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.

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.

Cette étude constitue une interprétation de la philosophie de la logique de W. V. Quine à l’aune de ce que nous considérons comme étant un problème fondamental qui la gouverne et dont on peut considérer qu’elle en constitue une réponse. Ce problème a trait à la compatibilité entre logique et paroissial. Il admet la formulation condensée suivante : soit il y a un sens à dire que la logique est paroissiale, mais alors le paroissial se trouve être une restriction et est en droit éliminable ; soit le paroissial n’est pas une restriction et est inéliminable, mais alors il n’y a aucun sens à dire que la logique est paroissiale. Le problème se nourrit de ce que la qualification de la logique comme paroissiale fait l’objet d’une revendication explicite et délibérée par Quine, i.e. n’est ni de l’ordre d’une concession, ni de l’ordre d’un moment argumentatif dialectiquement résorbable. En d’autres termes, Quine revendique et cherche à se donner les moyens de revendiquer ce contre quoi une conception « universaliste » de la logique comme celle de Frege lutte, ordonnée qu’elle est à un présupposé ou une prémisse anti-paroissialiste d’unicité de la logique. Affirmer que Quine cherche à se donner les moyens de revendiquer la paroissialité de la logique, c’est dire qu’il prit tout à fait au sérieux les arguments anti-psychologistes de Frege contre toute conception paroissiale de la logique. Plus généralement,cette étude et la lecture de la conception quinienne de la logique que nous y proposons sont organisées par le principe d’une lecture frégéenne de Quine : si nous voulons comprendre ce que signifie de dire que la logique est paroissiale chez Quine, alors il faut revenir à Frege, que ce soit par la manière dont Quine s’y oppose ou par la manière dont il s’approprie certains thèmes et principes fondamentaux de la conception frégéenne de la logique. Cette étude consiste alors à mettre au jour et à examiner les raisons et les modalités de la revendication par Quine d’une paroissialité de la logique. Tout en étant ordonnés au traitement du problème de l’incompatibilité apparente du paroissial et de la logique, les cinq chapitres qui la composent parcourent successivement la critique de « Truth by Convention » du projet syntaxique de Carnap et de son principe de tolérance (chapitre 1), la philosophie de la notation logique de Quine (chapitre 2), le point de vue anthropologique en matière de logique que Quine fait sien (chapitre 3), le critère d’engagement ontologique (chapitre 4) et, enfin, la définition substitutionnelle de la vérité logique (chapitre 5). / This study is an interpretation of W.V. Quine’s philosophy of logic taken as an answer to what we consider to be a fundamental problem. This problem has to do with the compatibility between logic and parochial. It can be briefly expressed in the following manner: either that there is sense in saying that logic is parochial, but the parochial therefore happens to be a restriction and could be eliminated, or that the parochial is not a restriction and could not be eliminated, but that there is thus no sense in saying that logic is parochial. The problem is fueled by the fact that Quine explicitly and deliberately claims logic to be parochial. Such a qualification is neither a concession nor an argumentative moment that could be dialectically reduced. In other words, what Quine claims – and is seeking means to claim – is precisely that which a “universalist” conception of logic like Frege’s challenges, since it assumes an anti-parochial premise concerning the uniqueness of logic. Quine seeks means to claim the parochiality of logic in the sense that he seriously considered Frege’s anti-psychologist arguments against all parochial conceptions of logic. More generally, this study – and the understanding of Quine's conception of logic that it promotes – follows the principle of a Fregean reading of Quine: if one wants to understand what it means to say that logic is parochial in Quine, one has to go back to Frege, either through Quine’s opposition to him or through his appropriation of certain themes and fundamental principles of the Fregean conception of logic. Connected to the problem of the apparent incompatibility of logic and the parochial, the five chapters contained within this study successively explore the criticism of Carnap’s syntaxical project and of its principle of tolerance found in “Truth by Convention” (chapter 1); Quine’s philosophy of logical notation (chapter 2); the anthropological point of view in logic that Quine makes his own (chapter 3); the criterion of ontological commitment (chapter 4) and the substitutional definition of logical truth (chapter 5).

The purpose of this thesis is to critically examine how W.V. Quine, Michael A. Bishop and J.D. Trout confront the normativity objection against naturalized epistemology. In Chapter One, normativity in epistemology is introduced, followed by a brief look over Quine’s grievances against the traditional approach to epistemology. Quine rejects traditional epistemology and assimilates epistemology with science. The second chapter assesses how Quine naturalizes epistemology, and the third chapter evaluates his engineering response against the normativity objection. Bishop and Trout’s theory, founded upon the Aristotelian Principle, concentrates on reasoning and epistemic excellence instead of belief justification. Strategic Reliabilism’s attempt to dissolve the naturalistic challenge and resolve the normativity objection is inspected in Chapter Four. The final chapter, succinctly, summarizes its preceding chapters and ends by suggesting a closer exploration of the link between epistemology and cognitive sciences, to better understand the underlying mechanics of the objections that face naturalized epistemology. / Graduate / 0422 / 0621 / soushi@gmail.com