In this paper I argue, with many leading commentators, that Kant is a conceptualist. I support this conclusion, argued for independently by Hannah Ginsborg and John McDowell, by appeal to the analyticity of Kant’s apperception principle in the transcendental deduction. I argue that the apperception principle, if taken as an analytic proposition, implies that any mental representation that figures into discursive cognition is the product of a priori synthesis. I further argue that making a priori synthesis a condition for the possibility of any mental representation is sufficient to make mental representation conceptual in the relevant sense. This, I argue, strongly suggests that Kant is a conceptualist.

I develop a framework for making visible the impacts that science has on human subjectivity, along with demonstrating how these transformations support the existing social order. In order to develop this framework, I critique the work of Wilfrid Sellars. Sellars is one of the few analytic philosophers of science who directly addresses the connections between science and subjectivity. What makes Sellars particularly interesting is the way he sought to preserve a strong conception of normativity alongside a quasi-eliminativist scientific realism. I set the stage for my critique of Sellars by contrasting two different accounts of subjectivity, one Cartesian, the other pragmatic. I argue in favor of the pragmatic because it completely grounds the subject in the world (a point with which Sellars basically agrees). I begin my critique of Sellars by explaining his scientific realism. This is then connected to his vision of the interconnections between science and subjectivity. I then argue that Sellars' scientific realism is fundamentally incoherent, which leads his system into nihilism. From this I trace out the role that science can play with respect to subjectivity in a nihilistic world. To partially counter this nihilism, I articulate an alternative to scientific realism that is based, in part, on my pragmatic account of subjectivity. I conclude by re-appropriating elements of Sellars' philosophy, routed through my alternative scientific realism, in order to complete the framework discussed above. / Ph. D.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Wilfrid Sellars is well known for his criticism of what he called the myth of the given , which first appeared in his Empiricism and the philosophy of mind(1956).The given that is regarded as mythical by Sellars is the epistemic given with which foundationalists in epistemology intend to solve the epistemic regress problem. Sellars s criticisms of foundationalism had a strong repercussion in epistemology and soon become a reference in this field, mainly in virtue of having targeted the most basic features of foundationalism, questioning the very idea of immediate knowledge, which is at the core of any foundationalist account of knowledge. Sellars s criticism remain a challenge for foundationalism, and its significance has been highlighted by a growing number exegetical, critical, and Sellarsian inspired works. This dissertation comprieses three papers focused on Sellars s epistemology. The first paper shows how wide the reach of Sellarsian criticism on the myth of the given is. It also shows that Sellars s criticism of foundationalism can be presented in the form of a dilemma (known as Sellars s dilemma ) and how that dilemma, which does not appear explicitly in his work, can be found in his writings. The second paper presents an attempt by Laurence BonJour s to answer the challenge put to foundationalism by Sellars s dilemma. It assesses BonJour s more recent views on the matter, and shows thatthey do not answer the criticisms which himself endorsed when he was a coherentist. The third paper shows that if Sellars s views are coherent with and representing one of the culminations of the traditional analyses knowledge as justified true belief, and if his views are inadequate, then this could be evidence that we need an alternative in which knowledge is not analyzable in term of justification and other concepts but is a basic concept. We indicate, based on the work of Timothy Williamson and on a late piece by Sellars, how that alternative might turn out. / Wilfrid Sellars é conhecido por suas críticas ao que denominou mito do dado , que apareceram pela primeira vez em Empirismo e filosofia da mente (1956). O dado considerado mítico por Sellars é o dado epistêmico com o qual a vertente fundacionista em epistemologia pretende solucionar o problema do regresso epistêmico. As críticas de Sellars ao fundacionismo tiveram grande repercussão no debate epistemológico e logo se tornaram referência nessa área, principalmente em virtude de visarem os aspectos mais basilares da concepção fundacionista, pondo em xeque a própria noção de conhecimento imediato, cara a qualquer abordagem fundacionista do conhecimento. Suas críticas representam ainda hoje um desafio de peso para concepções fundacionistas e sua importância tem sido enfatizada por um número crescente de trabalhos exegéticos, críticos e de inspiração sellarsiana. Esta dissertação compõe-se de três artigos que têm como foco a epistemologia de Sellars. No primeiro, mostra-se em que consiste e quão geral é a crítica de Sellars ao mito do dado. Mostra-se também como a crítica de Sellars pode ser apresentada na forma de um dilema ( O dilema de Sellars ) e como esse dilema, que não é formulado de forma explicita em sua obra, podem ser encontrado nos textos do autor. O segundo artigo apresenta a tentativa de Laurence BonJour de responder ao desafio posto pelo dilema de Sellars ao fundacionismo. Avalia-se a nova posição de BonJour, que no passado foi um coerentista, e mostra-se que ela não é capaz de superar as críticas que ele mesmo endossava anteriormente. No terceiro e último artigo, mostra-se que se a concepção epistemológica de Sellars é vista como sendo coerente com e representando uma das culminâncias da tradição que analisa conhecimento como crença verdadeira justificada e tal concepção resulta inadequada, então isso pode ser um indício de que deveríamos buscar uma concepção alternativa do conceito de conhecimento. Indica-se, a partir do trabalho de Timothy Williamson e de um texto tardio de Sellars, como poderíamos entender conhecimento como um conceito básico, não analisável.

The aim of the thesis is to explore Ludwig Wittgenstein’s and Wilfrid Sellars’s views on intentionality. In the first chapter I discuss the account of intentionality and meaning the early Wittgenstein developed in his Tractatus logico-philosophicus. I present his idea that sentences are pictures of states of affairs with which they share a ‘logical form’ and to which they stand in an internal ‘pictorial relationship’. I argue that Wittgenstein thought of this relationship as established by acts of thought consisting in the operation of mental signs corresponding to the signs of public languages. In the second and third chapters I discuss the later Wittgenstein’s criticism of ideas at the heart of the Tractarian account of intentionality, as well as his explanations of the phenomena that motivated it. In the second chapter I examine his rejection of the idea that thinking consists in the operation of mental signs and his criticism of the idea that meaning and understanding are mental processes accompanying the use of language. In the third chapter I turn to Wittgenstein’s criticism of the idea that representations stand in an internal ‘pictorial relation’ to objects in the natural order that are their meaning. I illuminate his later views by discussing Sellars’s non-relational account of meaning, in particular his claim that specifications of meaning do not relate expressions to items that are their meaning, but rather specify their rule-governed role in language. I conclude with a discussion of the later Wittgenstein’s account of the relationship between intentional phenomena and the objects at which they are directed. In the final fourth chapter I provide a detailed discussion of Sellars’s account of thinking. I conclude with some criticisms of Sellars’s views.

This thesis is primarily a descriptive exploration of the related moral philosophies of Wilfrid Sellars and Richard Rorty. While Rorty is clear that his normative thinking descends from Sellars's positions, there are numerous differences between their two positions. For instance, though Rorty is a self-identified Sellarsian, he rejects the explicitly formal character of his predecessor's work. Further, Sellars's normative upshot may be seen as philanthropic whereas Rorty's is best understood as solidaristic. Chapter 1 works through Sellars's metaethical position, which gives an intentional account to experientially-imperative normative judgments. This description pays particular attention to the necessity of community and the action-motivating character of practical reasoning. Chapter 2 turns to Rorty's deployment of Sellars's insights, beginning with a brief account of the commonalities between their metaphysical and epistemological positions. The most significant extensions Rorty makes to Sellars's position are in limiting justificatory schemas to only one's own community and shifting the focus of this community from "we reasoners" to "we sufferers." The third and final chapter briefly compliments one of the benefits of Rorty's claims over Sellars's before turning to critique, arguing that unfortunately neither of their positions have much in the way of content to offer. Beyond this, it seems difficult to understand trans-traditional conversation or deliberation on their accounts, especially Rorty's. Nonetheless, by tracing the impact of Wilfrid Sellars's thought in the work of Richard Rorty, an important connection may be made and explored.

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.

Wilfrid Sellars ficou conhecido por seus ataques ao empirismo e fundacionismo tradicionais em epistemologia e por desenvolver uma abordagem original aos problemas epistemológicos, que criou certa corrente filosófica que tem com seus principais desenvolvedores Rorty, McDowell e Brandom. Segundo essa corrente, o conhecimento, para ser bem compreendido, deve ser tomado como se dando no interior do espaço lógico das razões, no interior do espaço no qual transitamos ao oferecer e pedir por razões para aquilo que fazemos e acreditamos. Porém, essa visão acaba por se mostrar bastante intelectualizada, principalmente pela sua exigência de reflexividade para o conhecimento e por defender que a presença de estados intencionais seja dependente da posse de uma linguagem como a nossa Minha tese, neste trabalho, é que as posições tardias de Sellars sobre sistemas representacionais animais nos dão ferramentas para rejeitar seu nominalismo psicológico e desenvolver uma concepção menos intelectualista de conhecimento, mesmo que isso signifique abrir mão de uma análise completa do mesmo em condições necessárias e suficientes. Este trabalho é composto por quatro capítulos: no primeiro capítulo reconstruo o projeto filosófico inicial de Sellars para mostrar como a sua compreensão não relacional da semântica o levou a fazer a exigência de reflexividade para o conhecimento, sendo essa exigência uma das razões para a excessiva intelectualização de sua abordagem do conhecimento e comento algumas de suas consequências. O segundo capítulo avalia a defesa de McDowell da tese sellarsiana do conhecimento como se dando no interior do espaço lógico das razões das acusações de intelectualismo e conclui que ela incorre em petição de princípio ou circularidade. O terceiro capítulo avança a proposta de Brandom para assimilar o insight confiabilista numa epistemologia centrada na atividade de dar e pedir por razões, na tentativa de combater seu excessivo intelectualismo. A posição tardia de Sellars ajuda-nos a entender a presença de estados proposicionais em seres que não participam do jogo público de dar e pedir por razões, possibilitando uma concepção menos intelectualista de conhecimento. O quarto capítulo explora a distinção de McDowell entre “razão” e “razão enquanto tal” para alcançar uma noção de racionalidade menos intelectualizada, centrada naquilo que somos capazes de fazer em oposição ao que devemos fazer. / Wilfrid Sellars became known for his attacks on traditional empiricism and foundationalism in epistemology and for developing an original approach to epistemological problems, which has created a certain philosophical current that has its main developers Rorty, McDowell, and Brandom. According to this current, knowledge, in order to be well understood, must be taken as giving itself within the logical space of reasons, within the space in which we go through offering and asking for reasons for what we do and believe. However, this view turns out to be quite intellectualized, mainly due to its reflexivity requirement for knowledge and for defending that the presence of intentional states is dependent on the possession of a language like ours. My thesis, in this work, is that late positions of Sellars on animal representational systems give us tools to reject his psychological nominalism and develop a less intellectualist conception of knowledge, even if that means giving up a complete analysis of it under necessary and sufficient conditions. This work is composed of four chapters: in the first chapter I reconstruct Sellars' initial philosophical project to show how his non-relational understanding of semantics led him to make the demand for reflexivity for knowledge, being this requirement one of the reasons for the excessive intellectualization of his approach to knowledge, and comment on some of its consequences. The second chapter evaluates McDowell's defense of the Sealarsian thesis of knowledge as taking place within the logical space of the reasons for accusations of intellectualism and concludes that it incurs in a petition of principle or circularity. The third chapter advances Brandom's proposal to assimilate the reliabilist insight into an epistemology centered on giving and asking for reasons in an attempt to combat its excessive intellectualism. The late position of Sellars helps us to understand how to extend the presence of propositional states to beings who do not participate in the public game of giving and asking for reasons, enabling a less intellectualist conception of knowledge. The fourth chapter explores McDowell's distinction between "reason" and "reason as such" to achieve a less intellectualized notion of rationality centered on what we are able to do in opposition to what we should do.

Wilfrid Sellars ficou conhecido por seus ataques ao empirismo e fundacionismo tradicionais em epistemologia e por desenvolver uma abordagem original aos problemas epistemológicos, que criou certa corrente filosófica que tem com seus principais desenvolvedores Rorty, McDowell e Brandom. Segundo essa corrente, o conhecimento, para ser bem compreendido, deve ser tomado como se dando no interior do espaço lógico das razões, no interior do espaço no qual transitamos ao oferecer e pedir por razões para aquilo que fazemos e acreditamos. Porém, essa visão acaba por se mostrar bastante intelectualizada, principalmente pela sua exigência de reflexividade para o conhecimento e por defender que a presença de estados intencionais seja dependente da posse de uma linguagem como a nossa Minha tese, neste trabalho, é que as posições tardias de Sellars sobre sistemas representacionais animais nos dão ferramentas para rejeitar seu nominalismo psicológico e desenvolver uma concepção menos intelectualista de conhecimento, mesmo que isso signifique abrir mão de uma análise completa do mesmo em condições necessárias e suficientes. Este trabalho é composto por quatro capítulos: no primeiro capítulo reconstruo o projeto filosófico inicial de Sellars para mostrar como a sua compreensão não relacional da semântica o levou a fazer a exigência de reflexividade para o conhecimento, sendo essa exigência uma das razões para a excessiva intelectualização de sua abordagem do conhecimento e comento algumas de suas consequências. O segundo capítulo avalia a defesa de McDowell da tese sellarsiana do conhecimento como se dando no interior do espaço lógico das razões das acusações de intelectualismo e conclui que ela incorre em petição de princípio ou circularidade. O terceiro capítulo avança a proposta de Brandom para assimilar o insight confiabilista numa epistemologia centrada na atividade de dar e pedir por razões, na tentativa de combater seu excessivo intelectualismo. A posição tardia de Sellars ajuda-nos a entender a presença de estados proposicionais em seres que não participam do jogo público de dar e pedir por razões, possibilitando uma concepção menos intelectualista de conhecimento. O quarto capítulo explora a distinção de McDowell entre “razão” e “razão enquanto tal” para alcançar uma noção de racionalidade menos intelectualizada, centrada naquilo que somos capazes de fazer em oposição ao que devemos fazer. / Wilfrid Sellars became known for his attacks on traditional empiricism and foundationalism in epistemology and for developing an original approach to epistemological problems, which has created a certain philosophical current that has its main developers Rorty, McDowell, and Brandom. According to this current, knowledge, in order to be well understood, must be taken as giving itself within the logical space of reasons, within the space in which we go through offering and asking for reasons for what we do and believe. However, this view turns out to be quite intellectualized, mainly due to its reflexivity requirement for knowledge and for defending that the presence of intentional states is dependent on the possession of a language like ours. My thesis, in this work, is that late positions of Sellars on animal representational systems give us tools to reject his psychological nominalism and develop a less intellectualist conception of knowledge, even if that means giving up a complete analysis of it under necessary and sufficient conditions. This work is composed of four chapters: in the first chapter I reconstruct Sellars' initial philosophical project to show how his non-relational understanding of semantics led him to make the demand for reflexivity for knowledge, being this requirement one of the reasons for the excessive intellectualization of his approach to knowledge, and comment on some of its consequences. The second chapter evaluates McDowell's defense of the Sealarsian thesis of knowledge as taking place within the logical space of the reasons for accusations of intellectualism and concludes that it incurs in a petition of principle or circularity. The third chapter advances Brandom's proposal to assimilate the reliabilist insight into an epistemology centered on giving and asking for reasons in an attempt to combat its excessive intellectualism. The late position of Sellars helps us to understand how to extend the presence of propositional states to beings who do not participate in the public game of giving and asking for reasons, enabling a less intellectualist conception of knowledge. The fourth chapter explores McDowell's distinction between "reason" and "reason as such" to achieve a less intellectualized notion of rationality centered on what we are able to do in opposition to what we should do.

Wilfrid Sellars ficou conhecido por seus ataques ao empirismo e fundacionismo tradicionais em epistemologia e por desenvolver uma abordagem original aos problemas epistemológicos, que criou certa corrente filosófica que tem com seus principais desenvolvedores Rorty, McDowell e Brandom. Segundo essa corrente, o conhecimento, para ser bem compreendido, deve ser tomado como se dando no interior do espaço lógico das razões, no interior do espaço no qual transitamos ao oferecer e pedir por razões para aquilo que fazemos e acreditamos. Porém, essa visão acaba por se mostrar bastante intelectualizada, principalmente pela sua exigência de reflexividade para o conhecimento e por defender que a presença de estados intencionais seja dependente da posse de uma linguagem como a nossa Minha tese, neste trabalho, é que as posições tardias de Sellars sobre sistemas representacionais animais nos dão ferramentas para rejeitar seu nominalismo psicológico e desenvolver uma concepção menos intelectualista de conhecimento, mesmo que isso signifique abrir mão de uma análise completa do mesmo em condições necessárias e suficientes. Este trabalho é composto por quatro capítulos: no primeiro capítulo reconstruo o projeto filosófico inicial de Sellars para mostrar como a sua compreensão não relacional da semântica o levou a fazer a exigência de reflexividade para o conhecimento, sendo essa exigência uma das razões para a excessiva intelectualização de sua abordagem do conhecimento e comento algumas de suas consequências. O segundo capítulo avalia a defesa de McDowell da tese sellarsiana do conhecimento como se dando no interior do espaço lógico das razões das acusações de intelectualismo e conclui que ela incorre em petição de princípio ou circularidade. O terceiro capítulo avança a proposta de Brandom para assimilar o insight confiabilista numa epistemologia centrada na atividade de dar e pedir por razões, na tentativa de combater seu excessivo intelectualismo. A posição tardia de Sellars ajuda-nos a entender a presença de estados proposicionais em seres que não participam do jogo público de dar e pedir por razões, possibilitando uma concepção menos intelectualista de conhecimento. O quarto capítulo explora a distinção de McDowell entre “razão” e “razão enquanto tal” para alcançar uma noção de racionalidade menos intelectualizada, centrada naquilo que somos capazes de fazer em oposição ao que devemos fazer. / Wilfrid Sellars became known for his attacks on traditional empiricism and foundationalism in epistemology and for developing an original approach to epistemological problems, which has created a certain philosophical current that has its main developers Rorty, McDowell, and Brandom. According to this current, knowledge, in order to be well understood, must be taken as giving itself within the logical space of reasons, within the space in which we go through offering and asking for reasons for what we do and believe. However, this view turns out to be quite intellectualized, mainly due to its reflexivity requirement for knowledge and for defending that the presence of intentional states is dependent on the possession of a language like ours. My thesis, in this work, is that late positions of Sellars on animal representational systems give us tools to reject his psychological nominalism and develop a less intellectualist conception of knowledge, even if that means giving up a complete analysis of it under necessary and sufficient conditions. This work is composed of four chapters: in the first chapter I reconstruct Sellars' initial philosophical project to show how his non-relational understanding of semantics led him to make the demand for reflexivity for knowledge, being this requirement one of the reasons for the excessive intellectualization of his approach to knowledge, and comment on some of its consequences. The second chapter evaluates McDowell's defense of the Sealarsian thesis of knowledge as taking place within the logical space of the reasons for accusations of intellectualism and concludes that it incurs in a petition of principle or circularity. The third chapter advances Brandom's proposal to assimilate the reliabilist insight into an epistemology centered on giving and asking for reasons in an attempt to combat its excessive intellectualism. The late position of Sellars helps us to understand how to extend the presence of propositional states to beings who do not participate in the public game of giving and asking for reasons, enabling a less intellectualist conception of knowledge. The fourth chapter explores McDowell's distinction between "reason" and "reason as such" to achieve a less intellectualized notion of rationality centered on what we are able to do in opposition to what we should do.

The thesis focuses on the irreducibility of the concept of a person to scientific view of the world. The main inspiration for thematising this specific aspect of folk dualism comes from Donald Davidson (two realms) and Wilfrid Sellars (two images). The theoretical sections are complemented by reflexion on results of empirical studies provided mostly by experimental philosophy in order to demonstrate how this approach benefits attempts to reach complex view of philosophical questions that have close connection to moral dimension of human life. The first chapter addresses a wider concept of self and introduces the idea of the necessity to bring the two conceptual realms on the scene: there is a specific conceptual realm (irreducible to physical realm or scientific image) enabling proper grasp of the concept of a person. The subsequent chapters address particular sub-concepts of the concept of self. The second chapter focuses on the concept of free will, and by referring to different views it points to the necessity to bring folk concepts into consideration. It concludes that the folk concept of free agent is transcendent with regard to scientific accounts and bears certain "supernatural" characteristics connected to the concept of conscious will. The third (and central) chapter brings focus on the...