Martin Montminy

Donald Davidson holds that intentional concepts are not reducible to physical or dispositional ones. This is due, he claims, to the constitutive role of normativity in the principles that govern the application of intentional concepts. According to Davidson, the specific way in which norms of rationality and coherence are mobilised by our interpretative principles sets mental concepts off from those of the natural sciences. I agree with Davidson on the irreducibility of the mental. However, I show that irreducibility is due not to the normative character of intentional concepts, but to holism and the flexibility of interpretative principles. I then consider three arguments that Davidson has put forth to support the irreducibility of intentional properties on the basis of their normative character, and show that none of them goes through

According to a view widely held by epistemic contextualists, the truth conditions of a knowledge claim depend on features of the context such as the presuppositions, interests and purposes of the conversational participants. Against this view, I defend an intentionalist account, according to which the truth conditions of a knowledge attribution are determined by the speaker’s intention. I show that an intentionalist version of contextualism has several advantages over its more widely accepted rival account

Morgan's canon can be construed as claiming that an intentional explanation of a behavior should be ruled out if there exists an explanation of this behavior in terms of 'lower' mechanisms. Unfortunately, Morgan's conception of higher and lower faculties is based on dubious evolutionary considerations. I examine alternative interpretations of the terms 'higher' and 'lower', and show that none can turn the canon into a principle that is both correct and useful in drawing the line between thinkers and non-thinkers. In the process, I identify a number of problems that an adequate formulation of the canon should avoid. I then consider two more recent versions of the canon, proposed by Elliott Sober and Jonathan Bennett. Both are found unsatisfactory, but I argue that a version of Bennett's unity condition that is restricted to the attribution of recognitional concepts is on the right track

According to the worm theory, persons are (maximal) aggregates of person-stages existing at different times. Personites, on the other hand, are non-maximal aggregates of stages that are very much like persons. Their existence appears to make instances of prudential self-sacrifice morally problematic: the personites that exist at the time of the sacrifice but not at the time of the reward seem not to receive future compensation for their sacrifice. Instances of punishment appear to give rise to a similar problem. We argue that these impressions arise from a mistaken assumption about the primary bearers of properties such as suffering, receiving compensation (in the future) and having (previously) committed a crime. According to the worm theory, stages, rather than persons or personites, possess these properties. Persons and personites have these properties only derivatively. As we show, once this clarification and related ones are made, the apparent moral problems raised by the existence of personites dissolve.

Donald Davidson considère qu'une théorie de l'interprétation doit êtreradicale, c'est-à-dire qu'elle ne doit présupposer aucune connaissance de la langue à interpréter. Cette exigence repose sur l'idée suivante: si une théorie de l'interprétation pour une langue L présuppose une certaine compréhension de L, alors elle perd son pouvoir explicatif et échoue à rendre compte de ce qui permet la compréhension de L. L'interpr'tation radicale a l'avantage de nous forcer à rendre explicite ce qui est à l'œuvre dans le processus d'interprétation du comportement verbal d'autrui. Elle nous permet aussi de nous concentrer sur la nature des données empiriques qui rendent possible la communication. Il importe de noter que Davidson ne veut aucunement suggérer qu'un interprète compétent de Lconnaϊtoupossèdeune théorie de l'interprétation pour L: la théorie set plutôt à donner une description de sa compétence.

Il n’est pas facile de voir quel est l’objectif de ce livre. Au chapitreI, Rivenc annonce que ce qui l’intéresse est le lien chez Davidson entre le format d’une théorie de la signification pour les langues naturelles et le thème de l’interprétation radicale qui serait à l’œuvre dans tout échange linguistique. En fait, Rivenc ne dit à peu près rien sur ce lien. Son livre consiste plutôt en une suite de critiques disparates du programme de Davidson, qu’il emprunte à différents commentateurs de celui-ci. L’auteur omet de présenter les réponses à ces critiques qu’ont données les sympathisants de l’approche davidsonienne, et n’essaie pas de tirer des leçons plus générales de ces critiques concernant la sémantique des langues naturelles.

W. V. Quine is commonly read as holding that there are no analytic truths and no a priori truths. I argue that this is a misreading. Quine’s view is that no sentence is determinately analytic or determinately a priori. I show that my reading is better supported by Quine’s arguments and general remarks about meaning and analyticity. I then briefly reexamine the debate between Quine and Carnap about analyticity, and show that the nature of their disagreement is different than what it is usually thought to be.

David Sosa argues that the knowledge account of assertion is unsatisfactory, because it cannot explain the oddness of what he calls dubious assertions. One such dubious assertion is of the form ‘P but I do not know whether I know that p.’ Matthew Benton has attempted to show how proponents of the knowledge account can explain what’s wrong this assertion. I show that Benton’s explanation is inadequate, and propose my own explanation of the oddness of this dubious assertion. I also explain what’s wrong with other dubious assertions mentioned by Sosa

L'objectif de cette these est d'etudier les fondements empiriques de notions semantiques telles que la signification, l'analyticite et la reference. J'essaie entre autres choses de defendre l'idee qu'il n'existe pas de critere permettant de definir strictement ces notions. Dans un premier temps, j'examine les critiques formulees par W. V. Quine contre la distinction analytique-synthetique. Il n'existe pas d'argument general pour rejeter cette distinction. Pour critiquer celle-ci, on doit examiner individuellement les diverses tentatives visant a l'etablir. ;Tout d'abord, j'examine les objections de Quine contre le point de vue selon lequel la distinction analytique-synthetique aurait un caractere fondationnel. Ces objections sont rapprochees du paradoxe sceptique de Ludwig Wittgenstein, qui concerne le concept normatif de signification, selon lequel la signification d'un enonce justifierait son usage. ;J'aborde ensuite la question de savoir s'il est possible de tracer la distinction analytique-synthetique dans le cadre d'une theorie verificationniste de la signification, qui est fondee sur la maniere dont les locuteurs s'y prennent pour etablir la verite de leurs enonces. Une telle approche ne permet pas d'assigner aux enonces theoriques une signification determinee a cause du holisme, qui affirme que les enonces theoriques ne sont pas liees individuellement aux experiences qui les confirment , mais seulement en tant que fragments plus ou moins importants de theorie. Je tente de clarifier la these du holisme, et en etudie la source. ;Je presente ensuite le compte rendu de la signification propose par Quine, qui est fonde sur l'experience de pensee de la traduction radicale. Un manuel de traduction radicale doit organiser les donnees empiriques a partir desquelles il est construit, i.e. les dispositions verbales des locuteurs, conformement a certaines contraintes comme la contrainte de la communaute et le principe de charite. J'explique comment ces contraintes doivent etre comprises et appliquees. Le compte rendu de Quine est compare et contraste a celui de Donald Davidson, qui presente plusieurs points en commun. J'examine les principales differences qui les separent et essaie d'en decouvrir les motivations. Je montre par exemple pourquoi la theorie distale de Davidson est preferable a la theorie proximale de Quine. ;Enfin, la these de l'indetermination de la traduction est presentee. Je propose une formulation de cette these, selon laquelle l'indetermination de la traduction est directement liee a l'absence de critere empirique permettant de tracer la distinction analytique-synthetique. J'illustre ensuite cette these au moyen d'exemples et examine certaines de ses consequences, qui n'ont pas toutes ete envisagees par Quine, notamment celles qui concernent la notion de contenu empirique

I examine the claim, made by some authors, that we sometimes acquire knowledge from falsehood. I focus on two representative cases in which a subject S infers a proposition q from a false proposition p. If S knows that q, I argue, S's false belief that p is not essential to S's cognition. S's knowledge is instead due to S's belief that p′, a proposition in the neighbourhood of p that S believes . S thus knows despite her false belief. The widely accepted and plausible principle that inferential knowledge requires known premises is unscathed

La thèse de l'indétermination de la traduction de W. V. O. Quine est certainement une des thèses les plus controversées de la philosophie du langage. Le présent article explique en quoi consiste cette thèse et examine les liens qu'elle entretient avec la thèse de la sous-détermination des théories scientifiques. La première section montre comment la thèse de l'indétermination de la traduction découle de la conception behavioriste du langage de Quine. Les sections suivantes exposent deux façons de dériver la thèse de l'indétermination: par le holisme et le vérificationnisme dans la section 2 et par la thèse de la sous-détermination dans la section 3. La section 4 précise la formulation de la thèse de la sous-détermination proposée dans «On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World» et la section 5 expose les critiques exprimées par W. Bechtel à propos de cette formulation. Ces critiques témoignent d'une mauvaise compréhension de la position de Quine et j'essaierai de montrer en quoi elles sont fautives. La section 6 traite des deux façons de dériver la thèse de l'indétermination, à la lumière des modifications apportées à la formulation de la thèse de la sous-détermination. Enfin, la section 7 s'intéresse aux questions de fait relatives à la sous-détermination des théories et à l'indétermination de la traduction.

I consider three challenges to the traditional view according to which moral responsibility involves an epistemic condition in addition to a freedom condition. The first challenge holds that if a person performs an action A freely, then she thereby knows that she is doing A. The epistemic condition is thus built into the freedom condition. The second challenge contends that no epistemic condition is required for moral responsibility, since a person may be blameworthy for an action that she did not know was wrong. The third challenge invokes the quality of will view. On this view, a person is blameworthy for a wrong action just in case the action manifests a bad quality of will. The blameworthy person need not satisfy an additional epistemic condition. I will argue that contrary to appearances, none of these challenges succeeds. Hence, moral responsibility does require a non-superfluous epistemic condition.

Abstract: Several critics of contextualism claim that this view cannot consistently maintain its advertised neutrality between skepticism and anti-skepticism. Some critics contend that contextualists are forced to side with the skeptic, since any defense of contextualism unavoidably puts in place the skeptic's high requirements for knowledge; others hold that the contextualists' claim to have knowledge of what their own view entails forces them to reject the skeptic's knowledge denial. I show that these arguments misconstrue the role of context in contextualism, and explain how we are to understand the contextualist's proposed agreement with both the skeptic's knowledge denial and the anti-skeptic's knowledge attribution.

Quine’s negative theses about meaning and analyticity are well known, but he also defends a positive account of these notions. I explain what his negative and positive views are, and argue that Quine’s positive account of meaning entails that two of his most famous doctrines, namely the claim that there are no analytic statements and the indeterminacy of translation thesis, are false. But I show that the falsity of these doctrines doesn’t affect his criticisms of traditional conceptions of meaning. This is because the class of analytic statements that his account of meaning enables us to isolate is of no philosophical interest, and because we can hold that translation is determined without admitting that meaning is.

I examine the radical contextualists’ two main arguments for the semantic underdeterminacy thesis, according to which all, or almost all, English sentences lack context-independent truth conditions. I show that both arguments are fallacious. The first argument, which I call the fallacy of the many understandings , mistakenly infers that a sentence S is semantically incomplete from the fact that S can be used to mean different things in different contexts. The second argument, which I call the open texture fallacy , wrongly concludes that a sentence S lacks context-independent truth conditions from the fact that there are circumstances in which the truth value of S would be indeterminate. I do however defend the claim that a certain class of sentences not containing any indexicals do lack context-independent truth conditions, and put forward an argument to that effect. But this argument, as I show, does not generalize to all sentences, and thus fails to support the semantic underdeterminacy thesis.

I defend a contextualist account of bare epistemic modal claims against recent objections. I argue that in uttering a sentence of the form ‘It might be that p,’ a speaker is performing two speech acts. First, she is (directly) asserting that in view of the knowledge possessed by some relevant group, it might be that p. The content of this first speech act is accounted for by the contextualist view. But the speaker's utterance also generates an indirect speech act that consists in a weak suggestive that p. Since this second speech act is typically the main point of a bare epistemic modal utterance, our (negative or positive) responses to the utterance actually target this second speech act. I show how this two-speech-act account can explain the data recently adduced against contextualism

According to a popular view, resultant luck does not affect the overall degree of responsibility of an agent. A lucky reckless driver who does not harm anyone is overall just as blameworthy as an unfortunate reckless driver who accidentally kills a pedestrian. This view appears to contradict a very plausible thesis about character formation, according to which responsibility for one’s character can increase one’s degree of responsibility for the actions motivated by that character. Given that character formation is ridden with resultant luck, it seems that one cannot hold both that responsibility is immune to resultant luck and that responsibility is increased by prior character-forming actions. I argue that there is no tension between the two theses. Given that agents exercise control over their character-forming actions, character formation is not a purely lucky process, and deniers of resultant luck can consistently hold the plausible thesis about character formation.