No description available.

Master of Philosophy / Following P.F. Strawson's reading of Kant, the majority of the literature on transcendental arguments seeks to divorce such arguments from their original Kantian context. This thesis is concerned with Mark Sacks's recent defence of transcendental arguments, which takes a different approach. A critique is given of Sacks's work and extensions and modifications of his approach are recommended. It is proposed that certain difficulties encountered by Kant's transcendentally-ideal approach can be overcome with Hegelian solutions.

Master of Philosophy / Following P.F. Strawson's reading of Kant, the majority of the literature on transcendental arguments seeks to divorce such arguments from their original Kantian context. This thesis is concerned with Mark Sacks's recent defence of transcendental arguments, which takes a different approach. A critique is given of Sacks's work and extensions and modifications of his approach are recommended. It is proposed that certain difficulties encountered by Kant's transcendentally-ideal approach can be overcome with Hegelian solutions.

The following inquiry pursues two interlinked aims. The first is to understand Wittgenstein's idea of non-foundational certainty in the context of a reading of On Certainty that emphasizes its Pyrrhonian elements. The second is to read Wittgenstein's remarks on idealism/radical skepticism in On Certainty in parallel with the discussion of rule-following in Philosophical Investigations in order to demonstrate an underlying similarity of philosophical concerns and methods. I argue that for the later Wittgenstein, what is held certain in a given context of inquiry or action is a locally transcendental condition of the inquiry or action in question. In On Certainty, Wittgenstein's analysis of the difference between knowledge and certainty forms the basis of his critique of both Moore's "Proof" and radical skepticism. This critique takes the shape of rejection of a presupposition shared by both parties, and utilizes what I identify as a Pyrrhonian-style argument against opposed dogmatic views. Wittgenstein's method in this text involves describing epistemic language-games. I demonstrate that this is consistent with the rejection of epistemological theorizing, arguing that a Wittgensteinian "picture" is not a theory, but an impressionistic description that accomplishes two things: (i) throwing into relief problems with dogmatic theories and their presuppositions, and (ii) describing the provenance of linguistic and epistemic practices in terms of norms grounded in convention. Convention, in turn, is not arbitrary, but grounded in the biological and social natures of human beings--in what Wittgenstein calls forms of life. Thus there is a kind of naturalism in the work of the later Wittgenstein. It is a naturalism that comes neatly dovetailed with Pyrrhonism--a combination of strategies traceable to Hume's work in the Treatise. I read Hume as someone who develops the Pyrrhonian method to include philosophy done "in a careless manner," and argue that Wittgenstein adopts a similar method in his later works. Finally, I explain the deference to convention in the work of both Hume and Wittgenstein by reference to a passage in Sextus' Outlines, on which I provide a gloss in the final chapter of this work.

En este trabajo se examina si de las consideraciones que Donald Davidson ha hecho del caso de la interpretación radical se sigue algo así como una refutación del escepticismo. Se argumenta que tal conclusión no se sigue de las posiciones acerca de la naturaleza del pensamiento y del lenguaje mantenidas por este filósofo americano, ni siquiera con la ayuda del así llamado argumento del intérprete omnisciente. También se rechaza la idea de que concebir su argumentación como un argumento trascendental modesto proporcione mejores resultados antiescépticos. Finalmente se defiende que el mejor modo de articular su posición es como un diagnóstico teórico del escepticismo al estilo del defendido por Michael Williams en su libro Unnatural Doubts. Desde este punto de vista lo que la filosofía davidsoniana haría sería reprochar al escéptico su adhesión al representacionismo y mostrar una alternativa al mismo que explique la posibilidad del pensamiento y del lenguaje. Concebida así la filosofía davidsoniana no constituiría una victoria definitiva ante el escepticismo, sino que más bien mostraría que su posición no es obligatoria y, al menos, garantizaría una presunción de inocencia para nuestras creencias ante el reto del escéptico global. / This work examines whether it follows a refutation of scepticism from Donald Davidson's work on radical interpretation. It is argued that such a conclusion does not follow from Donald Davidson's views on thought and language, not even with the help of the so called omniscient interpreter argument. This work also rejects that such views on language and thought lead to a better result against scepticism when interpreted as a modest transcendental argument. Finally it is claimed that the best way of articulating Davidson's antisceptical strategy is as a theoretical diagnosis of scepticism in a similar vein as Michael Williams has developed in his book Unnatural Doubts. From this point of view what Davidson's philosophy would do is, on the one hand, to reproach the sceptic his adherence to representationism and, on the other hand, to defend an alternative to this philosophical view that explains how thought and language are possible. Conceived of in this way, Davidson's philosophy would not constitute a definitive victory against scepticism. However it would show that scepticism is not compulsory and, at the very least, it would guarantee a presumption of innocence for our beliefs when they face the sceptical threat.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:12:07Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TulioSS_TESE.pdf: 2136315 bytes, checksum: def4a39ad10ea69504e5674a87349257 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-05-11 / This work whose title is "The transcendental arguments: Kant Andy Hume's problem" has as its main objective to interpret Kant's answer to Hume's problem in the light of the conjunction of the causality and induction themes which is equivalent to skeptical- naturalist reading of the latter. In this sense, this initiative complements the previous treatment seen in our dissertation, where the same issue had been discussed from a merely skeptical reading that Kant got from Hume thought and was only examined causality. Among the specific objectives, we list the following: a) critical philosophy fulfills three basic functions, a founding, one negative and one would argue that the practical use of reason, here named as defensive b) the Kantian solution of Hume's problem in the first critisism would fulfill its founding and negative functions of critique of reason; c) the Kantian treatment of the theme of induction in other criticisms would will fulfill the defense function of critique of reason; d) that the evidence of Kant's answer to Hume's problem are more consistent when will be satisfied these three functions or moments of criticism. The basic structure of the work consists of three parts: the first the genesis of Hume's problem - our intention is to reconstruct Hume's problem, analyzing it from the perspective of two definitions of cause, where the dilution of the first definition in the second match the reduction of psychological knowledge to the probability of following the called naturalization of causal relations; whereas in the second - Legality and Causality - it is stated that when considering Hume in the skeptic-naturalist option, Kant is not entitled to respond by transcendental argument A?B; A?B from the second Analogy, evidence that is rooted in the position of contemporary thinkers, such as Strawson and Allison; in third part - Purpose and Induction - admits that Kant responds to Hume on the level of regulative reason use, although the development of this test exceeds the limits of the founding function of criticism. And this is articulated in both the Introduction and Concluding Remarks by meeting the defensive [and negative] function of criticism. In this context, based on the use of so-called transcendental arguments that project throughout the critical trilogy, we provide solution to a recurring issue that recurs at several points in our submission and concerning to the "existence and / or the necessity of empirical causal laws. In this light, our thesis is that transcendental arguments are only an apodictic solution to the Hume s skeptical-naturalist problem when is at stake a practical project in which the interest of reason is ensured, as will, in short, proved in our final considerations / O presente trabalho - Os argumentos transcendentais: Kant e o problema de Hume -, tem como seu objetivo geral interpretar a resposta de Kant ao problema de Hume ? luz da conjun??o das tem?ticas de causalidade e indu??o o que equivale a uma leitura c?tico-naturalista deste. Neste sentido, tal iniciativa complementa o tratamento anterior visto em nossa disserta??o de mestrado, onde a mesma tem?tica fora examinada a partir de uma leitura meramente c?tica que Kant fez do pensamento humeano e onde foi analisada apenas a causalidade. Dentre os objetivos espec?ficos, listamos os seguintes: a) a filosofia cr?tica cumpre tr?s fun??es b?sicas, uma fundante, uma negativa e uma que defenderia o uso pr?tico da raz?o, aqui nomeada de defensiva; b) a solu??o kantiana do problema de Hume na primeira cr?tica cumpriria as fun??es fundante e negativa da cr?tica da raz?o; c) o tratamento kantiano da tem?tica da indu??o nas demais cr?ticas cumpriria a fun??o defensiva da cr?tica da raz?o; d) que as provas da resposta de Kant ao problema de Hume s?o mais consistentes quando se consideram cumpridas estas tr?s fun??es ou momentos da cr?tica. A estrutura b?sica do trabalho comporta tr?s partes: na primeira - A g?nese do problema de Hume -, nossa pretens?o ? reconstituir o problema de Hume, analisando-o sob a ?tica das duas defini??es de causa, onde a dilui??o da primeira defini??o na segunda corresponde ? redu??o psicol?gica do conhecimento ? probabilidade, do que se segue a chamada naturaliza??o das rela??es causais; na segunda - Legalidade e Causalidade -, menciona-se que quando se considera Hume na op??o c?tico-naturalista, Kant n?o est? habilitado a lhe responder atrav?s do argumento transcendental A?B; A?B da segunda Analogia, prova que est? embasada na posi??o de pensadores contempor?neos como Strawson e Allison; na terceira parte - Finalidade e Indu??o -, admite-se que Kant responde a Hume no n?vel do uso regulativo da raz?o, embora o desenvolvimento dessa prova exceda os limites da fun??o fundante da cr?tica. E isto fica articulado tanto na Introdu??o quanto nas Considera??es Finais, atrav?s do cumprimento da fun??o defensiva [e negativa] da cr?tica. Neste contexto, com base no recurso aos ditos argumentos transcendentais que se projetam por toda a trilogia cr?tica, procuramos estabelecer solu??o para uma quest?o recorrente que reaparece em v?rias passagens de nossa apresenta??o e que diz respeito a exist?ncia e/ou a necessidade das leis causais emp?ricas . Diante disso, nossa tese ? que os argumentos transcendentais somente constituem uma solu??o apod?tica para o problema c?tico-naturalista de Hume quando est? em pauta um projeto pr?tico em que o interesse da raz?o esteja assegurado, conforme ser?, enfim, provado em nossas Considera??es Finais

Est-il encore légitime de distinguer, d’une part, la « simple raison », apte à convaincre n’importe quel penseur honnête et lucide, et d’autre part, le domaine de la foi religieuse, où les différences de conviction seraient a priori irréductibles, parce que soumises à des conditions de validité sui generis? Dans quelle mesure ce « partage des voix » entre la raison et la foi, que commandait au siècle des Lumières l’« exigence de l’émancipation » ou de l’affranchissement des tutelles autoritaires (le Selberdenken, le « penser par soi-même »), est-il encore d’actualité pour nous? Les temps ne sont-ils pas mûrs pour une autre attitude de la raison philosophique par rapport à la foi religieuse, qui se proposerait de mettre en question la théorie qui opposait la raison et la révélation comme deux « sources » irréductibles de vérité? Le présent travail poursuivra trois objectifs principaux, dont la visée commune consistera à clarifier les tenants et aboutissants de la critique de la « simple raison » (reason alone) chez Charles Taylor, au regard de la totalité de son œuvre. Dans un premier temps, nous soulignerons que notre auteur récuse le paradigme épistémologique de la philosophie moderne au nom d’un paradigme herméneutique, plus sensible à la finitude langagière et historique de la raison humaine. Notre auteur reconnaît en effet au « débat herméneutique » (hermeneutical debate) une importance cruciale dans le contexte de la sécularité (ou de notre « âge séculier »), qui se caractérise par la coexistence d’une pluralité croissante de perspectives éthiques et spirituelles. Dans un deuxième temps, nous soutiendrons que ce paradigme herméneutique admet une distinction fondamentale entre deux modes de réflexion, l’argumentation transcendantale et la quête d’authenticité, et montrerons que l’argumentation transcendantale peut à son tour être comprise comme une modalité particulière de la « simple raison » dans le contexte du paradigme herméneutique. Ces deux premiers moments de nos analyses, de nature essentiellement exégétique, constitueront la majeure partie de notre thèse. Dans un troisième temps, nous examinerons la distinction entre l’argumentation transcendantale et la quête d’authenticité de façon à mettre en question les limites assignées par notre auteur à la première. Plus précisément, notre intention est de démontrer que la critique herméneutique de la simple raison proposée par Taylor présuppose elle-même la viabilité d’une « éthique transcendantale » et, par conséquent, la viabilité d’une conception transcendantale de la simple raison dans la sphère de la rationalité pratique. Cette éthique transcendantale affleure en plusieurs lieux dans son œuvre sous la forme d’un « humanisme » de type néo-aristotélicien, solidement ancré dans ses analyses des conditions d’arrière-plan inéluctables (ou transcendantales) de l’agir humain, sans toutefois être explicitement conçue et assumée en tant que telle. / Is it still legitimate to distinguish, on the one hand, ‘‘reason alone’’ or nonreligiously informed reason, whose conclusions are in principle able to satisfy any honest and lucid thinker, and on the second hand, the domain of religious faith, where differences of conviction would be a priori irreducible? Is this divide between reason and faith, which was prompted at the time of the Auflkärung by a great call to ‘‘emancipation’’ (to ‘‘think for yourself’’, Selberdenken), still relevant for us today? Are the times not ripe for another philosophical attitude in relation to religious faith, which would call into question the theory that opposed reason and revelation as two irreducible ‘‘sources’’ of truth? This dissertation will pursue three main objectives, whose common aim is to clarify the motives and implications of the critique of ‘‘reason alone’’ in Charles Taylor’s work. First, we will show that Taylor rejects the ‘‘epistemological’’ paradigm of modern philosophy in the name of a hermeneutic paradigm, more sensitive to the linguistic and historical finitude of human reason. Our author maintains, indeed, that ‘‘hermeneutical debates’’ are now obligatory in our secular age, characterized by the coexistence of a growing plurality of ethical and spiritual perspectives. Secondly, we will argue that this hermeneutic paradigm admits of a fundamental distinction between two modes of reflection, that of ‘‘transcendental arguments’’ and the ‘‘quest for authenticity’’, and will show that transcendental arguments can in turn be understood as a specific modality of ‘‘reason alone’’ in the context of the hermeneutic paradigm. These two first stages of our analysis, mainly of an exegetical nature, will constitute the major part of our dissertation. Thirdly, we will examine the distinction between transcendental arguments and the quest for authenticity, to challenge the limits assigned by Taylor to the first domain. Specifically, we intend to demonstrate that the hermeneutical critique of reason propounded by Taylor presupposes the viability of a ‘‘transcendental ethics’’ and, therefore, the viability of a transcendental conception of reason in the domain of practical rationality. This transcendental ethics emerges at several occasions in his work as a kind of neo-Aristotelian ‘‘humanism’’, firmly anchored in his analysis of the inescapable background conditions of human agency, without being explicitly recognized as such.