Battling for Metaphysics: The Case for Indispensability

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston. The aim of this paper is to propose that both Hegel and Peirce are committed to two arguments against the notion that metaphysics is impossible, where not only do they claim metaphysics is possible, but that they also insist on the indispensability of this philosophical discipline. In the first argument, both Hegel and Peirce argue that it is impossible to eliminate metaphysical concepts from ordinary language and our scientific practices. In the second argument, both Hegel and Peirce argue that metaphysics is a necessary part of intellectual enquiry on the grounds that metaphysics is indispensable for human development. Such is the philosophical significance of both their views on the indispensability of metaphysics that there is every reason to regard Hegel and Peirce as representing powerful challenges to eliminativist attitudes to metaphysical enquiry. The purpose of my paper is to justify the exercise of metaphysics as a humanistic discipline, to use an expression from Bernard Williams. Using perfectionist approaches to ethics as a framework in which to contextualise the question of whether it could ever be desirable to eliminate metaphysics is under-explored and potentially a major avenue through which to explore the way we do metaphysics today

Realismo y antirrealismo científicos, stances en desacuerdo

En este trabajo, nos proponemos redefinir las posturas que toman parte en el debate entre realismo y antirrealismo científicos, dejando de concebirlas únicamente como doctrinas o teorías que describen cómo es el mundo. En cambio, acorde al camino iniciado por van Fraassen en The empirical stance, optamos por definirlas como stances: políticas, estrategias o perspectivas a partir de las cuales construimos creencias fácticas. Así, en primera instancia nos dedicamos a entender qué es una stance y cómo caracterizar esta noción. En segundo lugar, exploramos metodologías y enfoques para tratar el realismo y el antirrealismo como stances, y, en esta clave, definirlos adecuadamente. Por último, examinamos el impacto de esta propuesta en la explicación de los acuerdos y desacuerdos en el debate, evaluando los grados de afinidad o distancia en las perspectivas en juego

Realismo y antirrealismo científicos, stances en desacuerdo

En este trabajo, nos proponemos redefinir las posturas que toman parte en el debate entre realismo y antirrealismo científicos, dejando de concebirlas únicamente como doctrinas o teorías que describen cómo es el mundo. En cambio, acorde al camino iniciado por van Fraassen en The empirical stance, optamos por definirlas como stances: políticas, estrategias o perspectivas a partir de las cuales construimos creencias fácticas. Así, en primera instancia nos dedicamos a entender qué es una stance y cómo caracterizar esta noción. En segundo lugar, exploramos metodologías y enfoques para tratar el realismo y el antirrealismo como stances, y, en esta clave, definirlos adecuadamente. Por último, examinamos el impacto de esta propuesta en la explicación de los acuerdos y desacuerdos en el debate, evaluando los grados de afinidad o distancia en las perspectivas en juego

Realismo y antirrealismo científicos, stances en desacuerdo

En este trabajo, nos proponemos redefinir las posturas que toman parte en el debate entre realismo y antirrealismo científicos, dejando de concebirlas únicamente como doctrinas o teorías que describen cómo es el mundo. En cambio, acorde al camino iniciado por van Fraassen en The empirical stance, optamos por definirlas como stances: políticas, estrategias o perspectivas a partir de las cuales construimos creencias fácticas. Así, en primera instancia nos dedicamos a entender qué es una stance y cómo caracterizar esta noción. En segundo lugar, exploramos metodologías y enfoques para tratar el realismo y el antirrealismo como stances, y en esta clave, definirlos adecuadamente. Por último, examinamos el impacto de esta propuesta en la explicación de los acuerdos y desacuerdos en el debate, evaluando los grados de afinidad o distancia en las perspectivas en juego.In this article, we propose to redefine the positions that take part in the debate between scientific realism and antirealism, ceasing to conceive them solely as doctrines or theories that describe how the world is like. Instead, following the path initiated by van Fraassen in The empirical stance, we choose to define them as stances: policies, strategies or perspectives from which we build factual beliefs. Thus, in first place we are dedicated to understand what a stance is and how to characterize this notion. Second, we explore methodologies and approaches to treat realism and antirealism as stances, and in this key, define them appropriately. Finally, we examine the impact of this proposal in explaining the agreements and disagreements in the debate, evaluating the degrees of affinity or distance in the perspectives at stake.Fil: Madroñal, Ignacio Federico. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Departamento de Filosofía; Argentin

Science and knowledge : a post-modern approach to empiricism

Science has become the standard for determining truth and producing knowledge. This has happened alongside the diminishing value of traditions and common sense as sources of knowledge. That is, science has become the benchmark for knowledge at the expense of other possible means. The fact that science has taken such a prominent position regarding knowledge is interesting when one considers the weaknesses of the realist position in the philosophy of science. By `realism' I mean the belief that scientific theories are true, or at least approximately true. I begin by discussing arguments both for and against scientific realism, I conclude that science is a non-realist enterprise and that while useful in helping us understand the world, calling the theories of science `true' is not a safe risk. Finally, since science is the standard for knowledge, I present a theory on the implications of this view for knowledge in general

The Mother of Chaos and Night: Kant\u27s Metaphilosophical Attack on Indifferentism

Kant positions the Critical philosophy as a response to the crisis of metaphysics - a crisis that is still with us. But his diagnosis of that crisis in terms of a struggle between dogmatism, skepticism, and indifferentism is given short shrift in the secondary literature, despite its promise to help us understand Kant\u27s claim that transcendental philosophy represents a radical alternative to these philosophical modi vivendi. After a consideration of Kant\u27s remarks on what philosophy is in general, I argue that all four of these mutually-exclusive ways of philosophizing are best understood as metaphilosophical stances: ways of conceiving of the ends or aims of philosophy, which collectively determine the legitimate moves in philosophical argumentation, thereby setting the terms of success for such inquiry. I then make these four competing stances explicit, by drawing on Kant\u27s scattered remarks on them and their history. This involves articulating and defending Kant\u27s complex and surprisingly sophisticated relationship to dogmatism and skepticism, and hence a general assessment of Kant\u27s attempts to incorporate these stances\u27 insights, and so subvert their appeal, in the course of developing his transcendental philosophy. Readings of Kant which myopically take him to be focused on bluntly refuting the dogmatist (e.g., Allison), or the skeptic (e.g., Guyer), fall into characteristic errors as a result. Even more importantly, I show that Kant\u27s central target is in fact the much-neglected indifferentist, whose metaphilosophical stance is defined by a denial of the distinctness and autonomy of philosophy, in a way antithetical to Kant\u27s attempt to ground his philosophical activity on the fact of human agency. Indifferentism has numerous adherents, though naturally not under that name, both in Kant\u27s day (e.g., the so-called Popularphilosophen) and in our own (e.g., the Wittgenstein of On Certainty). Reading Kant against these thinkers sharply clarifies his aims and methods in the Critical philosophy, in a way that the predominant anti-dogmatic and anti-skeptical readings fail to do. Kant\u27s assault on indifferentism centrally employs a set of arguments designed to put us in a position to rationally endorse our high-order normative principles without risk of (indifferentistically) ascribing that endorsement either to passive uptake from the wider culture, or to the oracular dictates of common sense. Thus, it is only by means of Kant\u27s distinctive transcendental proofs that can we invoke the authority of reason in philosophy without making one of two fatal errors: making reason utterly transcendent, which produces skepticism; or casting reason as wholly immanent, which yields dogmatism. Taken together, Kant\u27s metaphilosophical views promise a revitalization of transcendental philosophy for our contemporary age