One major problem with moral discourse is that we tend treat moral utterances as if they represent propositions. But complex metaphysical problems arise when we try to describe the nature of the moral facts that correspond to these propositions. If moral facts do not exist, how can moralizers justify engagement in moral practice? One possibility is abolitionism; abandoning morality and growing out of our old habits. Another option that has been suggested is that morality be preserved as a useful fiction. Moral fictionalists propose that moralizers come to understand their moral beliefs as fictive precommitments that are instrumentally valuable. In this essay, I argue that this type of instrumentalist justification does not allow moralizers to have genuinely moral reasons for acting in accordance with their precommitments. The legislative function of morality and the concept of moral personhood cannot be supported by metaethical theories that only provide instrumental reasons for adopting moral discourse. Ironically, this implies that an instrumentalist moral society would not be able to preserve as many useful moral concepts as would a non-instrumentalist moral society. Since the fictionalists’ own criterion demands that they endorse the most instrumentally valuable metaethical theory, they cannot persuasively argue that their own metaethical alternative is viable. Fictionalists should, I argue, prefer a non-instrumentalist theory that preserves more of the functions of moral discourse, such as quasi-realism. The argumentative strategy employed by fictionalists is therefore self-undermining.

One major problem with moral discourse is that we tend treat moral utterances as if they represent propositions. But complex metaphysical problems arise when we try to describe the nature of the moral facts that correspond to these propositions. If moral facts do not exist, how can moralizers justify engagement in moral practice? One possibility is abolitionism; abandoning morality and growing out of our old habits. Another option that has been suggested is that morality be preserved as a useful fiction. Moral fictionalists propose that moralizers come to understand their moral beliefs as fictive precommitments that are instrumentally valuable. In this essay, I argue that this type of instrumentalist justification does not allow moralizers to have genuinely moral reasons for acting in accordance with their precommitments. The legislative function of morality and the concept of moral personhood cannot be supported by metaethical theories that only provide instrumental reasons for adopting moral discourse. Ironically, this implies that an instrumentalist moral society would not be able to preserve as many useful moral concepts as would a non-instrumentalist moral society. Since the fictionalists’ own criterion demands that they endorse the most instrumentally valuable metaethical theory, they cannot persuasively argue that their own metaethical alternative is viable. Fictionalists should, I argue, prefer a non-instrumentalist theory that preserves more of the functions of moral discourse, such as quasi-realism. The argumentative strategy employed by fictionalists is therefore self-undermining.

This thesis examines possible philosophies to account for the practice of mathematics, exploring the metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological outcomes of each possible theory. Through a study of the two most probable ideas, mathematical platonism and fictionalism, I focus on the compelling argument for platonism given by an appeal to the sciences. The Indispensability Argument establishes the power of explanation seen in the relationship between mathematics and empirical science. Cases of this explanatory power illustrate how we might have reason to believe in the existence of mathematical entities present within our best scientific theories. The second half of this discussion surveys Newtonian Cosmology and other inconsistent theories as they pose issues that have received insignificant attention within the philosophy of mathematics. The application of these inconsistent theories raises questions about the effectiveness of mathematics to model physical systems.

Abstract In this paper, I will analyze Nietzsche’s argument for a moral error theory and examine the implications of his view. In order to arrive at the best possible interpretation I will heavily incorporate many passages from Nietzsche’s original works so that I can delve into a textual analysis of Nietzsche. Because Nietzsche is notoriously vague at times and often contradictory, I recognize that this is far from the only appropriate interpretation. However, I hope that it is one which has at least some intuitive appeal. Eventually, I hope to prove that despite his rejection of moral truths, Nietzsche’s theory of value can lead us to a sound ethical theory.

No description available.

Cet essai a pour objet le rôle de la notion de fiction dans les domaines de l’art et de la science. Essentiellement, je soutiens que « fiction » dans ce contexte est « a category mistake » (concept versus genre) et je crois que cet essai peut réussir à « cuire du pain philosophique » en dévoilant une dispute verbale. Je suggère donc de clore un débat philosophique dans son intégralité. Je présente un exposé du style de fictionnalisme abordé par Catherine Z. Elgin et Nelson Goodman (que ce soit dans le contexte des arts ou des sciences, nous parvenons à la compréhension grâce à des fictions sous formes de « vérités non littérales ») et j’explore le concept de la fiction. Je soutiens que les représentations (textes descriptifs de toutes sortes, incluant les modèles) sont constituées d’éléments fictionnels et d’éléments facettés (à l’exception de la version idéale possible ou impossible, c’est-à-dire dans l’esprit de Dieu, qui n’inclurait que les facettes.) La compréhension ne peut provenir de la fiction, mais plutôt d’éléments facettés ordonnés de manière à créer une compréhension qui conduit généralement à des prédictions, des explications et des manipulations. Je définis les facettes comme ayant des caractéristiques organisées, alors que les fictions ont des caractéristiques désorganisées. La fiction dans son intégralité est donc, par définition, l’expression du néant (of nothing), ou en matière de langues idéales (mathématiques), l’expression de contradiction. Les fictions et les facettes relèvent des représentations qui sont elles-mêmes primitives. Les textes descriptifs sont donc fictionnels par degré. Les récits qui sont très fictionnels ont une certaine valeur (souvent ludique) mais contiennent toujours au moins une facette. En fin de compte, toutes les activités représentationnelles devraient être considérées irréelles, incomplètes, bien que parfois connectées à la réalité, c’est-à-dire, prises entre une description réaliste facettée et une fiction dans son intégralité. / This essay concerns fiction in art and science. I argue that the term ‘fiction’ used in this manner is a category mistake (concept versus genre) and I believe this essay may succeed in “baking philosophical bread” by recognizing a verbal dispute. I am, therefore, suggesting an entire thread of discussion be re-evaluated. I provide an exposé of Catherine Z. Elgin and Nelson Goodman’s brand of fictionalism (i.e. that we glean understandings in the arts and sciences from fictions in the form of non-literal truth) and concentrate on unpacking the concept of fiction. I argue that representations (narratives of all sorts including models) are made of both fictional elements and faceted elements (with the exception of the possible or impossible ideal version e.g. God’s, which, would include only facets). Understandings are not gleaned from fictions but rather from faceted elements so ordered as to create understanding and usually leading to predictions, explanations, and manipulations. I define facets as ordered features whereas fictions (the genre) are groupings of disordered features. Full fiction is, therefore, by definition the expression of nothing or with respect to ideal languages (mathematics), the expression of contradiction. Representations are primitives and both fictions and facets are parts of them. Narratives are thus fictional by degree. Narratives which are highly fictional are of value (often playful) but they still always contain at least one facet. Ultimately all representational activity should be regarded as irreal i.e. incomplete although sometimes connected to reality and caught between a perfectly faceted realist description and complete fiction.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Essa dissertação tem como objetivo fazer uma análise crítica da proposta nietzschiana de superação da metafísica. Primeiro, determinaremos o que Nietzsche entende por metafísica no período intermediário de sua produção filosófica. Conquistada essa compreensão, mostraremos as críticas feitas pelo filósofo à metafísica, presentes em sua obra de juventude Sobre a verdade e a mentira no sentido extra-moral. Por fim, a proposta de superação da metafísica será analisada a partir de quatro grandes referências interpretativas: o realismo negativo do devir, o neokantismo, o naturalismo substantivo e a proposta ontológica da vontade de poder. Testaremos a legitimidade de cada uma dessas interpretações a partir de duas principais perguntas: qual o estatuto ontológico do devir na filosofia de Nietzsche? Por que o filósofo afirma que nossas categorias são somente ficções? / This dissertation aims to make a critical analysis of the nietzschean proposal regarding the metaphysics overcoming. First, we will determine what Nietzsche understands by metaphysics in the intermediate period of his philosophical production. After we acquire this understanding, we will show the criticisms made by the philosopher about the metaphysics, prevailing in his youth work about the truth and falsehood in the extra-moral sense. Finally, the proposal of the metaphysics overcoming will be analyzed based in four large interpretative references: the negative realism of becoming, the neokantianism, the substantive naturalism and the ontological proposal of the will to power. We will test the legitimacy of each one of these interpretations from two main questions: What is the ontological status of the becoming in the Nietzsches philosophy? Why the Philosopher asserts that our categories are only fictions?

Cet essai a pour objet le rôle de la notion de fiction dans les domaines de l’art et de la science. Essentiellement, je soutiens que « fiction » dans ce contexte est « a category mistake » (concept versus genre) et je crois que cet essai peut réussir à « cuire du pain philosophique » en dévoilant une dispute verbale. Je suggère donc de clore un débat philosophique dans son intégralité. Je présente un exposé du style de fictionnalisme abordé par Catherine Z. Elgin et Nelson Goodman (que ce soit dans le contexte des arts ou des sciences, nous parvenons à la compréhension grâce à des fictions sous formes de « vérités non littérales ») et j’explore le concept de la fiction. Je soutiens que les représentations (textes descriptifs de toutes sortes, incluant les modèles) sont constituées d’éléments fictionnels et d’éléments facettés (à l’exception de la version idéale possible ou impossible, c’est-à-dire dans l’esprit de Dieu, qui n’inclurait que les facettes.) La compréhension ne peut provenir de la fiction, mais plutôt d’éléments facettés ordonnés de manière à créer une compréhension qui conduit généralement à des prédictions, des explications et des manipulations. Je définis les facettes comme ayant des caractéristiques organisées, alors que les fictions ont des caractéristiques désorganisées. La fiction dans son intégralité est donc, par définition, l’expression du néant (of nothing), ou en matière de langues idéales (mathématiques), l’expression de contradiction. Les fictions et les facettes relèvent des représentations qui sont elles-mêmes primitives. Les textes descriptifs sont donc fictionnels par degré. Les récits qui sont très fictionnels ont une certaine valeur (souvent ludique) mais contiennent toujours au moins une facette. En fin de compte, toutes les activités représentationnelles devraient être considérées irréelles, incomplètes, bien que parfois connectées à la réalité, c’est-à-dire, prises entre une description réaliste facettée et une fiction dans son intégralité. / This essay concerns fiction in art and science. I argue that the term ‘fiction’ used in this manner is a category mistake (concept versus genre) and I believe this essay may succeed in “baking philosophical bread” by recognizing a verbal dispute. I am, therefore, suggesting an entire thread of discussion be re-evaluated. I provide an exposé of Catherine Z. Elgin and Nelson Goodman’s brand of fictionalism (i.e. that we glean understandings in the arts and sciences from fictions in the form of non-literal truth) and concentrate on unpacking the concept of fiction. I argue that representations (narratives of all sorts including models) are made of both fictional elements and faceted elements (with the exception of the possible or impossible ideal version e.g. God’s, which, would include only facets). Understandings are not gleaned from fictions but rather from faceted elements so ordered as to create understanding and usually leading to predictions, explanations, and manipulations. I define facets as ordered features whereas fictions (the genre) are groupings of disordered features. Full fiction is, therefore, by definition the expression of nothing or with respect to ideal languages (mathematics), the expression of contradiction. Representations are primitives and both fictions and facets are parts of them. Narratives are thus fictional by degree. Narratives which are highly fictional are of value (often playful) but they still always contain at least one facet. Ultimately all representational activity should be regarded as irreal i.e. incomplete although sometimes connected to reality and caught between a perfectly faceted realist description and complete fiction.

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Essa dissertação tem como objetivo fazer uma análise crítica da proposta nietzschiana de superação da metafísica. Primeiro, determinaremos o que Nietzsche entende por metafísica no período intermediário de sua produção filosófica. Conquistada essa compreensão, mostraremos as críticas feitas pelo filósofo à metafísica, presentes em sua obra de juventude Sobre a verdade e a mentira no sentido extra-moral. Por fim, a proposta de superação da metafísica será analisada a partir de quatro grandes referências interpretativas: o realismo negativo do devir, o neokantismo, o naturalismo substantivo e a proposta ontológica da vontade de poder. Testaremos a legitimidade de cada uma dessas interpretações a partir de duas principais perguntas: qual o estatuto ontológico do devir na filosofia de Nietzsche? Por que o filósofo afirma que nossas categorias são somente ficções? / This dissertation aims to make a critical analysis of the nietzschean proposal regarding the metaphysics overcoming. First, we will determine what Nietzsche understands by metaphysics in the intermediate period of his philosophical production. After we acquire this understanding, we will show the criticisms made by the philosopher about the metaphysics, prevailing in his youth work about the truth and falsehood in the extra-moral sense. Finally, the proposal of the metaphysics overcoming will be analyzed based in four large interpretative references: the negative realism of becoming, the neokantianism, the substantive naturalism and the ontological proposal of the will to power. We will test the legitimacy of each one of these interpretations from two main questions: What is the ontological status of the becoming in the Nietzsches philosophy? Why the Philosopher asserts that our categories are only fictions?

In this thesis, I aim to motivate a particular philosophy of mathematics characterised by the following three claims. First, mathematical sentences are generally speaking false because mathematical objects do not exist. Second, people typically use mathematical sentences to communicate content the truth of which does not require mathematical objects to exist. Finally, in using mathematical language in this way, speakers are not doing anything out of the ordinary: they are performing straightforward assertions. In Part I, I argue that the role played by mathematics in our scientific explanations is a purely expressive one, merely allowing us to say more than we otherwise would be able to about, or yielding a greater understanding of, the physical world. Mathematical objects to not need to exist for mathematical language to play this role. This proposal puts a normative constraint on our use of mathematical language: we ought to use mathematically presented theories to express belief only in the consequences they have for non-mathematical things. In Part II, I will argue that what the normative proposal recommends is in fact what people generally do in both pure and applied mathematical contexts. I motivate this claim by showing that it is predicted by our best general means of analysing natural language. I provide a semantic theory of applied arithmetical sentences and show that they do not purport to refer to numbers, as well as a pragmatic theory for pure mathematical language use which shows that pure mathematical utterances do not typically communicate content that implies the existence of mathematical objects. In conclusion, I show the hermeneutic fictionalist position that emerges is preferable to any alternative which interprets mathematical discourse as aimed at describing a domain of independently existing abstract mathematical objects.