

Civic engagement favours integration and social cohesion, but the way in but how this happens and the role that responsibility represents in the process requires careful analysis. From Arendt’s critical comments on the link between citizenship and rights, Weil’s conception of obligations towards the human being, and Zambrano’s reflection about Europe, it is maintained that co-operation and not just obligations must be promoted. One possible way is to revalue the role of empathy in its important social function since it strengthens social relations, but this is not enough. It is stated that it is necessary to assume new political and social paradigms, such as that of solidarity or fraternity, to forge a new social covenant that promotes civic commitment in social, economic and political spaces.

A priori theories of justification of logic based on meaning often lead to trouble, in particular to issues concerning circularity. First, I present Boghossian’s a prioriview. Boghossian maintains the rule-circular justifications from a conceptual role semantics. However, rule-circular justifications are problematic. Recently, Boghossian (Boghossian, 2015) has claimed that rules should be thought of as contents and contents as abstract objects. In this paper, I discuss Boghossian’s view. My argumentation consists of three main parts. First, I analyse several arguments to show that in fact, Boghossian’s inferentialist solution is not fully satisfying. Second, I discuss the matter further, if one accepts that basic logical rules are constitutive of meaning, that is, they constitute the logical concepts and the content of a rule is an abstract object, then abstract objects — like, for example, rules — could be constitutive of meaning. The question is whether conceptual priority is in the judgment or in the object and what theory of content is pursued. Grasping content as a matter of knowing how a word or concept behaves in inferences is not completely explicative. Finally, I contend that rules come to exist as a result of certain kinds of mental action. These actions function as constitutive norms. Logical rules are not abstract objects but ideal. What one construes as norms or rules of content may involve idealization, but this is because we share a language.

In this article, we consider Wittgenstein’s approach to non-inferential knowledge, its relation to special propositions, and the nature of the justification of these propositions. According to Wittgenstein, there is a kind of non-inferential knowledge whose rational status is not the result of basic beliefs (in a foundational sense) that justify it. In Wittgenstein’s rule-following analysis, Frege’s theory is criticized. This theory is based on the idea that having a conceptual repertoire prior to the understanding of any rule, requires having grasped the conditions of verification of a rule, which is a source of problems. Following Wright’s construing of Wittgenstein’s ideas, we maintain that understanding concepts cannot be prior to the linguistic ability. RIFL (2018) Vol. 12, n. 2: 70-82. DOI: 10.4396/20180204.

Intuition or rational trust? Resumen: Según la concepción tradicional, la justificación de las creencias lógicas básicas —entendida tanto inferencial como no-inferencialmente— no logra evitar ni la circularidad, ni la regresión al infinito. Justificar reglas básicas lógicas inferencialmente conlleva usar principios lógicos con lo que se genera un círculo vicioso. Apelar a fuentes básicas como la intuición, no sortea todas las dificultades. Argumentaré que es preciso recurrir a una “habilitación”, una sub-clase dentro de las garantías epistémicas. Si además aceptamos que intuir es algo que hacemos y no algo que nos pasa, podemos sostener que la intuición, de hecho, se apoya en una confianza racional. Palabras clave: justificación, conocimiento lógico, garantía racional, intuición, habilitación.: According to the traditional conception, the justification of basic logical beliefs —understood both inferentially and non-inferentially— cannot avoid either circularity or regression to infinity. To justify logical basic rules inferentially involves using logical principles, so a vicious circle is generated. Appealing to basic sources such as intuition, does not avoid such problems. I will argue that it is necessary to resort to an entitlement, a sub-class within the epistemic warrants. If we also accept that intuiting is something that we do and not something that happens to us, we can sustain that intuition, indeed, is based on a rational trust. Keywords: justification, logical knowledge, rational warrant, intuition, entitlement.

La crisis en la que estamos inmersos tiene entre sus causas una profunda crisis de relaciones entre las personas y los Estados. Si superamos esta crisis de relaciones, asumiendo nuevos paradigmas políticos y sociales, aseguraremos la base de una nueva convivencia democrática, integradora y solidaria, que responda al reto de la globalización y la interdependencia. Sólo se saldrá de la crisis de relaciones desde valores basados en la solidaridad, asentada en la confianza mutua. Algunas propuestas para regenerar el sistema de valores apelan el paradigma de la fraternidad: la globalización de la solidaridad como respuesta a la crisis de la globalización.

El objeto de este artículo es analizar el problema de la justificación del conocimiento básico y ofrecer una solución basada en un tipo de justificación deflacionaria no-evidencialista a partir de la noción de habilitación de T. Burge y la de _garantía racional_ de C. Wright. El problema, en el caso del conocimiento básico lógico, es que justificar las reglas lógicas inferencialmente supone utilizar principios lógicos, con lo cual se genera un círculo vicioso. Examinamos la viabilidad del enfoque no-inferencialista de Wright y sostendremos que una garantía racional es una respuesta viable para el problema de la justificación del conocimiento lógico básico.