No description available.

Robert Brandom has provided what is probably one of the best worked out accounts of how the meanings of linguistic expressions are determined by how they are used—in particular, used in inferences. There are three different types of inferential relations in terms of which Brandom gives his account: commitment-preserving, entitlement-preserving, and incompatibility relations. Brandom also recognizes that most of the reasoning we engage in is defeasible (or deductively inconclusive). For example, the inference from ‘Tweety is a bird’ to ‘Tweety can fly’ is defeasible, because it can be defeated if there is stronger overriding reason to deny that ‘Tweety can fly’—such as Tweety’s being a penguin. Surprisingly, Brandom’s three types of inferential relations are inadequate for describing defeasible inference. In my dissertation I explain how the problem arises—it’s actually two problems—and I propose a solution that is consistent with Brandom’s overall approach. The first problem is that although Brandom's account does explain how someone can lose entitlement to a claim by committing themselves to some other claim, as in the Tweety example, it doesn’t allow subsequent recovery of entitlement to that claim by the addition of yet further information—say, that Tweety is a penguin with a jetpack. Once defeated (by some information), an inference stays defeated, on Brandom's account. The second problem is that of interpretation: when should we interpret someone as committed to the propriety of an inference that is defeasible? Brandom's account of what it is to endorse an inferential relation has no room for the important distinction between endorsing an inference in a context in which it happens to be defeated, and not endorsing it at all. In the latter portion of this dissertation I propose various modifications to Brandom’s account that will allow it overcome these problems. I solve the first problem by modifying Brandom’s account of how someone is obliged to update their beliefs in light of the inferential relations they endorse. I solve the second problem by modifying Brandom’s account of when we can appropriately interpret someone as endorsing particular inferential relations.

No description available.

In this thesis I discuss the problems associated with the epistemological task of arriving at basic logical knowledge. This is knowledge that the primitive rules of inference we use in deductive reasoning are correct. Knowledge of correctness, like all knowledge, is available to us either as the product of inference, or it is available non-inferentially. Success in the campaign to justify the correctness of these rules is mired by opposing views on how to do this properly. Inferential justifications of rules of inference, which are based on reasons, lead to regressive or circular results. Non-inferential justifications, based on something other than reasons, at first do not seem to fare any better: without a basis for these justifications, they appear arbitrary and unfounded. The works of Boghossian and Dummett who argue for an inferentialist approach, and Hale who supports non-inferentialism are carefully examined in this thesis. I conclude by finding superiority in Hale's suggestion that a particular set of basic logical constants are indispensable to deductive reasoning. I suggest that we endorse a principle which states that rules are not premises, and are therefore to be excluded from expression as statements in a deductive argument. I argue that the quality of being indispensable is sufficient for a basic rule of deduction to be countenanced as default-justified, and therefore need not be expressed in argument. By a rule's evading expression in argument, it avoids circular reasoning in deductive arguments about its own correctness. Another important outcome that emerges from my research is the finding that non-inferential knowledge is ontologically prior to the inferential sort. This is because plausible inferential knowledge of basic logical constants shall always be justified by circular reasoning that already assumes the correctness of the rule to be vindicated. This initial assumption is tantamount to non-inferential knowledge, and therefore this latter is more primitive-in fact the only primitive-species of basic logical knowledge.

In this thesis I discuss the problems associated with the epistemological task of arriving at basic logical knowledge. This is knowledge that the primitive rules of inference we use in deductive reasoning are correct. Knowledge of correctness, like all knowledge, is available to us either as the product of inference, or it is available non-inferentially. Success in the campaign to justify the correctness of these rules is mired by opposing views on how to do this properly. Inferential justifications of rules of inference, which are based on reasons, lead to regressive or circular results. Non-inferential justifications, based on something other than reasons, at first do not seem to fare any better: without a basis for these justifications, they appear arbitrary and unfounded. The works of Boghossian and Dummett who argue for an inferentialist approach, and Hale who supports non-inferentialism are carefully examined in this thesis. I conclude by finding superiority in Hale's suggestion that a particular set of basic logical constants are indispensable to deductive reasoning. I suggest that we endorse a principle which states that rules are not premises, and are therefore to be excluded from expression as statements in a deductive argument. I argue that the quality of being indispensable is sufficient for a basic rule of deduction to be countenanced as default-justified, and therefore need not be expressed in argument. By a rule's evading expression in argument, it avoids circular reasoning in deductive arguments about its own correctness. Another important outcome that emerges from my research is the finding that non-inferential knowledge is ontologically prior to the inferential sort. This is because plausible inferential knowledge of basic logical constants shall always be justified by circular reasoning that already assumes the correctness of the rule to be vindicated. This initial assumption is tantamount to non-inferential knowledge, and therefore this latter is more primitive-in fact the only primitive-species of basic logical knowledge.

The epistemological problem of unity and its development in the philosophy of Bertrand Russell is the main subject of this essay. The first chapter is devoted to naïve realism developed by G. E. Moore and adopted by early Russell. I explain the notion of objective unity of proposition. The second chapter concerns Russell's departure from naïve realism and the multiple relation of judgment which Wittgenstein's criticism rendered as fatally unable to handle the problem of synthetic unity. The breakdown of this theory led Russell to naturalism, which is the topic of the last chapter. I pay special attention to the regressive argument proposed in slightly different versions by Moore, L. Wittgenstein and G. Ryle. Keywords realism, neutral monism, behaviorism, unity, consciousness

Robert Brandom desenvolve um racionalismo que compreende os seres racionais como usuários de conceitos e sensíveis à \"força\" das razões. Essa ideia é explorada a partir de uma noção central da obra de Wilfrid Sellars, o \"espaço lógico das razões\". Este espaço é uma estrutura conceitual, linguística e normativa através da qual os seres racionais podem aplicar conceitos, dar razões e justificá-las. Contudo, sua principal característica é a articulação inferencial, isto é, aplicar conceitos, dar razões e justificá-las são atividades que só podem ser realizadas num contexto inferencial. Esta pesquisa visa discutir e analisar esta concepção de racionalidade evidenciando a centralidade do conceito de \"inferência\". / Robert Brandom develops a rationalism that considers rational beings as concept users and sensitive to the \"force\" of reasons. This idea is explored from a central notion of Wilfrid Sellars\'s philosophical work, the \"logical space of reasons\". This space is a conceptual, linguistic and normative structure by which rational beings can apply concepts, giving reasons and justifying them. However, the main feature of logical space is the inferential articulation, i.e., applying concepts, give reasons and justify them are activities that can be performed only in inferential context. This research aims to discuss and analyze this conception of rationality emphasizing the centrality of the concept of \"inference\".

Robert Brandom desenvolve um racionalismo que compreende os seres racionais como usuários de conceitos e sensíveis à \"força\" das razões. Essa ideia é explorada a partir de uma noção central da obra de Wilfrid Sellars, o \"espaço lógico das razões\". Este espaço é uma estrutura conceitual, linguística e normativa através da qual os seres racionais podem aplicar conceitos, dar razões e justificá-las. Contudo, sua principal característica é a articulação inferencial, isto é, aplicar conceitos, dar razões e justificá-las são atividades que só podem ser realizadas num contexto inferencial. Esta pesquisa visa discutir e analisar esta concepção de racionalidade evidenciando a centralidade do conceito de \"inferência\". / Robert Brandom develops a rationalism that considers rational beings as concept users and sensitive to the \"force\" of reasons. This idea is explored from a central notion of Wilfrid Sellars\'s philosophical work, the \"logical space of reasons\". This space is a conceptual, linguistic and normative structure by which rational beings can apply concepts, giving reasons and justifying them. However, the main feature of logical space is the inferential articulation, i.e., applying concepts, give reasons and justify them are activities that can be performed only in inferential context. This research aims to discuss and analyze this conception of rationality emphasizing the centrality of the concept of \"inference\".

[pt] Esta tese tem por objetivo apresentar, analisar e defender uma solução inferencialista para o assim chamado problema de seguir uma regra. O primeiro capítulo serve como uma introdução. No segundo capítulo, traço as linhas gerais que balizam a discussão ao longo do resto do trabalho: introduzo a ideia de uma teoria do significado e os seus elementos e mostro que ela pode ser uma base sistemática para discussões metafísicas e epistemológicas – com destaque para os temas do realismo e do representacionismo. No terceiro capítulo, abordo em detalhes o problema de seguir uma regra – apresentando uma reconstrução do argumento do Wittgenstein de Kripke (baseando-me em Hattigandi) que conduz à conclusão cética- bem como analiso a viabilidade das possíveis linhas de resposta. No quarto capítulo, apresento o maquinário teórico-conceitual do inferencialismo (baseando-me sobretudo na obra de Brandom); esboço a estrutura geral de uma teoria semântica inferencialista combinando o inferencialismo com duas outras ideias: o normativismo pragmático e o expressivismo lógico. Por fim, no quinto capítulo, enfrento o problema cético de seguir uma regra a partir da perspectiva apresentada no capítulo anterior, e utilizando os elementos introduzido nos outros três capítulos. / [en] In this dissertation I aim to present, analyze, and defend an inferentialist solution to the so-called rule-following problem. The first chapter works as an introduction. The second chapter sets the stage for the discussion throughout the dissertation. After introducing the very idea of a theory of meaning, I show that it can serve as a systematic basis for metaphysical and epistemological discussions – wherein the themes of realism and representationalism take center stage. In the third chapter, I tackle the rule-following problem. More precisely, drawing on Hattiangadi s seminal interpretation, I offer a reconstruction of Kripkenstein s argument leading to the skeptical solution. I also assess the plausibility of the main lines of response to the problem. In the fourth chapter, I introduce the inferentialist theoretical-conceptual machinery inspired by Brandom, drawing the general framework for an inferentialist semantic theory that combines semantic inferentialism with pragmatic normativism and logical expressivism. The final chapter tackles the rule-following problem from the perspective set out in the previous chapter, using at the same time elements brought into play in the other three chapters.

This thesis is a detailed examination of the logico-semantic system propounded by the English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham (c.1287 – c.1347). It provides a reinterpretation of Ockham's account of mental content and mental-language semantics, as well as of his theory of consequential goodness. It does so from the standpoint of an inferentialist theory of meaning, in rejection of previous attempts made from the standpoint of internalist and externalist theories of mental content. Chapter 1 ('The Scientic Status of Logic') provides an account of Ockham's understanding of logic as a rational, practical, ostensive science. Chapter 2 ('The Received Interpretation') presents and casts doubt upon the arguments put forward by the defenders of both externalist and internalist construals of Ockham's semantic theory. Chapter 3 ('An Inferentialist Construal') presents the central tenets of a inferentialist theory of meaning. In order to show how Ockham's system can be understood within such a semantic paradigm, we will have to set out at least three things. First, Chapter 4 ('Ockham's Propositionalism') argues that the mature Ockham actually embraced a propositionalist theory of meaning. Second, Chapter 5 ('Obligationes and the Normativity of Asserting') seeks to prove that such a theory of meaning can only be properly understood against the normative background provided by his theory of obligationes. Finally, Chapter 6 ('Consequences') argues that Ockham's theory of consequential goodness is materialist, not formalist. That is to say, that the goodness of a certain kind of consequence ultimately depends upon the meaning of its propositional parts, rather than upon its structure. It is then shown that all remaining kinds of consequences (syllogisms included) are to understood with respect to these material inferences. The main sources of this research are Ockham's Ordinatio, his Summa logicae, and his Quodlibeta septem. As regards the inferentialist theory of meaning, Robert Brandom's Making it Explicit (1994) and Wilfrid Sellars 'Inference and Meaning' (1953) were essential to this research.