Rasa, or aesthetic emotion, is a central concern of South Asian philosophy. Bhoja, writing in the eleventh century, crafted a unique and intriguing theory of rasa as fundamentally the artistic expression of love. Love, for Bhoja, is a capacity for sensitive attention that grounds self-making and self-awareness. The reason we have to engage with works of art is that they equip us to be who we are.
When writing about the metaphysics of social institutions, philosophers rightly emphasize that institutions’ existence and nature are “up to us” in a deep and important way. Objects such as insects and stars could exist with the same basic nature in the absence of human activity; governments and religious institutions could not. But my project is to explore what happens if we begin with ways in which institutions are sometimes relatively less “up to us.” This approach points toward a behavioral theory of institutions: institutions are made up of behavior that clusters into copied roles, and the individuals who engage in that behavior, where all of the roles together promote some particular result(s). I develop and apply the theory in detail, and then show how it differs from other views in the literature by eschewing mental states and precluding metaphysical inconsistency.
According to a long philosophical tradition and a potent kernel of common sense, loving partnerships are governed by affection and care, and so not properly evaluated by standards of justice or fairness. In this paper I precisify and challenge this idea. I argue that love and fairness are unified in the sense that some partners are only able to perform particular act-types (loving and expressing love) if their actions are sensitive to considerations of fairness. When loving acts are aimed at “sharing a life”, we properly evaluate more-basic acts of sharing–where this concerns their adherence to standards of fairness–as a way of evaluating them as complex acts of loving. Life-sharing offers an attractive feminist ideal of love, immune to concerns about the alleged imposition of fairness-related considerations where they don’t belong.
This essay identifies a normative function of the concept of intentional action. Specifically, I argue that the concept of intentional action functions to focus our evaluative concern on some doings rather than others. It acts as a proxy for evaluative priority. Two arguments are offered for this thesis. First, we need a concept that functions to focus evaluative concern, and the concept of intentional action exhibits features we'd expect from a concept with this prioritizing function. Second, the thesis is explanatorily powerful: it explains in a unified manner a number of puzzling features of intentional action, including the Knobe effect, the threshold of sufficient control governing intentional action, disagreement over whether knowledge is required for intentional action, cultural variation in ascription of intentionality, and the radical pluralism of ways that intentional action manifests. This second argument also shows what can be gained by attending to the functions of our concepts of agency.
Employers exercise directive authority over their employees; they can issue binding orders and enforce those orders by way of various administrative sanctions. It is generally agreed that this authority is legitimate only when the employee has consented to employment but it turns out that vindicating this idea requires a careful analysis both of the kind of authority employers claim over their employees and of the kind of agreement involved in a contract of employment. It also requires getting clear on the distinctive rationale that informs the employer-employee relationship. Once this has all been done, we can explain why some of us decline any employment because we wish to 'remain our own boss' whilst many others are happy to be employed provided this is something to which we have agreed.
What, ontologically speaking, are best system laws? Should the laws of the best system account be identified with sentences, or propositions, or perhaps something else? These questions differ from more familiar questions about which criteria we should use to pick out the best system laws: regardless of whether laws are picked out using simplicity, informativeness, tractability, predictability, perfect naturalness, or whatever, there remains the question of what, ontologically, the best system laws are. But very little has been written on this issue; and what has been written is often ambiguous. So in this paper, we present and evaluate three ontological options for best system laws: taking them to be sentences, unstructured propositions, and structured propositions. Surprisingly, the two most cited options—sentences and unstructured propositions—face significant problems. Defenders of the best system account might want to take seriously the idea that best system laws are structured propositions.
Haecceitism is the thesis that some truths are not necessitated by the qualitative truths. In this paper I explore a general argument that purports to establish that haecceitism leads to objectionably 'cheap' violations of determinism. In response to this argument, I develop a novel position that combines considerations from metaphysics and the philosophy of language to secure the compatibility of haecceitism and determinism. This position has important parallels to the way haecceitism has been developed within counterpart theory, but, crucially, it makes no use of counterpart theory itself.
We argue for two claims in this paper. First, we argue that existing taxonomies of ideal and non-ideal theory must be expanded. While non-ideal theory is often thought to be transitional in nature – that is, theorizing how agents in structurally unjust circumstances should act so as to bring about a more just state of affairs – we show that some non-ideal theory is in fact static. Static non-ideal theory attempts to guide the actions of individuals while taking background structural injustice as a kind of fixed point, or as a “backdrop” against which individuals can try to ethically interact. Second, we argue that notwithstanding the intentions of theorists, static non-ideal theory often serves ideological purposes by functioning to reinforce the (unjust) status quo. Throughout, we use theoretical debates about exploitation as illustrative of the phenomenon under discussion.
This article examines the meta-stance choice in the scientific realism debate. I propose that the epistemological aspect of this debate be reframed within an epistemological framework that views our cognitive activities as a trade-off between believing truths and minimizing errors. I identify two main alternatives to this meta-epistemological framework: firstly, the view that the realism debate involves a voluntary choice between incommensurable stances, such as an empirical and a metaphysical stance; secondly, the notion that stance selection is a result of negotiating between explanatory power and error avoidance. My proposal and the two alternatives have in common that they imply a form of epistemic voluntarism and explain the recurring stalemate in the debate. However, I argue that the presented proposal outclasses the competing perspectives due to its enhanced generality, impartiality, a more comprehensive explanation of the anti-realist sentiment, and its potential to mitigate the recurring stalemate.
I examine Howson’s alluring suggestion that Bayesianism, by supplying a logic of inductive inference—conditionalisation—solves the problem of induction. I draw on his historical heritage, especially Hume, Peirce, and Ramsey, to reconstruct the interpretation of the problem of induction that his remarks intimates. Roughly, it is that of how to amend the system with which one meets the world, in the light of new particulars. Unfortunately, his claim that conditionalisation constitutes a solution to this problem, I argue, fails by his own lights, because it turns on the widely endorsed but nonetheless erroneous contention that a justification of conditionalisation qua rule of inference can be given independently from a justification of the priors.
A person's body is extended in space, and parts of their body occupy spatial regions. In that way, the body has a dimension of breadth in space. Yet, there is another, less appreciated dimension of the body: its depth. Roughly speaking, the depth of the body is the level of abstraction of its parts. Characteristically, and in particular for moral purposes, the depth of the body is rather high-level. Low-level objects and properties, such as individual molecules, do not really fall within the purview of the moral body--the body as it figures in various morally significant rights and interests. As I will argue, the depth of the body becomes more salient and relevant when people come to have partly digital embodiments, such as when brain-computer interfaces are integrated into their bodily processes. The dimension of depth, it turns out, is crucial for properly understanding the moral significance of brain-computer interfaces. Here, I develop a theory of depth to complement existing theories of the body and use it to improve our understanding of the purview of bodily rights and interests.
How do conjunctions relate to their conjuncts? How, for example, does relate to the propositions and ? This paper explores the unorthodox answer that conjunctions are identical to their conjuncts: throwing grammar to the wind, just 'is' the propositions and . I suggest two ways of motivating the view (§1), present my preferred formulation of it (§2), discuss some objections (§3), point out some connections to neighboring issues (§4), and finally, consider how it may be extended to a more comprehensive view of logical complexity (§5).
In addition to praising and criticizing works of art, we can and do hold artists responsible for their artistic productions. Building on a suggestion from Susan Wolf, this paper develops a Strawsonian approach to aesthetic responsibility and shows both its attractions and limitations. The proper target of aesthetic reactive attitudes in general is an agent’s quality of aesthetic judgment, and the ‘basic demand’ we make of artists as such is for aesthetic value responsiveness: we expect artists to be counterfactually sensitive to the realization of expected aesthetic value in their productions. In contrast with our moral responsibility responses, we do not expect artists to be able to give their reasons for what they have done, and we allow for fewer artistic exemptions from the basic demand. While this Strawsonian approach sheds light on the nature of creative artistic agency, it fails to capture the full range of our artistic responsibility responses, since it excludes credit and criticism for artists’ (lack of) embodied skill.
