‘Relativizer’ relationalism posits temporary properties as relations that obtain between the object that instantiates them and the times at which they are instantiated. A tomato, for example, that ripens from green to orange over the course of a working week bears the greenness relation to Monday, and the orangeness relation to Friday. David Lewis (Lewis, David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds . Oxford: Blackwell and Lewis, David. 1988. “Rearrangement of Particles: Reply to Lowe.” Analysis 48: 65–72) takes ‘relativizer’ relationalism to imply that all temporary properties are extrinsic, given that the times through which an object persists are distinct from and external to such objects. If Monday and Friday are independent of our ripening tomato, its colour properties do not come down solely to the way that the tomato is, given that they are at least partially dependent upon these times. A great deal of work has been done in the name of defending relationalism. Many of these responses involve a modification of the ‘relativizer’ view, developing more sophisticated relationalist accounts. This paper will clarify, motivate and defend naïve ‘relativizer’ relationalism. I begin this task with an examination of the view and Lewis’ critique of it within an explicitly relativistic framework. I argue that vestigial Newtonian background assumptions of ‘absolute’ space and time lend force to the problem, and, concomitantly, put relationalism at an unfair disadvantage. If temporary properties are cast as relations that obtain between objects and ‘absolute’ times, then it seems dubious that these properties are intrinsic. However, if we understand these properties to be relations that an object bears to the spacetime region it occupies, a natural solution presents itself. I suggest that ‘relativizer’ relationalists endorse the identity view of supersubstantivalism, which identifies an object with the spacetime region it occupies. This allows these relationalists to recast temporary intrinsics as reflexive relations. Drawing on Rosen’s, (Rosen, Gideon. 2010. “Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction.” In Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology , edited by B. Hale, and A. Hoffmann, 109–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press and Francescotti’s (Francescotti, Robert. 1999. “How to Define Intrinsic Properties.” Noûs 33 (4): 590–609) and Francescotti, Robert. 2014. “Intrinsic/Extrinsic: A Relational Account Defended.” In Companion to Intrinsic Properties , 175–98. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter) work on intrinsics, I present the case for thinking that these special relations count as bona fide intrinsic properties.
Abstract The current discourse on moral epistemology (ME), has hardly paid any attention to the question concerning the demarcation of the domain of ME within epistemology. Neither is the subject matter of ME considered unique, nor is the methodology adopted in its investigations considered distinct. We attempt to show in this paper that this omission does not restrict itself to a mere taxonomical oversight but rather leads to certain deeper conceptual concerns. We argue that a casual and porous understanding of the subject matter of ME is the result of conflating moral beliefs and justification with non-moral beliefs and justification. If ME doesn't merit a clear demarcation within epistemology, then the very legitimacy of ME is brought under a cloud, thereby threatening the distinction between ethics and epistemology. We believe G. E Moore foresaw this predicament and our interpretation of his work could offer a possible solution.
Abstract Hornsby and Langton (H&L), put forward the idea of silencing as an "illocutionary disablement". Appealing to Austin's speech act theory, they situate silencing as opposite to speech act and argue that when there is silencing, people's illocutionary act fails and their right to free speech is violated. This paper presents a defence of H&L's account of silencing, against objections raised by Ishani Maitra (2009). Maitra questions the model of illocutionary silencing by arguing that Austin's illocutionary model is inaccurate and vague hence, not useful for the discussions of silencing. In response, I argue that Maitra's understanding of the perlocutionary act is misguided and requires a critical examination. Maitra discusses the notion of the perlocutionary act as the goals that the speaker achieves by securing the uptake. I oppose such a view by arguing that securing the uptake does not ensure the performance of a perlocutionary act
Abstract Our private perception of listening to an individualized playlist during a jog is very different from the interaction we might experience at a live concert. We do realize that music is not necessarily a performing art, such as dancing or theater, while our demands regarding musical performances are conflicting: We expect perfect sound quality and the thrill of the immediate. We want the artist to overwhelm us with her virtuosity and we want her to struggle, just like a human. We want to engage with the musical expression and rely on visual and physical cues. Considering that the ears of today's listeners are used to technologically mediated music, in this paper I explore the unique qualities of musical live performances and examine if our conception allows for new mechatronic inventions, in particular robotic musicians, to participate in this art form. Some of Godlovitch's main thoughts expounded in his work on "musical performance" [11] serve as a reference and starting point for this investigation. His concept of `personalism', which deprives computer-/program-based musical performances from expressive potential and creative accomplishment is an issue that I want to challenge by pointing out new approaches arising from a reective discourse on technology, embodiment and expression. The enquiry conducted illustrates, how in reasoning about machine performers and algorithmic realization of music, we also examine the perceptual, physical and social aspects of human musicianship, reconceptualizing our understanding of a musical live performance.
This paper focuses on Jessica Wilson’s determinable-based account of metaphysical indeterminacy and its relationship to the concept of vague identity. The determinable-based account comprises a distinction between meta-level and object-level accounts of metaphysical indeterminacy. I first argue that the distinction cannot be clearly applied to some theories. In particular, I argue that even though Wilson categorizes the constitution account of metaphysical indeterminacy as a meta-level account, from one perspective it can be defensibly regarded as an object-level account, because it is bound to posit genuinely indeterminate states of affairs and provides an explanation of boundary indeterminacy that is structurally analogous to the explanation provided by Wilson’s object-level account. This interim conclusion is important, because it has been argued that the constitution account, when applied to some more complex types of boundary indeterminacy, cannot avoid commitment to vague identity, in spite of the declarations of some of its proponents. The ultimate goal of this paper is to argue that, contrary to Wilson’s claims, the determinable-based account must embrace vague identity too.
