We all pursue epistemic goals as individuals. But we also pursue collective epistemic goals. In the case of many groups to which we belong, we want each member of the group--and sometimes even the group itself--to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. In this paper, I respond to the main objections to the very idea of such collective epistemic goals. Furthermore, I describe the various ways that our collective epistemic goals can come into conflict with each other. And I argue that we must appeal to pragmatic considerations in order to resolve such conflicts.

It is natural to think that in order to learn about the world from perceptual experience, a person does not need to do anything. All that is required is that she has her eyes open, or her ears unplugged, so that she can receive sensory input from without. On the basis of this input, she can form justified empirical beliefs. This way of thinking about experience is central to many philosophical views about perception. It is my contention that the approach is mistaken, and that in fact it cannot explain how perceptual experience justifies belief. This dissertation argues, in contrast, that perceiving is not something that merely happens to us, but something we do. On my view, experience is a source of justification in virtue of being an activity which aims at knowledge. In Chapter 1, I present the topic of the dissertation and provide an analytical overview. Chapter 2 discusses and criticizes John McDowell's account of perceptual experience. I argue that McDowell is faced with a dilemma, as his original account mischaracterizes perceptual experience, and his later, revised account cannot explain how perception justifies empirical belief. The solution is to deny a claim common to both: that in experience we are passive. In contrast, I argue that experiencing is a full-fledged activity that is teleologically structured. In Chapter 3, I begin to substantiate my position by drawing on Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations. Chapter 4 supplements this claim by appeal to some features of Alva Noe's enactive view of perception. The resulting account portrays experience as an activity that has knowledge as its end. This explains how experience justifies belief, for it shows how perceptual knowledge cannot but be the result of experiencing going well for one. Chapter 5 argues that perceptual activity can take different forms, varying in complexity, as one aims at knowing features of one's environment. I argue, however, that keeping track of an object is the fundamental mode of perceptual activity. I conclude the dissertation by considering two objections to my account. / Thesis (Ph.D, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2013-05-29 10:01:52.496

<p> In this dissertation I examine whether and how knowledge or cognitive achievements like it have final value. I first give an account of epistemic value according to which it is not a unique kind of value, but rather value simpliciter which attaches to epistemic objects. I then critically evaluate recent prominent accounts of the value of knowledge and find them lacking. I argue that both virtue- and curiosity-based accounts of the value of knowledge fail to ground universal final value for it. I conclude that knowledge does not in fact have universal final value, and propose my own view that not it, but understanding has what I call universal preconditional value: it is a precondition for the formation of values at all.</p>

The problem of philosophical skepticism relates to the difficulty involved in underwriting the claim that we know anything of spatio-temporal reality. It is often claimed, in fact, that proper philosophical scrutiny reveals quite the opposite from what common sense suggests. Knowledge of external reality is thought to be even quite obviously denied to us as a result of the alleged fact that we all fail to know that certain skeptical scenarios do not obtain. A skeptical scenario is one in which we have neurological occurrences just like any normal situation in which we actually perceive spatio-temporal objects, but where we are deceived in some sense as a result of the manipulation of our brains from some outside source. In this work I attempt to address the problem of philosophical skepticism by claiming that most of us are able to come to know plenty about external reality, since we can come to realize that a certain philosophical theory of perception is correct. The theory I have in mind is what I call a non-cognitive theory of perception. According to this view, perceptual experience is defined by continuous, sensitive behavioral interaction with spatio-temporal objects of the appropriate size, shape, hardness, speed, etc. Knowing that this theory of perception is correct is equivalent to knowing that we know plenty about external reality. This is ultimately because by knowing that a non-cognitive theory of perception is true, we know that any skeptical scenario must fail to obtain. The structure of the work proceeds by first discussing the significance of the problem of philosophical skepticism in some detail. Chapter 1 lays out how the problem does indeed forcefully arise if it is conceded that we fail to know that the skeptical scenarios fail to obtain. Chapter 2 develops the sort of view of our epistemological situation that falls out of accepting without qualification that the problem exists. Chapter 3 examines and criticizes certain popular responses to the skeptical problem. The main goal of these first three preliminary chapters is to indicate that once it is admitted that we fail to know that the skeptical scenarios fail to obtain, the problem of philosophical skepticism forcefully presents itself. Chapter 4, however, attacks the idea that we fail to know that the skeptical scenarios fail to obtain. In this chapter I argue that this idea is wedded to the position that a certain theory of perception is correct. The theory in question is what I call a conjunctive theory of veridical experience. According to this view, normal experience of spatio-temporal objects occurs when a subject has a certain perceptual experience, and that experience also happens to match up with and/or be satisfied by what is really the case. Only when a theory of this sort is assumed, I argue, is the claim that we fail to know that the skeptical scenarios fail to obtain found to be obvious. In chapter 5 I argue that, in fact, a non-cognitive theory, rather than a conjunctive theory, is the correct view to maintain. In the final chapter 6 I develop the epistemological position that falls out of accepting a non-cognitive theory.

It is natural to think that in order to learn about the world from perceptual experience, a person does not need to do anything. All that is required is that she has her eyes open, or her ears unplugged, so that she can receive sensory input from without. On the basis of this input, she can form justified empirical beliefs. This way of thinking about experience is central to many philosophical views about perception. It is my contention that the approach is mistaken, and that in fact it cannot explain how perceptual experience justifies belief. This dissertation argues, in contrast, that perceiving is not something that merely happens to us, but something we do. On my view, experience is a source of justification in virtue of being an activity which aims at knowledge. In Chapter 1, I present the topic of the dissertation and provide an analytical overview. Chapter 2 discusses and criticizes John McDowell's account of perceptual experience. I argue that McDowell is faced with a dilemma, as his original account mischaracterizes perceptual experience, and his later, revised account cannot explain how perception justifies empirical belief. The solution is to deny a claim common to both: that in experience we are passive. In contrast, I argue that experiencing is a full-fledged activity that is teleologically structured. In Chapter 3, I begin to substantiate my position by drawing on Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations. Chapter 4 supplements this claim by appeal to some features of Alva Noe's enactive view of perception. The resulting account portrays experience as an activity that has knowledge as its end. This explains how experience justifies belief, for it shows how perceptual knowledge cannot but be the result of experiencing going well for one. Chapter 5 argues that perceptual activity can take different forms, varying in complexity, as one aims at knowing features of one's environment. I argue, however, that keeping track of an object is the fundamental mode of perceptual activity. I conclude the dissertation by considering two objections to my account. / Thesis (Ph.D, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2013-05-29 10:01:52.496

Paper presented at the 2008 Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Pasadena, California. / In order to lie, you have to say something that you believe to be false. But lying is not simply saying what you believe to be false. Philosophers have made several suggestions for what the additional condition might be. For example, it has been suggested that the liar has to intend to deceive (Augustine 395, Bok 1978, Mahon 2006), that she has to believe that she will deceive (Chisholm and Feehan 1977), or that she has to warrant the truth of what she says (Carson 2006). In this paper, I argue that none of the existing definitions of lying identify a necessary condition on lying. I claim that lying is saying what you believe to be false when you believe that the following norm of conversation is in effect: "Do not say what you believe to be false" (Grice 1989, 27). And I argue that this definition handles all of the counter-examples to the existing definitions.

Epistemology is an evaluative enterprise. But what should we take to be the primary unit of evaluation? Traditionally, individual beliefs have served as the primary units of epistemic evaluation. I argue that epistemology should instead use a different unit of evaluation--the agent and her character traits. Such a theory is a virtue epistemology.What makes a character trait a virtue? There are two competing answers to this question. The externalist holds that it depends on the relationship between the character trait and the world. The internalist holds that it depends on the ways the character trait motivates us to respond to our perceptions of the world. I argue, contrary to recent developments in virtue epistemology, that we should accept an internalist conception of virtue.How universal are the standards for virtue and vice? Rather than holding that standards are universal and do not depend on context, the contextualist holds that the standards for virtue and vice vary depending on the particulars of the context. I argue for a contextualist version of virtue epistemology, and show why context-sensitive virtue theory is superior to other potential versions of contextualism.Finally, I apply the developed notion of a contextually-sensitive, internalist virtue epistemology to two intriguing areas in epistemology. I argue that my view is better able to account for certain otherwise puzzling phenomena, including questions about the epistemic relevance of the testimony of others and about how we could have the capacities with reasoning about probability that we routinely exhibit.

No description available.

No description available.

This dissertation takes the form of an inter-subjective investigation into the ritual of performance, considering its function in terms of community engagement and its place in contemporary society. Ritual is placed in a secular context in which music is performed through the development of individual artistic expression, yet presented in a way that engages the audience as active participants. In this way audience and performer are united in experiencing the affect of music upon the emotions and the mind. / The views of art theorists, historians and critics, anthropologists, musicologists and arts practitioners, are held in the light of the author’s creative output through which a range of questions emerge regarding the cultivation of artistic identity, the artist’s role in the refinement of cultural expression, the relevance of live performance in the digital age, the transformational qualities of artistic practice upon the social and intellectual evolution of humanity, and the value of new musical language. / Chapter One examines the relationship between audience and musician from a performer’s perspective, in relation to Milton Babbitt’s article, Who Cares if You Listen? The connection between music performance and ritual practice and the possibility that artistic expression can actively engage audience receptivity is discussed in Chapter Two. Chapter Three contemplates the philosophical stance of the Art for Art’s Sake movement, that art exists in its own right without reference to the emotive experiences of humanity. Topics such as formal structure, the absence or presence of ethical content, the concept of aesthetic emotion and self objectivity, are examined alongside discussions of perception and consciousness. Chapter Four argues that performance, as ritual ceremony, becomes a porous boundary between lived and dream-like experience, through which the audience may pass to experience art on a profound level. The shared gesture of performer and audience becomes a life-enriching act that in turn nourishes all of society.