Martin Grajner

According to the deductive-nomological account of ground, a fact A grounds another fact B in case the laws of metaphysics determine the existence of B on the basis of the existence of A. Accounts of grounding of this particular variety have already been developed in the literature. My aim in this paper is to sketch a new version of this account. My preferred account offers two main improvements over existing accounts. First, the present account is able to deal with necessitarian as well as non-necessitarian cases of grounding by acknowledging the existence of two types of metaphysical laws. I will argue that we should assume that metaphysical laws come in the necessitarian as well as in the non-necessitarian varietyclosely paralleling the distinction between strict and non-strict laws in the philosophy of science. The second main improvement of the present account is that this account is able to provide an explanation of why the laws of metaphysics have a direction built into them. I will argue that we should characterize metaphysical laws with the help of Theodore Sider’s (2011) notion of structure, which is a descendent of David Lewis’s (1983) notion of naturalness. According to the account of metaphysical laws developed in this paper, metaphysical laws express in their antecedents either perfectly structural truths or more structural truths than in their consequents. Since on Sider’s account structural features of reality are fundamental features of reality, the account is able to explain as to why the laws of metaphysics take us from the fundamental to the derivative.

In this paper, I defend Moorean Dogmatism against a novel objection raised by Adam Leite. Leite locates the defectiveness of the Moorean reasoning explicitly not in the failure of the Moorean argument to transmit warrant from its premises to its conclusion but rather in the failure of an epistemic agent to satisfy certain epistemic responsibilities that arise in the course of conscious and deliberate reasoning. I will first show that there exist cases of Moorean reasoning that are not put into jeopardy by the considerations that Leite presents. Second, I will argue that certain commitments of Leite’s concerning the notion of warrant are in tension with his verdict that the Moorean reasoning is defective.

Epistemic expressivists maintain, to a first approximation, that epistemic assertions express non-cognitive mental states, like endorsements, valuations, or pro-attitudes, rather than cognitive mental states such as beliefs. Proponents of epistemic expressivism include Chrisman, Gibbard, Field, Kappel, and Ridge, among others. In this paper, I argue for an alternative view to epistemic expressivism. The view I seek to advocate is inspired by hybrid expressivist theories about moral judgments, Copp Oxford studies in metaethics, 2009), Finlay, Strandberg ). According to these hybrid views, moral judgments express semantically cognitive or representational states and pragmatically convey the speaker’s non-cognitive mental states via implicatures. I will argue that a particular version of this view can reasonably be extended to epistemic judgments and that it has several advantages over its expressivist and cognitivist competitors. In particular, I will try to show that there exist certain phenomena in the epistemic domain that seem to be best accounted for by expressivist theories of epistemic judgments. However, a version of hybrid expressivism that maintains that epistemic judgments convey the attributor’s non-cognitive mental states via generalized conversational implicatures is able to account for these phenomena just as well without running afoul of the main problems that have been identified for different versions of epistemic expressivism.

Dieser Sammelband ist den Themen Wahrheit, Bedeutung und Existenz gewidmet sowie dem Bezug dieser Themen zur Realismus-Antirealismus-Problematik. Die Aufsatze zum Thema Wahrheit behandeln unter anderem, welche Rolle ein realistischer Wahrheitsbegriff fur unsere Erkenntnispraxis spielt und wie man einen realistischen Wahrheitsbegriff genau charakterisieren sollte. In den Beitragen zu dem Thema Bedeutung wird diskutiert, ob sich eine irrtumstheoretische Version des Antirealismus bezuglich der Existenz semantischer Tatsachen aufrechterhalten lasst und welche Variante des Antirealismus Saul Kripke in Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language vertreten hat. Die Beitrage aus der letzten Themengruppe gehen dem Status moglicher Welten, der Existenz vergangener Objekte und der Frage nach, wieso wir Sachverhalte als existent postulieren sollten, fur deren Existenz eigentlich keine vernunftigen Grunde sprechen."

In this paper, I defend Moorean Dogmatism against a novel objection raised by Adam Leite. Leite locates the defectiveness of the Moorean reasoning explicitly not in the failure of the Moorean argument to transmit warrant from its premises to its conclusion but rather in the failure of an epistemic agent to satisfy certain epistemic responsibilities that arise in the course of conscious and deliberate reasoning. I will first show that there exist cases of Moorean reasoning that are not put into jeopardy by the considerations that Leite presents. Second, I will argue that certain commitments of Leite’s concerning the notion of warrant are in tension with his verdict that the Moorean reasoning is defective.

Das Thema der apriorischen Rechtfertigung ist ein klassisches philosophisches Thema. Von der Antike bis in die Gegenwart wird ein intensiver Disput darüber geführt, ob man die Existenz nicht-empirischer Formen der Rechtfertigung anerkennen sollte. In diesem Buch wird ein intuitionenbasiertes Modell apriorischer Rechtfertigung entwickelt und verteidigt. Darüber hinaus werden die folgenden Fragen behandelt: Wie sollte man den Begriff der apriorischen Rechtfertigung charakterisieren? Welche Gründe gibt es für die Annahme nicht-empirischer Quellen der Rechtfertigung? Gibt es Alternativen zu intuitionenbasierten Modellen apriorischer Rechtfertigung? Kann man die Wahrheitsförderlichkeit nicht-empirischer Quellen der Rechtfertigung erklären?

In this paper, I sketch an account of intuitions on which intuitions are seemings. My paper consists of four sections. I the first section, I give an overview of the conceptions of intuitions that are endorsed in the recent literature and examine their interrelations. In the second section of the paper, I present an argument in favour of the view that intuitions are seemings. I argue that this view is backed up by linguistic data. In the third section of the paper, I try to motivate the claim that the content of intuitions is not necessarily modal. In the last section of the paper, I discuss whether some intuitions are a priori. I examine an argument due to Alvin Goldman that intuitions do not confer a priori warrant. I try to argue that Goldman's argument does not establish that intuitive warrant is not a priori. In the remainder of the section, I try to develop a positive view. I argue that whether an intuition is a priori is a matter of their etiology.