Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis is a proposed methodology for attributing correct application conditions, or 'meanings', to concepts. This methodology involves two stages: first, we seek an empirical understanding of the ways in which usage of a given concept has regularly delivered benefits, and, second, we seek an explication of that concept which is optimally capable of delivering benefits in these ways. Such an explication captures the 'pragmatic meaning' of a given concept. Chapters 1-3 articulate Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis and the notion of pragmatic meaning, and show how these are related to other philosophical methodologies and accounts of concept-meaning.Chapter 4 uses a 'bootstrapping argument' to establish that Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis has two important virtues. The first phase of this argument establishes that Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis has normative authority - it reveals explications that we have practical and epistemic reason to adopt, whether we take these explications to be semantically revisionary or not. This normative authority licenses using Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis, in the second phase, to explicate our shared concept of concept-meaning. This yields the conclusion that we have epistemic reason to adopt the notion of pragmatic meaning as our explication of 'concept-meaning'. Having explicated our concept in this way, we see that Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis also has descriptive authority - it is a semantically conservative tool that reveals concept-meaning, thus explicated.The initial presentation of the bootstrapping argument considers only one sort of work that our concept of concept-meaning does - helping to guide our application of other concepts. But this concept also regularly delivers benefits in a second way - by helping us to give good explanations for the behavior and behavioral success of various concept-users. Chapter 5 uses the normative authority of Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis to justify a particular account of how good explanations work. Chapter 6 draws upon this account to argue that, in order best to explain people's behavioral successes, we need an explication of concept-meaning that is closely related to the one presented in Chapter 4.Chapter 7 considers several objections and hard cases, and argues that Pragmatic Conceptual Analysis weathers these storms in good shape.

Anti-theorists claim that moral theories do not deliver all the goods we want and that consequently such theorizing is not a philosophically worthy pursuit. We suffer from certain misconceptions about the point and purpose of such theorizing and the theories it produces. In this essay, I treat moral theorizing as a genuinely theoretical enterprise that produces abstract knowledge about the general structure of morality.Moral theories should be understood as tools--intellectual and practical tools with importantly different uses. Just as with hand tools where it is useful to have hammers for one sort of job and screwdrivers for another, it can be rational to accept multiple moral theories at the same time. The idea here is that all good theories illuminate some truths about morality, but are also misleading at times. A theory that is good at solving one moral problem may be bad at solving another; a theory that is illuminating in one place may be distorting in another.Chapter one outlines the differences between moral theory, metaethics, moral metatheory, and morality itself. It argues that disagreement about moral theory need not reflect moral disagreement, and vice versa. Chapter two argues that even if moral theory turned out to be practically useless, it would still accomplish certain theoretical tasks. Chapters three and four explain how and why one might adopt different incompatible moral theories at the same time. Chapter five defends moral principles from various particularists and shows how the imperfections of moral principles mirror the imperfections of laws in other fields. Chapter six explains why philosophical inquiry is worthwhile despite the overwhelming disagreement displayed by philosophers. Chapter seven shows that moral intuitions serve as a check on philosophical methodology just as much as methodology helps us verify our intuitions. It explains why a certain sort of psychology-based argument against deontological intuitions will not work. Finally, chapter eight explores the various ways in which moral theory is and is not practical. It concludes that the practical usefulness of theory is a matter of empirical contingency that philosophers have done little to investigate.

This thesis concerns the nature of knowledge-how, in particular the question of how we ought to combine philosophical and linguistic considerations to understand what it is to know how to do something. Part 1 concerns the significance of linguistic evidence. In chapter 1, I consider the range of linguistic arguments that have been used in favour of the Intellectualist claim that knowledge-how is a species of propositional knowledge. Chapter 2 considers the idea that sentences of the form ‘S knows how to V' involve a free relative complement, and the relation between this claim and the Objectualist claim that knowledge-how is a kind of objectual knowledge. Chapter 3 argues that Intellectualism about knowledge-how faces a problem of generality in accounting for the kinds of propositions that are known in knowledge-how, which is analogous to the generality problem for Reliabilism. Part 2 turns to philosophical considerations, offering an extended inquiry into the point of thinking and talking about knowledge-how. Chapter 4 considers why we should want to work with a concept of knowledge, isolating two hypotheses: i) that thinking and talking about knowledge-how helps us to pool skills, and ii) that thinking and talking about knowledge-how helps us to engage in responsible practices of co-operation. Chapter 5 criticises the former hypothesis by arguing against the suggestion that there is a knowledge-how norm on teaching. Chapter 6 offers an indirect argument for the latter hypothesis, arguing for a knowledge-how norm on intending. Part 3, which consists of chapter 7, offers a positive account of knowledge-how which takes into account both philosophical and linguistic considerations. According to what I will call the Interrogative Capacity view, knowing how to do something consists in a certain kind of ability to answer the question of how to do it.

While naturalistic theories have come to dominate the philosophical landscape, there is still little consensus on what “naturalism” means. I trace the origins of contemporary naturalism to a view, called the “fundamental naturalistic impulse,” that originates in Quine’s turn against Carnap and which I take to be necessary for naturalism. In light of this impulse, some “substantively naturalistic” theories are examined: a weak version of non-supernaturalism, Railton’s a posteriori reduction of moral terms, and “Canberra plan” conceptual analyses of moral property terms. I suggest that if we take the fundamental naturalistic impulse seriously, then there is no need to differentiate substantive versions of naturalism over and above methodological versions. Substantive thesis in ontology or semantics can be had on account of one’s methodological commitments. This not only cuts against the distinction between methodological and substantive naturalisms, but also demonstrates just how far method can reach.

This dissertation makes progress on the mind-body problem by examining certain key features of epistemic defeasibility, introspection, peer disagreement, and philosophical methodology. In the standard thought experiments, dualism strikes many of us as true. And absent defeaters, we should believe what strikes us as true. In the first three chapters, I discuss a variety of proposed defeaters—undercutters, rebutters, and peer disagreement—for the seeming truth of dualism, arguing that not one is successful. In the fourth chapter, I develop and defend a novel argument from the indefeasibility of certain introspective beliefs for the conclusion that persons are not complex objects like brains or bodies. This argument reveals the non-mechanistic nature of introspection. / text

No description available.

Chaque activité humaine nécessite d’avoir sa propre méthode pour obtenir un résultat concret et satisfaisant. C’est ainsi le cas pour la philosophie, une discipline qui compte 2500 d’histoire et dont la méthode est alors délimitée par les philosophes et les autres personnes. Quelle est donc cette méthode philosophique? Il existe plusieurs réponses. Cette thèse va donc tenter de répondre à cette question en introduisant un projet de méthode philosophique dénommée « Conceptual Tuning » [l’accord conceptuel]. Les boxeurs ne se préoccupent généralement pas de la question conceptuelle « Qu’est-ce que la boxe? ». De même les biologistes se posent à peine la question de savoir « Qu’est-ce que la biologie ». Pour eux, ce genre de questions sont extérieures à leur discipline. Cependant pour la philosophie, la question de la nature de la philosophie est une question bien interne à cette discipline. La conscience de soi est une condition sine quo non pour « faire de la philosophie ».Puisque la philosophie possède une si longue histoire et tant de traditions diverses et variées, on présuppose donc qu’il existe de très nombreuses méthodes pour « faire de la philosophie ». Ma thèse tentera donc de contribuer à cette discussion portant sur la méthodologie philosophique en proposant une méthode que j’appellerai « Conceptual Tuning ». Cet accord conceptuel sera principalement développé à partir de la méthode « Conceptual Engineering » déjà utilisée dans la philosophie depuis, dont les défenseurs s’efforcent d’améliorer nos concepts tels que « personne », « libéral », « science ». Cette thèse présentera ainsi six versions de « Conceptual Engineering », à savoir le « Conceptual Engineering » de Cappelen, la Méthode d’Explication de Carnap, le Révisionnisme Moral de Zagzebski, la Guerre Lexique de Ludlow, la Négociation Métalinguistique de Plunkett et l’Approche d’Amélioration de Haslanger. Ces six approches estiment déjà que nos concepts pourraient être défectueux, et c’est la tâche du philosophe de les « réparer ». Alors que la plupart des approches de « Conceptual Engineering » ne font que se concentrer étroitement sur la perspective de « réparation », cette thèse soutiendra que l’accord conceptuel exige que l’attention soit plutôt portée sur une perspective « expressive ». En d’autres termes, il faudrait employer cette méthode dans un cadre général de la pratique consistant à demander et à donner des raisons. Cette thèse soutiendra également que d’autres méthodes philosophiques importantes telles que la méthode de Brandomian, la philosophie du langage ordinaire et l’analyse conceptuelle traditionnelle peuvent être bien incorporées dans le projet d’accord conceptuel. Ainsi, au lieu d’être en opposition, ces méthodes sont en fait conformes à l’accord conceptuel ces méthodes s’intègrent parfaitement à l’accord conceptuel. / Different human practices require various methods to carry them out successfully. Philosophy, an activity with 2500 years of history, must also have its own method, which demarcates a philosopher from a lay person. This thesis embarks on a project of philosophical method—conceptual tuning. How to do philosophy belongs to the category of metaphilosophy or philosophy of philosophy. Boxers usually do not care about the conceptual question ‘What is boxing?’ and biologists barely ask ‘What is Biology?’. For them, this kind of question is a higher order question which concerns the nature of the thing in itself. It is an external question for most disciplines. But for philosophy, the question concerning the nature of philosophy is an internal question. Self-awareness is a sine qua non of doing philosophy.With such a long history and so many traditions, the method of doing philosophy must be miscellaneous. My thesis attempts to contribute to the discussion of philosophical methodology by proposing a method I shall call conceptual tuning. Conceptual tuning is grounded in the philosophical method of conceptual engineering, advocates of which endeavor to improve our concepts. According to the method of conceptual engineering, philosophical problems stem from defects in our understanding of concepts, and it is the philosopher’s task to fix them. While most conceptual engineering approaches only narrowly focus on the perspective of ‘repairing’ or ‘fixing’, conceptual tuning calls for attention to the ‘expressive’ perspective. In other words, we should put this method in the broad framework of the practice of asking for and giving reasons. In this thesis, I also attempt to explain some previous conceptual methods under the title of conceptual tuning, such as Brandomian method, ordinary language philosophy, and the traditional conceptual analyses.

[pt] Teorias ideais e teoria não-ideais da adjudicação são uma distinção metodológica dentro das teorias normativas da adjudicação. A última considera que a metodologia das teorias normativas deve ser adequada ao que podemos esperar de seres humanos ordinários. Autores do formalismo jurídico como Larry Alexander, Cass Sunstein e Adrian Vermeule estão associados a essa metodologia. O primeiro, por sua vez, considera que esta não é uma restrição normativamente relevante. Podemos defender teorias cujos padrões normativos violam o que podemos esperar de seres humanos ordinários. O particularismo de Dworkin é o principal expoente desse método. A pergunta central é se há um conflito genuíno entre esses dois métodos. Para responder essa pergunta, divido as teorias ideais em duas vertentes: teorias ideais não-orientador e teorias ideais orientadoras. Defendo que há um conflito metodológico apenas entre os métodos não-ideias e este último. Por fim, sugiro que a reflexão sobre esses métodos é importante para desenvolver novos projetos normativos, nomeadamente, do formalismo ideal e que tal empreitada é intelectualmente valiosa. / [en] Ideal theories and non-ideal theories of adjudication are a methodological distinction within normative theories of adjudication. The latter consider that the methodology of normative theories must be adequate to what we might expect from ordinary human beings. Legal formalist scholars such as Larry Alexander, Cass Sunstein e Adrian Vermeule are associated with this methodology. The latter, in turn, believe that this is not a normatively relevant constraint. We can defend theories whose normative standards violate what we might expect from ordinary human beings. Dworkin s particularism is the chief exponent of this method. The central question is whether there is a genuine conflict between these two methods. To answer this question, I divide ideal theories into two strands: non-orienting ideal theory and orienting ideal theory. I argue that there is a methodological conflict only between non-ideals and the latter. Finally, I suggest that reflection on these issues is important to developing new normative projects, namely, ideal formalism and that such enterprise is intellectually valuable.