Cavell and the quest for a voice: the importance of the notion "Claim" in aesthetics and ethics

In this article I focus on Cavell's theme of finding one's voice, as it is articulated with reference to the philosophies of language of Wittgenstein and Austin. I start by spelling out Cavell's Wittgensteinian-Austinian view of culture as the background for his approach to aesthetics and ethics. I then set out to explore the work done by the theme in aesthetics and ethics around the notion claim. I argue that Cavell's effort to counter the pull of non-cognitivism in aesthetics and ethics, building on the notion claim, is not only illuminating of his unique way of inheriting the history of analytic philosophy but also gives us a glimpse of where and how Continental and analytic philosophy may again cross paths in the future

What some philosophers wouldn't dream of counting as part of their job

Cora Diamond's view of the materials admissible in moral philosophy (Diamond 1991h, Diamond 2006) is bound to strike many analytic philosophers as too broad: they wouldn’t dream of thinking of them (namely of literature) as 'part of their job'. This, of course, assumes a conception of the nature of the such job, one in regard to which Diamond expresses doubts of several kinds. In this paper I will (i) search for different reasons for those doubts (Diamond 1991d, 1991e, 1991f, 1991g, 1991h) and then (ii) try to make the connection clear between Diamond's proposal of a change in 'the way we want to do moral philosophy' and her reading of Wittgenstein on ethical nonsense (Diamond 1991a, 1991b, 1991c, 2000). Finally, I suggest that although Diamond has a strong case defending that the dismissal of literary materials in moral philosophy marks an untenable 'neutrality ideal' (Laugier 2006), not every aspect of her view of the role of literature in moral philosophy is equally compelling. In fact, she recruits literature for two different purposes: countering the prevailing 'blindness to blindness' and countering the lack of awe in moral thinking, which she wants to connect with 'the dark and sinister in the human heart' (Diamond 2000), 'unspeakability' and 'difficulty of reality' (Diamond 2008). Since these are different purposes, 'philosophers who wouldn't dream of counting literature as part of their job' might be rejecting any of various things

Animality and rationality (on how John McDowell's Kantian view of moral experience could accommodate research on emotion)

My main goal in this article is methodological: I want to spell out how a Kantian perspective could accommodate current empirical work on cognition, and in particular on emotion. Having chosen John McDowell as a guide, I try to characterize his view of moral experience and underline its Kantian traits (McDowell 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1998d, 1998e, 1998f). I start by identifying the conception of freedom as exemplified in the rational wolf thought experiment in Two Forms of Naturalism as the main Kantian trait. I then go through the characterization of two other crucial aspects of our moral experience - (responsiveness to) reasons and value. I suggest that McDowell's approach to moral experience, although not itself strictly Kantian in all of its details, is an instance of a transformative view of rationality, as defended by Matthew Boyle (Boyle 2016) and that such transformative view is the key to accommodate empirical research on cognition within a Kantian perspective

The thing before us: agreement and disagreement between Travis and Ayer

In this article the authors identify and analyse points of agreement and disagreement between Michael Ayers and Charles Travis, starting from their views on 'things before us'. The authors then try to spell out what separates these philosophers in matters concerning perception, knowledge and language. In spite of their both being selfprofessed realists, equally critical of conceptualism and representationalism, Ayers' empiricism and Travis' anti-empiricism lead them to different positions in these three areas. It is shown that in the case of Ayers they hinge on "ordinary" objects and a kk principle (knowledge that and how we know), whereas in the case of Travis they are articulated around occasion-sensitivity and anti-psychologism

Espelhos, escadas, paradoxo e Nonsense : o que há de comum a Kierkegaard e Wittgenstein

Com base numa comparação estrutural entre o Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus de Wittgenstein (Wittgenstein 1986 [1921]) e Postscriptum não-científico conclusivo às Migalhas filosóficas de Kierkegaard (Kierkegaard 2009 [1864]), argumenta-se que Kierkegaard eWittgenstein têm um entendimento comum da natureza do método filosófico. Para analisar tal entendimento comum são considerados os conceitos de espelho, escada, paradoxo e nonsense, tomando como referência as interpretações de James Conant (Conant 1992, 1997, 2004). Identificam-se finalmente as implicações da concepção ético-estética de filosofia como actividade de Kierkegaard e de Wittgenstein.Based on a structural comparison between Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Wittgenstein 1986 [1921]) and Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical Crumbs (Kierkegaard 2009 [1864]), I claim that Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein have a common understanding of the nature of philosophical method. In order to spell out such common understanding I focus on the concepts of mirror, ladder, paradox and nonsense, taking James Conant's interpretations (Conant 1992, 1997, 2004) as reference. I end by identifying the implications of Kierkegaard's and Wittgenstein's ethical-aesthetic conception of philosophy as an activity