No description available.

El presente trabajo busca reconstruir la posición de Hilary Putnam en torno a la filosofía de James, analizando los aspectos que han contribuido principalmente a la evolución del realismo putnamiano. Luego de precisar la afinidad entre Wittgenstein y James que guía el interés de Putnam por el pragmatismo de James, la autora recorre los temas éticos, epistemológicos y metafísicos a partir de los cuales surgen los aspectos más fructíferos de la filosofía pragmatista. Algunos de ellos son: la conjunción entre antidogmatismo y antiescepticismo, la concepción procesal del conocimiento y de la verdad, la crítica al reduccionismo fisicalista y al realismo del sentido común, y, por último, la tesis de la importanciade la dimensión práctica en el desarrollo del análisis filosófico. Queda así subrayada la actualidad de la batalla jamesiana contra la lógica dicotómica que gobierna nuestra tradición teorética.

O objetivo principal desta tese é argumentar a favor da intuição básica do realismo científico, com o apoio de uma versão fortalecida e articulada do argumento do milagre. O realismo científico é uma concepção filosófica da ciência que assume uma atitude epistêmica otimista frente aos resultados da investigação científica que abrangem aspectos do mundo tanto observáveis como inobserváveis. Segundo o realismo científico, as entidades inobserváveis postuladas pelas teorias científicas bem-sucedidas têm existência real e essas teorias são verdadeiras ou aproximadamente verdadeiras. Essa atitude positiva é contestada por diversas perspectivas filosóficas conhecidas coletivamente como formas de antirrealismo científico (positivismo lógico, instrumentalismo, empirismo construtivo, historicismo, construtivismo social etc.). Procuramos analisar e rebater três importantes modalidades de argumentação antirrealista: a subdeterminação empírica das teorias, a indução pessimista e a circularidade viciosa da inferência da melhor explicação. Argumentamos que não obstante as diferenças que se mantêm entre as concepções realistas da ciência, o chamado argumento do milagre constitui uma peça central na defesa do realismo científico. Esse argumento se expressa na célebre formulação de Putnam (1975, p. 73), [...] o realismo científico é a única filosofia que não faz do sucesso da ciência um milagre. Para o realista científico, a ciência é bem-sucedida em explicar e prever fenômenos, inclusive novos, porque suas melhores teorias (maduras, não ad hoc, bem-sucedidas empírica e instrumentalmente, provedora de previsões novas, fecundas etc.) são (parcial ou aproximadamente) verdadeiras e as entidades inobserváveis postuladas por essas teorias realmente existem. Argumentamos também que outros esquemas de explicação para o êxito científico baseados em visões antirrealistas ou não-realistas da ciência são insatisfatórios. Examinamos diversas formas de fortalecer o argumento do milagre mediante as qualificações de novidade preditiva e fecundidade teórica, e concluímos que esse argumento continua sendo basilar e estratégico na defesa do realismo científico. / The main objective of this thesis is to argue in favor of the basic intuition of scientific realism, with the support of a strengthened and articulated version of the miracle argument. Scientific realism is a philosophical conception of science that takes an optimistic epistemic attitude towards the results of scientific research concerning both observable and unobservable aspects of the world. According to scientific realism, the unobservable entities postulated by successful scientific theories actually exist, and these theories are true or approximately true. This positive attitude is challenged by various philosophical perspectives known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism (logical positivism, instrumentalism, constructive empiricism, historicism, social constructivism, etc.). We analyze and rebut three important modalities of the antirealist argument: empirical underdetermination of theories, pessimistic induction, and the vicious circularity of inference to the best explanation. We argue that despite the differences that remain between the realist conceptions of science, the so-called miracle argument is a centerpiece in the defense of scientific realism. This argument is expressed in Putnams famous formulation (1975a, p. 73): [...] realism is the only philosophy that doesnt make the success of the science a miracle. For the scientific realist, science is successful in explaining and predicting phenomena, including new ones, because its best theories (mature, not ad hoc, successful empirically and instrumentally, providing new forecasts, fruitful, etc.) are (partially or approximately) true and the unobservable entities postulated by these theories really exist. We also argue that other schemes of explanation of scientific success, based on antirealist or non-realist views of science, are unsatisfactory. We examine various ways of strengthening the miracle argument based on the notions of predictive novelty and theoretical fruitfulness, and we conclude that this argument remains fundamental and strategic in the defense of scientific realism.

O objetivo principal desta tese é argumentar a favor da intuição básica do realismo científico, com o apoio de uma versão fortalecida e articulada do argumento do milagre. O realismo científico é uma concepção filosófica da ciência que assume uma atitude epistêmica otimista frente aos resultados da investigação científica que abrangem aspectos do mundo tanto observáveis como inobserváveis. Segundo o realismo científico, as entidades inobserváveis postuladas pelas teorias científicas bem-sucedidas têm existência real e essas teorias são verdadeiras ou aproximadamente verdadeiras. Essa atitude positiva é contestada por diversas perspectivas filosóficas conhecidas coletivamente como formas de antirrealismo científico (positivismo lógico, instrumentalismo, empirismo construtivo, historicismo, construtivismo social etc.). Procuramos analisar e rebater três importantes modalidades de argumentação antirrealista: a subdeterminação empírica das teorias, a indução pessimista e a circularidade viciosa da inferência da melhor explicação. Argumentamos que não obstante as diferenças que se mantêm entre as concepções realistas da ciência, o chamado argumento do milagre constitui uma peça central na defesa do realismo científico. Esse argumento se expressa na célebre formulação de Putnam (1975, p. 73), [...] o realismo científico é a única filosofia que não faz do sucesso da ciência um milagre. Para o realista científico, a ciência é bem-sucedida em explicar e prever fenômenos, inclusive novos, porque suas melhores teorias (maduras, não ad hoc, bem-sucedidas empírica e instrumentalmente, provedora de previsões novas, fecundas etc.) são (parcial ou aproximadamente) verdadeiras e as entidades inobserváveis postuladas por essas teorias realmente existem. Argumentamos também que outros esquemas de explicação para o êxito científico baseados em visões antirrealistas ou não-realistas da ciência são insatisfatórios. Examinamos diversas formas de fortalecer o argumento do milagre mediante as qualificações de novidade preditiva e fecundidade teórica, e concluímos que esse argumento continua sendo basilar e estratégico na defesa do realismo científico. / The main objective of this thesis is to argue in favor of the basic intuition of scientific realism, with the support of a strengthened and articulated version of the miracle argument. Scientific realism is a philosophical conception of science that takes an optimistic epistemic attitude towards the results of scientific research concerning both observable and unobservable aspects of the world. According to scientific realism, the unobservable entities postulated by successful scientific theories actually exist, and these theories are true or approximately true. This positive attitude is challenged by various philosophical perspectives known collectively as forms of scientific antirealism (logical positivism, instrumentalism, constructive empiricism, historicism, social constructivism, etc.). We analyze and rebut three important modalities of the antirealist argument: empirical underdetermination of theories, pessimistic induction, and the vicious circularity of inference to the best explanation. We argue that despite the differences that remain between the realist conceptions of science, the so-called miracle argument is a centerpiece in the defense of scientific realism. This argument is expressed in Putnams famous formulation (1975a, p. 73): [...] realism is the only philosophy that doesnt make the success of the science a miracle. For the scientific realist, science is successful in explaining and predicting phenomena, including new ones, because its best theories (mature, not ad hoc, successful empirically and instrumentally, providing new forecasts, fruitful, etc.) are (partially or approximately) true and the unobservable entities postulated by these theories really exist. We also argue that other schemes of explanation of scientific success, based on antirealist or non-realist views of science, are unsatisfactory. We examine various ways of strengthening the miracle argument based on the notions of predictive novelty and theoretical fruitfulness, and we conclude that this argument remains fundamental and strategic in the defense of scientific realism.

In this dissertation on Hilary Putnam's philosophy, I investigate his development regarding meaning and necessity, in particular mathematical necessity. Putnam has been a leading American philosopher since the end of the 1950s, becoming famous in the 1960s within the school of analytic philosophy, associated in particular with the philosophy of science and the philosophy of language. Under the influence of W.V. Quine, Putnam challenged the logical positivism/empiricism that had become strong in America after World War II, with influential exponents such as Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach. Putnam agreed with Quine that there are no absolute a priori truths. In particular, he was critical of the notion of truth by convention. Instead he developed a notion of relative a priori truth, that is, a notion of necessary truth with respect to a body of knowledge, or a conceptual scheme. Putnam's position on necessity has developed over the years and has always been connected to his important contributions to the philosophy of meaning. I study Hilary Putnam's development through an early phase of scientific realism, a middle phase of internal realism, and his later position of a natural or commonsense realism. I challenge some of Putnam’s ideas on mathematical necessity, although I have largely defended his views against some other contemporary major philosophers; for instance, I defend his conceptual relativism, his conceptual pluralism, as well as his analysis of the realism/anti-realism debate.

Has the theory of direct reference for general terms ontological consequences or requirements? It has normally been said that general terms should be conceived as rigid designators of natural classes”, but this is a very vague expression. What is a natural class” here? Is it a universal? Is it a class of resembling objects or tropes? It is argued that the theory of direct reference functions better in connection with an ontology of universals. The semantic model actually requires certain type of successful cognitive relation with the referent and it is difficult to explain how such a successful connection could be obtained if there are no universal properties, but only perfect resemblance classes of objects or tropes. / ¿Hay consecuencias o requerimientos ontológicos que puedan desprendersede la teoría de la referencia directa? Se ha dicho frecuentemente quelos términos generales deben ser concebidos como designadores rígidos de clasesnaturales”, pero esta es una expresión demasiado vaga. ¿Qué es aquí una clasenatural”? ¿Es un universal? ¿Una clase de objetos o tropos semejantes entre sí?Se argumenta que la teoría de la referencia directa funciona mejor en conexióncon una ontología de universales. El modelo semántico, en efecto, requiere ciertotipo de relación cognitiva exitosa con el referente, y es difícil explicar cómo podríadarse esa conexión exitosa si no hay propiedades universales, sino solo clasesde objetos o tropos perfectamente semejantes.

Moral realism is the view that there are such things as moral facts. Moral realists have attempted to combat the skeptical problem of relativism, which is that the truth of an ethical value judgment is often, or always, subjective, that is, relative to the parties it involves. This essay presents, discusses, and criticizes Hilary Putnam’s attempt at maintaining moral realism while at the same time maintaining a degree of epistemological relativism. Putnam’s positive account originates in moral epistemology, at the heart of which lies truth, as idealized rational acceptability or truth under ideal conditions. The bridge between moral epistemology and normative ethics stems from Putnam’s disintegration of facts and values. His theory is finalized in the construction of a normative moral theory, in which the central notion is incessant self-criticism in order to maintain rationality. After presenting Putnam’s core thesis, the criticism raised by Richard Rorty, is deliberated upon. Rorty is critical of Putnam’s attempt at holding on to objectivity, because he does not understand how objective knowledge can be both relative to a conceptual scheme, and at the same time objective. The conclusion is that Putnam is unable to maintain his notion of truth as idealized rational acceptability and is forced into epistemological relativism. Putnam’s normative ethics has characteristics in common with virtue ethics, and is of much interest regardless of whether it can be grounded epistemologically or not.

Dans cette thèse, je propose une lecture renouvelée de l’itinéraire philosophique d’Hilary Putnam concernant la problématique du réalisme. Mon propos consiste essentiellement à défendre l’idée selon laquelle il y aurait beaucoup plus de continuité, voir une certaine permanence, dans la manière dont Putnam a envisagé la question du réalisme tout au long de sa carrière. Pour arriver à une telle interprétation de son oeuvre, j’ai essentiellement suivi deux filons. D’abord, dans un ouvrage du début des années 2000, Ethics without Ontology (2004), Putnam établit un parallèle entre sa conception de l’objectivité en philosophie des mathématiques et en éthique. Le deuxième filon vient d’une remarque qu’il fait, dans l’introduction du premier volume de ses Philosophical Papers (1975), affirmant que la forme de réalisme qu’il présupposait dans ses travaux des années 1960-1970 était la même que celle qu’il défendait en philosophie des mathématiques et qu’il souhaitait défendre ultérieurement en éthique. En suivant le premier filon, il est possible de mieux cerner la conception générale que se fait Putnam de l’objectivité, mais pour comprendre en quel sens une telle conception de l’objectivité n’est pas propre aux mathématiques, mais constitue en réalité une conception générale de l’objectivité, il faut suivre le second filon, selon lequel Putnam aurait endossé, durant les années 1960-1970, le même type de réalisme en philosophie des sciences et en éthique qu’en philosophie des mathématiques. Suivant cette voie, on se rend compte qu’il existe une similarité structurelle très forte entre le premier réalisme de Putnam et son réalisme interne. Après avoir établi la parenté entre le premier et le second réalisme de Putnam, je montre, en m’inspirant de commentaires du philosophe ainsi qu’en comparant le discours du réalisme interne au discours de son réalisme actuel (le réalisme naturel du commun des mortels), que, contrairement à l’interprétation répandue, il existe une grande unité au sein de sa conception du réalisme depuis les années 1960 à nos jours. Je termine la thèse en montrant comment mon interprétation renouvelée de l’itinéraire philosophique de Putnam permet de jeter un certain éclairage sur la forme de réalisme que Putnam souhaite défendre en éthique. / In this dissertation I propose a new reading of the philosophical itinerary of Hilary Putnam on the matter of realism. In essence, my purpose is to argue that there is much more continuity than is normally understood, and even a degree of permanence, in the way in which Putnam has viewed the question of realism throughout his career. To arrive at this interpretation of Putnam I essentially followed two veins in his work. First, in a volume published in the early 2000s entitled Ethics without Ontology (2004), Putnam establishes a parallel between his conception of objectivity in the philosophy of mathematics and in ethics. The second vein comes from a comment he made in the introduction to the first volume of his Philosophical Papers (1975) to the effect that the kind of realism he presupposed in his work of the 1960s and 70s was the same that he upheld in the philosophy of mathematics and wished to argue for at a later date in ethics. Following the first vein makes it possible to better grasp Putnam’s general conception of objectivity, but in order to understand how such a conception of objectivity is not unique to mathematics but is instead a general conception of objectivity one must follow the second vein. There, in the 1960s and 70s, Putnam adopted the same kind of realism in the philosophy of science and in ethics as he had in the philosophy of mathematics. Following this path, one realises that there exists a very strong structural similarity between Putnam’s first realism and his internal realism. After establishing this connection between Putnam’s first and second realism, I draw on Putnam’s remarks and compare the internal realism discourse to his current realism (the natural realism of ordinary people) to demonstrate, contrary to the prevalent interpretation, that there has been a great deal of consistency in his conception of realism from the 1960s to the present day. I conclude the dissertation by demonstrating how my new interpretation of Putnam’s philosophical itinerary makes it possible to shed light on the kind of realism he wishes to champion in ethics.

The main purpose of this dissertation is to answer the question of how one can understand the fact that we mean very different things when we say that God exists and when we say that chairs, mountains and trees exist, and that it is still a matter of existence. On the one hand it seems that we talk about the same thing when we say that something exists, irrespective of what it is, on the other hand it seems to be a question of very different things depending on what it is we are talking about as existing. This dissertation seeks to give an understanding of the relation between the concept of truth and the concept of reality. The conclusion is not only that we presuppose these concepts in everything we do, say, believe and think, but that we presuppose a specific understanding of these concepts, namely a concept of objective truth and a concept of an external and mind independent reality. In this dissertation it is also argued that our use of these concepts and that we use them in everything we do – that they are as basic as they are – says something about how it is, about reality. The use of these concepts does not only say something of what we conceptually presuppose but it also says something about what we assume in relation to reality. The conceptual aspect, in this way, has consequences ontologi.