Toward a normative theory of rationality /
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis eBook |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
[College Station, Tex.] :
[Texas A&M University],
[2010]
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Link to OAK Trust copy |
| Abstract: | This project offers an articulation of rationality in terms of normativity-that what it means to be acting rationally, in thought or in deed, can be understood via a notion of being bound or obliged to certain behaviors given a prior structure that delimits what is rational to assert in a discourse or perform in a society. In the explicit articulation of the role of norms in limning rationality, this project also emphasizes the opportunity and obligation to self-critically assess the value of the metalinguistic and metapractical standards that license rational assertions and behaviors. After an introduction, section 2 examines the role of rational constraint in Kant's account of representation, concluding that the transcendental story his philosophy leaves us with impels us to look for an immanent socio-linguistic account of the normativity that obliges us to think and behave in certain ways, rather than lodging the force of normativity in transcendentality. Section 3 then examines Robert Brandom's inferential semantics by addressing prominent responses to Brandom's program, making explicit two ways in which normativity operates in inferentialism-one at the level of object-language in the articulation of the propositional commitments and entitlements that specify propositional content, the other at the level of the metalinguistic appraisal of the standards that drive object-language inferentialism. Section 4 turns to the theoretical status of normativity and its role in practical behavior, where it is argued that a notion of normativity can underpin a theory of intentional states. Examining positions on naturalism, the author proposes that a causal account of intentionality, made explicit by the prescriptive nature of the theory advanced, provides a naturalist view of normativity for which norms are in explanations of social states as laws are in explanations of physical states. Hence the obligation to self-critically reflect on and revise the norms that delimit ethical behavior in social systems is understood as commensurate with the obligation to self-critically reflect on and revise the norms that delimit warranted assertions in epistemic discourse. The conclusion offers some remarks on the prospects for rational revision in both a discipline's discourse and a society's standards of behavior. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | "Major Subject: Philosophy" Title from author supplied metadata (automated record created 2010-03-12 12:08:51). Electronic resource. |
| Physical Description: | 1 online resource. |
| Bibliography: | Includes bibliographical references. |