"Morality, Tribalism, and Value" by Danielle Macbeth, Haverford College
Note: Audio matches this exactly, video has the beginning and ending
edited and 5/6 and are on the same transcript. A simple text search of
the 2nd presenter's name will allow you to find the start of the
second section within that same file.
00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:19.000
Hey, I'm not hearing anyone.
00:03:19.000 --> 00:03:22.000
Can you guys hear me.
00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:34.000
00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:48.000
We can hear you, Bill.
00:03:48.000 --> 00:03:50.000
Someone say something.
00:03:50.000 --> 00:03:59.000
Oh, I'm finally I hear you, yeah
okay good, I was Zippo.
00:03:59.000 --> 00:04:02.000
That's relief. Thank you.
00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:07.000
00:04:07.000 --> 00:04:15.000
00:04:15.000 --> 00:04:25.000
or good afternoon as the case
may be. Yeah.
00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:30.000
Yeah, so, so where are the Germans.
00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:33.000
I thought lunch would be would
00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:35.000
00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:40.000
Yeah, that's all they don't have
a summer break right now.
00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:45.000
It's August of course they do.
Yeah Oh they I guess they do, yeah.
00:04:45.000 --> 00:04:50.000
Yeah, but then that should not
keep them from attending a conference Right, right, right.
00:04:50.000 --> 00:05:15.000
I'm gonna have to scold them get
lazy there they're all in my archive somewhere.
00:05:15.000 --> 00:05:32.000
We can start, let me say, remind
people of two things will begin and first of all, welcome to the
second day of the conference, and I just would like to remind people
that they have the captions on. So if you would like sub scripts
please click on the live transcript button at the bottom and then
00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:37.000
00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:38.000
link on the drop down.
00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:57.000
And also, if you would like to
contribute to the q amp a, you may do so by by by raised do clicking
on the hand race sign or by contributing to the chat, we hope to get
around to the chat but even if not we can download it and shared with
00:05:57.000 --> 00:05:59.000
So with that said please Stephanie.
00:05:59.000 --> 00:06:20.000
Okay, welcome to the second day,
I am glad to introduce our first speaker for today Preston still will
from the University of Alabama and Preston is about to publish a book
on him very interesting and broad ranging project and he will also
00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:32.000
that project in his paper, which
is called shared intentionality and to discuss of cognition, so please
Preston, go ahead.
00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:38.000
regard here you can hear you.
00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:40.000
That's okay. How's that.
00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:43.000
Yeah. can you.
00:06:43.000 --> 00:06:44.000
00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:51.000
Thank you all for showing up,
and thrilled to be here this is such a great meeting with people.
00:06:51.000 --> 00:06:54.000
So I'm really excited.
00:06:54.000 --> 00:07:04.000
What I'm going to do so let me
share screens here I've got a presentation. I uploaded an essay, just
a couple of days ago I don't expect people would have had time to read
it and it's not necessary.
00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:10.000
So let me at least get a PowerPoint.
00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:16.000
Up here, and I'll work through that
00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:22.000
book that on, everyone can see
that I hope.
00:07:22.000 --> 00:07:36.000
So what I'm going to do is I'm
going to talk about the relationship between shared intentionality and
discursive cognition, and as Stephanie mentioned, this comes out of
material that I've been working on in Credit Karma for the last couple
00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:37.000
and that we're going to book.
00:07:37.000 --> 00:07:46.000
Hopefully in September I said
proofs of final final final version of the proofs of a couple of days
ago about a week ago.
00:07:46.000 --> 00:07:54.000
So what I'm going to do is I'm
going to start by just laying out the problem space that I'm
addressing these issues.
00:07:54.000 --> 00:08:08.000
I'm then going to look at, non
discursive intentional and the anti cognition, this came up a little
bit in build breeze talk. I think it's important that we be able to
tell a story about the ontogeny and the philosophy of discursive
cognition, and my
00:08:08.000 --> 00:08:10.000
view is going to be that in both cases.
00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:14.000
Reality is an important part of
00:08:14.000 --> 00:08:29.000
So I'll start by looking at non
destructive potential Niantic cognition I'll do that fairly quickly.
There's quite a bit here. And so I'm going to be going through some of
it quicker than other bits that I've got an audience familiar with
some of this
00:08:29.000 --> 00:08:31.000
stuff more than others.
00:08:31.000 --> 00:08:44.000
And then going to look at
discursive intentional Pantheon to cognition and they're going to do
that but we have a semantics for the mobile operators for shared
intentionality and for the antic modality talk about what's obliged
permitted and forbidden
00:08:44.000 --> 00:08:46.000
in terms of agency.
00:08:46.000 --> 00:09:00.000
And then we'll look at some
formal properties of the semantics, and the breakout yesterday.
00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:14.000
I hope I'm getting bills claim
here like that it was important to at least get enough logic on board,
to be able to tell when presented with a wall of symbolic text,
whether there was anything interesting there, or whether you were just
being beat with
00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:22.000
text so my hope is in discussing
the formal stuff in sections three and four, that I can at least
address the kind of concerns that that somebody like they'll would have.
00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:34.000
So I'm not going to go into the
details of that very much but there's enough there I hope to, for
those of you that are interested in that kind of material to see
what's going on and I'm definitely willing to talk about it in the kitchen.
00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:51.000
And then we will look at
empirical support and predictions that this account makes because if
I'm right we can glean something about it. Sure discursive cognition,
or rationality, in terms of a semantics for these mobile operators so
I'm going to argue
00:09:51.000 --> 00:10:01.000
some empirical support for the
position of hope, and that it makes some predictions that are worth
00:10:01.000 --> 00:10:13.000
This is stuff that I think of is
mostly complete, I'm happy with the material have to hear. Beginning
in Part Six though I'm gonna look at some issues that I'm less
confident about the next two parts.
00:10:13.000 --> 00:10:24.000
The first I'm going to look at
the relationship between intentional, and biotic cognition, in
practical reasoning, and then going to draw contrast between proof
there and model theory because everything I'm going to be doing up to
this point is, in terms
00:10:24.000 --> 00:10:32.000
terms of model theory and I
think it's important to think about proof theories
00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:45.000
and someone's saying something
to me or is this may be Christmas just that we sometimes can't hear
you right maybe you could go closer to your microphone.
00:10:45.000 --> 00:10:57.000
Oh, sure. Absolutely,
absolutely. And I'm, I met my parents place in the mountains of
Montana and they have some weird kind of Genki internet connection
here so it may that may be an issue too so if there are problems.
00:10:57.000 --> 00:10:59.000
raise your hand.
00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:02.000
00:11:02.000 --> 00:11:03.000
00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:10.000
Okay, so I look at proof the
remodel theory, I'm then going to look at Stephanie's meta linguistic
interpretation of sellers counter shared intentionality.
00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:23.000
She's published this essay,
recently I think it's a great reading we've a number of us have
discussed it so I'm going to discuss that quickly and try to slot it
in the to the view on developing, particularly with regards to the
relationship between proof
00:11:23.000 --> 00:11:41.000
theory and model theory, and
then going to look at an account of proof the have been Luke improved
body and Julian Schroeder and their notion of rejection, be seen as a
kind of rejection or something similar to what I'm doing and again
this is this one
00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:55.000
I'm really sort of in the weeds
when it comes to not sure what what to think about this stuff. And
then there's time at the end I want to address it goes notion of
absolute knowing is bad spelling out truth conditions for sharing
mental states and thinking
00:11:55.000 --> 00:11:59.000
about what it is to be one of us
is a claim about the way things are.
00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:03.000
I doubt I'll get to delete.
00:12:03.000 --> 00:12:06.000
We can we can address it.
00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:23.000
OK, so I'm going to do and
philosophy across the board that views declarative explains
representations of the way the world are the way the world is where
the way the space of possible worlds is.
00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:38.000
So this view for grounds
representational intentionality where the mind is meant that the world
and normative assessment of claims then is measured in terms of
whether the mind is represented correctly.
00:12:38.000 --> 00:12:47.000
Now, no Belknap declares this or
a version of this kind of principle. The declarative fallacy. the
thought that just because of the things ended declarative mood it's
meant to represent the world.
00:12:47.000 --> 00:13:02.000
But oftentimes you say things
that are clarity that don't clearly have that function. So something
like the cups go in the cupboard might be a way of eating to a
roommate how to organize the house for friends help clean up from an
employer to an employee,
00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:04.000
it might it, man.
00:13:04.000 --> 00:13:18.000
So this this came up yesterday
in his discussion, Stephanie mentioned that context is going to matter
a lot for settling some of the claims that we make and trying to
determine whether they have one quarter of intentionality or another.
00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:27.000
And I think that that's correct
and we need to bear in mind that there are these two complimentary
ways we can think about the mind in relation to the world as protein
from the other direction.
00:13:27.000 --> 00:13:41.000
Some of the claims we make the
declarative have the world of mind direction of fit, where normative
assessment is measured not in terms of whether the mind is represented
the world rather in terms of whether the world is is the mind, cleanse
it to me.
00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:52.000
And so I want to give a
semantics that mobile operators, they give expression to shared
intentions and the judgment, where I am having this practical intentionality.
00:13:52.000 --> 00:14:06.000
So, overall, my hope is that
I've provided a framework that can be used by philosophers linguists
and scientists to look at the relationship between discursive and non
discursive cognition and human beings.
00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:18.000
So, in the book in particular I
try to address the number of issues that come up in these fields in a
way that's neutral Kindle substantive commitment between them so as to
give a common framework.
00:14:18.000 --> 00:14:27.000
But then also to show how we can
address some of the issues because I think it provides a resource for
engaging with some of this stuff.
00:14:27.000 --> 00:14:35.000
So originally I thought I'd give
a kind of historical approach this talk, because Alan given was going
to be here I'm using different stuff.
00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:50.000
See, able to make I think I'm
going to focus more of a topical thing so I'll flag some of the issues
that come up in the history, philosophy about this issue, for the most
part, just going to present it as it is the idea.
00:14:50.000 --> 00:15:06.000
And I'm going to try to minimize
the formalism and give a general, I see this research program. My hope
is that other people will see it as well. And so, maybe this is a kind
of advertisement I'm hoping I can bring people around to seeing
things, my view
00:15:06.000 --> 00:15:16.000
or my point of view or at the
very least, saying that my point of view is worth partnering with to
show me that I'm wrong about something
00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:20.000
00:15:20.000 --> 00:15:25.000
okay so in the book, I give,
it's listed there.
00:15:25.000 --> 00:15:36.000
a little bit, I give an account
of discursive cognition. Understood is beating the rules button action
in terms of a semantics for intentional and do.
00:15:36.000 --> 00:15:51.000
The idea is that to obey rule is
to exercise the cognition, the cognition is rationality and use their
plans of action is the world of mine correlates to the world as a
basis for interpreting mind to fit world represent.
00:15:51.000 --> 00:16:04.000
So, use words and plans to
account for the two directions potential, and then draw inferences,
and then the idea once this model is up and running to draw inferences
about the nature of dispersal cognition are shared intentionality in
terms of the kinds
00:16:04.000 --> 00:16:16.000
of things that have to be
imposed on the model to get the semantics right, get the right kind of
entitlements. And, and to see that that you get the sort of logic you
want out of it.
00:16:16.000 --> 00:16:29.000
So the key thesis I'm defending
is the shared intentionality to is the basis for and a foundation for
the self government that comes with the anti cognition, that's the key
I do this fairly quickly.
00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:38.000
I think that the notion of
picturing is is an important part of any kind of philosophical anthropology
00:16:38.000 --> 00:16:54.000
is a variation of world world
relation between ultimately states of the central nervous system and
properties in the environment, processes or literally in the environment.
00:16:54.000 --> 00:17:09.000
So I think of it as having a
primitive binder world and world of mind intentionality, so when I
reached to pick a glass up right where I see what the glass is I'm not
only representing the space around, but I'm engaged in it in certain
ways that prepare
00:17:09.000 --> 00:17:13.000
me to act in in ways that allow
me to manipulate it.
00:17:13.000 --> 00:17:23.000
So I think I'm picturing is that
it's basis that kind of non discursive cognition, this is the sort of
thing that these can do an animal to board.
00:17:23.000 --> 00:17:34.000
But in addition to picturing I
think we need a notion of shared practical picturing and what I call
the antic picture, so this will come up a little bit later but
basically the idea is that your practical picturing involves motor
00:17:34.000 --> 00:17:51.000
mirroring so this is a piece in
the 90s, and we've since found that it's across the animal kingdom,
but I do something like move a cup up to a countertop and you watch
me, there's a part of your motor representational complex, that is
planning, from your
00:17:51.000 --> 00:18:06.000
perspective to do what I'm doing
is if you were me, so it's not just that you're representing what I'm
doing from your point of view, you're actually engaged in your
practical faculties in ways that would be appropriate if you were the
one who was doing
00:18:06.000 --> 00:18:07.000
00:18:07.000 --> 00:18:20.000
So I think this is a kind of
shared practical picturing and you can see how this would facilitate
shared agency if you are moving a flight of a table up a flight of
stairs narrow in terms, I see that you need to get the legs up on the side.
00:18:20.000 --> 00:18:30.000
I know that I need to go down,
important because I can see in some sense, this is what I would do if
I was you or what I would need you to do if you will meet.
00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:43.000
So I think if the Arctic
picturing and as a kind of shared practical picturing that involves
the exercise of what's draw some calls the reactive attitude so these
are an effective states that involve evaluations of others things like
00:18:43.000 --> 00:18:45.000
00:18:45.000 --> 00:18:51.000
Okay, so this is all in the
00:18:51.000 --> 00:19:06.000
part of the transition from non
discursive to discursive cognition. I think one of the roles for last
year is to individually, intermediate categories between extremes that
we don't at a given time, understand how they relate.
00:19:06.000 --> 00:19:12.000
So one of the things I'm trying
to do here then is to propose these intermediate categories that will
come up a number of times.
00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:14.000
Okay, but I think of all this.
00:19:14.000 --> 00:19:29.000
Being non discursive. So the
district count and it's going to be founded on this notion of single
mindedness, and rejection. So here's the idea. One chooses to do
something candidly just in case one rejects every choice incompatible
with that choice.
00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:35.000
And so rejecting primitive
effective Pakistan's modeled on the picture.
00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:48.000
Now there's no sufficient
entertains an attitude of rejection toward everything compatible with
What does now vacations on the scene that's actually kind of tricky
because you can just say well I reject not doing, but in the absence
00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:58.000
There's no supposition that it
may be caught you know maybe caught with someone who was within a
mental state involved rejecting everything compatible with what piece
decided to do.
00:19:58.000 --> 00:20:12.000
But nevertheless, it's useful to
model the hunter cognition, as if the kinds of mental states were ones
that we could adopt so hyper vigilance is the term I used to
characterize the agents are involved in planning and there's a bunch
00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:28.000
that are imposed and planning to
make sense of it, but I think it's useful to think of the extremes,
particularly when we're doing model construction to think of the
extremes in precise ways that may involve separating them from
features that are part
00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:43.000
of what they are, as a matter of
the kind of thing they actually are in the world, as opposed to our
model. So again, I took picturing to be a primitive joint mine world
and worldwide intentionality, but in this amazing, I'm creating my
00:20:43.000 --> 00:20:56.000
in terms of possible worlds and
world mind intentionality in terms of plants so that's an artificial
reality, it's going to be useful similarly for the notion of rejection
so maybe only the angels, ever, ever, ever entertain rejection in this way.
00:20:56.000 --> 00:21:03.000
Nevertheless, it's useful for,
for we mere mortals to think of it in these terms. So I claim.
00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:06.000
Single mindedness then is a kind of
00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:18.000
finding life of the course of
action by not letting myself do anything out of the judgment that out
to dress professional.
00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:28.000
That involves rejecting
everything compatible with it so I reject gym clothes for instance.
And so, in, in one thing I might know is I'm planning my morning, or
my evening the night for us.
00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:32.000
If my clothes are clean suit is
dirty, that I need to get it cleaned or I need to touch it up or whatever.
00:21:32.000 --> 00:21:39.000
or I need to touch it up or
whatever. So, single mindedness that is a mile strong beyond
00:21:39.000 --> 00:21:50.000
is the kind of stuff to practice
involves finding yourself of course backs and by not letting yourself
do something new, contravening. So, discuss more detail later.
00:21:50.000 --> 00:21:56.000
Alright so the notion of
00:21:56.000 --> 00:22:00.000
getting audio is still be.
00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:03.000
This comes through as well as it can.
00:22:03.000 --> 00:22:20.000
Single mindedness gives you an
edge of nonstick strong Niantic modality. Actually let me let me
check. Real quick,
00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:38.000
this may kick me off. If I do,
I'll come back, so I apologize hold on just a second. Okay.
00:22:38.000 --> 00:22:39.000
00:22:39.000 --> 00:22:47.000
00:22:47.000 --> 00:23:01.000
So single mindedness gives an
account that astronomy on the ground, can I quickly interrupt you, or
proposes that maybe it would be a good idea of your clothes the video
maybe that can end up on some whatever.
00:23:01.000 --> 00:23:03.000
00:23:03.000 --> 00:23:10.000
I hope you can still share your
screen now let's. Yeah, the screen.
00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:11.000
00:23:11.000 --> 00:23:13.000
You've got the screen Good,
00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:27.000
Okay, so a single mindedness
gives the account of the strong, the modality of obligation for
forbid. And then, the notion of differences you specify the week modality.
00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:38.000
Now, this is the historical flat
so the distinct choice attitudes was independently developed for login
Tell me develop, at least three times, 16 years.
00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:54.000
Give does it in thinking how to
live. There was a book by people like sugar and dryer. I mean, it
makes sense of obligation, neither of them note this distinction will
dry or doesn't want essay and attributes that ever present something
novel, so it's
00:23:54.000 --> 00:24:04.000
actually there and give it to
begin with. It looks to me left are sort of comes to it on his own,
but actually in a couple of essays from sellers in the 60s early 70s.
00:24:04.000 --> 00:24:14.000
In each case, they characterize
the strong attitude in terms of preference but I don't think that's
right. Because, an animal that's chasing of praise exhibiting preferences.
00:24:14.000 --> 00:24:26.000
But that's not what is going on
in the anti cognition, so I think really the idea is this notion of
single minded. Furthermore, once you've got single defined difference
in terms of single.
00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:41.000
That's what I do.
00:24:41.000 --> 00:24:49.000
But it's different, just in case
there's some action be incompatible with he could have chosen to be
without changing any of your single minded choices.
00:24:49.000 --> 00:24:52.000
So if I think I had to dress professionally.
00:24:52.000 --> 00:25:03.000
And I between me is to reject
rejecting each, so rejection in the sense iterating in a way that's
00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:12.000
So, it's very case of thinking,
dress professionally, I think, to dress professionally, that I'm
permitted dressed in black suit.
00:25:12.000 --> 00:25:24.000
Then I'm going to choose single
mindedly dress professionally by rejecting anything possible which
means I'm not going to dress my gym clothes, but I'm planning to
choose in differently between the two suits in the sense that either
00:25:24.000 --> 00:25:28.000
Each satisfy my single minded
choice to dress professional.
00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:41.000
Okay, so then just really quick.
This is just a possible world semantics with the additional, it's
basically to get Boolean logic.
00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:47.000
Just the set theoretic
operations that with the middle of the 19th century.
00:25:47.000 --> 00:25:57.000
So, let idiotic plan be defined
as a maximally consistent plan of action for every circumstance, every
agent, and every choice.
00:25:57.000 --> 00:26:11.000
The agent, either single
mindedly chooses to do that thing chooses not to do it differently
chooses do it or indefinitely chooses not to do it so it should
exhaust all the possibilities of agents choices and actions.
00:26:11.000 --> 00:26:23.000
So, the understanding understood
tensions and action. So this is a large distinguish choice to boil
water in order to make tea from a choice to boil the water in order to
00:26:23.000 --> 00:26:33.000
So the idea is that you
individually choices and find a farm is a brain, if you could specify
that the intent action and then we didn't put the semantic value of
sentence five with these Scott brackets brackets.
00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:52.000
And we didn't put the semantic
value of sentence five with these Scott brackets with these double
brackets. In terms of the spec interpreted first sentence having the
mind to fit world to fit the interpretation of flies going to be the
set of worlds which
00:26:52.000 --> 00:26:55.000
00:26:55.000 --> 00:27:08.000
Through the Arctic expressions
are then defined in terms of plans of action, and I'm treating at this
point in the semantics I'm treating, just the prescriptive fragments
so I'm just looking at the hyper plans here, so to say they're doing
00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:28.000
see expresses universally
rejecting not fancy at it to say it's the set of plans for every agent
who's single mindedly agency to say that is an expressive University
rejecting doing a CD, which is to set up our plans where every agent,
choose a single
00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:42.000
mindedly not agency, and then
say that doing is permitted and he expresses universally rejecting
rejecting doing agency, which may, which is the set of pipe pipelines
for every agent, either single line only choose a day and C, or
00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:46.000
whether or not.
00:27:46.000 --> 00:28:01.000
Plan is actually consists of
action, just in the same way that it was, but intentional April plans
don't distinguish the attitudes of single mindedness and indifference.
This is because they don't have a strong in a week down to Dallas
modality and the way that the deal.
00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:14.000
way that the deal. So we're Iota
or i have to say i when i when i read it out where I Oda is a meta
linguistic variable taking you through the first person singular,
plural pronouns, as its value.
00:28:14.000 --> 00:28:27.000
I feel AC is a set of hyper
plans where I choose a together on cnh were together is important if
you've got the plural pronouns, we can play.
00:28:27.000 --> 00:28:47.000
So, now, in this case, what I
got here is I have the semantic utterances or triples. So, before I
was looking just at the single plans because I was considering the
fragment of the language where you have either just purely
00:28:47.000 --> 00:28:57.000
sentences, but we want to be
able to model relations among these sentences. So we have to take as
our semantic interpreted order triples of world's data paper pens and intentional.
00:28:57.000 --> 00:29:09.000
But if you do that, you get just
all of the regular classical logic defined in terms of operations sets
in the way that everyone's familiar with.
00:29:09.000 --> 00:29:17.000
Okay, you can then introduce
quantification, and you get the right kind of influences it's provable
that an obligation is a permission.
00:29:17.000 --> 00:29:29.000
Even when quantification on the
scene distinguish a raid a victim or a relative rising semantic
interpretations the world's as I do here.
00:29:29.000 --> 00:29:32.000
And you can
00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:38.000
relationships between different
kinds of modalities. So I'm going to just skip this.
00:29:38.000 --> 00:29:58.000
But you, you can ask me
questions if you like the template will or been can be modeled these
claims on necessity and possibility, then interactions between
different kinds of fidelity, so you can distinguish one should a in
order to be where the modality
00:29:58.000 --> 00:30:17.000
modality has wide scope. And in
order to be one today, where the theological modality has come for cuz
you distinguish the antic from attentional plans, there's a coherent
but practically irrational mental state expressed by
00:30:17.000 --> 00:30:36.000
a shovel. Here, there are hyper
states. These order triples that know that content but it's
practically irrational since there's no action, take satisfies all of
the blank admits that you adopt.
00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:44.000
OK, so now I'm going to look at
some of its the empirical some of you, and the predictions effects.
00:30:44.000 --> 00:30:49.000
So I already mentioned neural
bearing and sure what I call shared practical picture.
00:30:49.000 --> 00:31:00.000
So, this is exactly what you
would expect if shared intentionality involves this to the
perspectives of other people and plant plan on how you would behave.
00:31:00.000 --> 00:31:13.000
if you were someone else. So,
here's Stephen butterfill, talking about neural control for
understanding intentionality much coordination of joint action appears
to involve not fully distinguishing others actions.
00:31:13.000 --> 00:31:29.000
Take motor simulation task or
representation and motor representation of collective goals. In each
case coordination of those motor or testers and patients factions
00:31:29.000 --> 00:31:41.000
plans as a matter of pairings
and representing past it she will always also be appropriate. If it
were you and not her was about form.
00:31:41.000 --> 00:31:54.000
So I mentioned that the
intentional hyper plans don't distinguish single mindedness and
indifference and this is because they don't have a distinction between
a strong in a week, Global force.
00:31:54.000 --> 00:31:57.000
This guests shares.
00:31:57.000 --> 00:32:03.000
Kind of practical rationality
practical cognition, and what's all been able to accomplish.
00:32:03.000 --> 00:32:17.000
And then some of the things that
support suggestion so you choose, without choosing single mindedly, so
the wolf that chases a prey. Say what is chasing an antelope burden is
looking for a weekend alone, or chase the wolf is going to make
00:32:17.000 --> 00:32:24.000
but the choices are going to be
single minded in the sense that it's not adopting an effective stance,
effective practical sense worth finding itself to that course of action.
00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:33.000
And this can be seen because if
the envelope that it chases suddenly gets a second when stumble.
00:32:33.000 --> 00:32:42.000
Trust will divert to the any
consideration of anything chosen.
00:32:42.000 --> 00:33:12.000
So chooses looks like something
that it's more complicated requires additional cognitive complexity
and simply choose for the more with the notion of single by choice you
can discriminate practical genus species religions, when I planned on
00:33:13.000 --> 00:33:29.000
And I think the case can be made
then the cognition is the foundation of discursive cognition in the
sense that involves this kind of self bindings, the self government,
because a human being in the content context is an agent that x not
only in accord
00:33:29.000 --> 00:33:40.000
with a rule but on the basis of
a recognition of its propriety. So if we take this content and idea,
one that makes with little cells.
00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:58.000
At least they will take as our
part of our inspiration, then we can think of the Artic cognition is a
mechanism for that kind of content self government because it's single
mindedness that allows us to exercise that that course of action where
00:33:58.000 --> 00:34:04.000
allow ourselves to do something
we've committed ourselves to reject and
00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:19.000
Furthermore, positive and
negative reinforcement schedules instituted by shared intentionality
suffice to set up normative statuses, even if the people engaged in
that shared intentionality don't know, don't know what they're doing
or aren't aware of
00:34:19.000 --> 00:34:30.000
what they're doing and the, the
sense of awareness that comes with discursive self government to
ethnic so stick meeting and flocked anything or just negative and
positive reinforcement so acting on the intention to stick be doing
AMC and flocked and
00:34:30.000 --> 00:34:39.000
not doing AMC is one way of
training people to conform to the norm that A is forbidden and see.
Instead of all the
00:34:39.000 --> 00:34:39.000
up with some words.
00:34:39.000 --> 00:34:54.000
some work. So this suggests that
consumer language is normal for things and that a vocal communication,
a language might be undergoing development goals tactic complexity,
00:34:54.000 --> 00:34:55.000
00:34:55.000 --> 00:35:11.000
There's I see no be any
construction to the land itself without anyone being able to save
money, so they were institution for
00:35:11.000 --> 00:35:18.000
00:35:18.000 --> 00:35:25.000
There's a bunch of work been
00:35:25.000 --> 00:35:34.000
it's out of shared
intentionality beginning and what is just around like was
00:35:34.000 --> 00:35:37.000
almost cannot hear you.
00:35:37.000 --> 00:35:40.000
00:35:40.000 --> 00:36:01.000
quite a bit of work in
developmental technology, about the emergence of normative adults
opinion, nine months of age, cubits exhibit proclivity to share mental
states with their caregivers, so attention and emotion, and from nine
months stage asked me
00:36:01.000 --> 00:36:10.000
for sharing meditates develops
into capacity to share and enforce.
00:36:10.000 --> 00:36:25.000
So, recent review article by
Schmidt and cozy, they close with a claim that further research might
support a view that is remarkably consonant with the one I've
00:36:25.000 --> 00:36:32.000
They say one picture that's
worth being explored more systematically and future research is that
well if you will be.
00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:58.000
I'm potentially in the natural
loans as breakfast and success uniquely human forms of normal
psychology and equally shared intentionality developed in close to
hand them in early ontogeny, the former building on and going out of
00:36:58.000 --> 00:37:01.000
is founded on this distinction
between a strong and weak force.
00:37:01.000 --> 00:37:17.000
It should intentionality is the
kind of thing that but isn't practical standpoint, involving putting
yourself into the position of other people, provide a foundation for
what's going to be the Artic cognition the capacity to choose single
00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:33.000
But again, I'm thinking in terms
of single mindedness is a kind of abstract idealization at the level
of phylogenetic. I think it's better to think in terms of shared
practical picturing and the authentic picturing that hominids we're
developing a massive
00:37:33.000 --> 00:37:46.000
state, but to do it in a way of
normative we're evaluating valence and attitudes like admiration and
discuss would have been important for that process.
00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:56.000
Okay, so I'm proposing
00:37:56.000 --> 00:38:04.000
or norm psychology develops out
of shared intention intention testing something similar in the species.
00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:08.000
Okay so, Thomas.
00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:25.000
Thomas Hello thinks that we can
give an account of the development of human cognition, on the basis of
step process of evolution from joint, the collective intention joint
intentionality involves sharing mental states with small groups, respecting.
00:38:25.000 --> 00:38:40.000
People hunting small groups of
people hunting in the time of their hunting or in building tools at a
time that they're building tools, but no expand sense of what he calls
collective intentionality which is, in principle, unrestricted space
and time where
00:38:40.000 --> 00:38:54.000
the members of the community.
Are you might never meet might not even be able to themselves claim is
that human connection involves judgments about what is true and moral
is what binding on everyone
00:38:54.000 --> 00:39:02.000
It isn't enough to account for
human connection, but rather, but there's a necessity for collective intention.
00:39:02.000 --> 00:39:10.000
intentionality is allowed is allows us to conceive of truth of what's
true and what's more, is what's binding on everyone.
00:39:10.000 --> 00:39:28.000
And it lays this out notes there
may need to be additional stages and proposed between intentionality
and the development of human cognition, and I can be Genius Bar is
proposing some intermediate stage that kind of collective
intentionality, and the
00:39:28.000 --> 00:39:42.000
development of human cognition,
we need a notion of single minded, because this is what allows us to
account for recognizing something is true, or good, in the sense of
recognition that involves that merely acting in conformity with a norm
from the basis
00:39:42.000 --> 00:39:49.000
of an awareness of its
proprietary responding to it as something that commands or medium.
00:39:49.000 --> 00:39:57.000
Think it's plausible that we
could have been able to speak a language, sharing attention to
communicate, which could have blown could have been home Gov.
00:39:57.000 --> 00:40:01.000
Long before we were aware of
norms the sense of awareness that bulbs.
00:40:01.000 --> 00:40:09.000
The other person cognition.
00:40:09.000 --> 00:40:15.000
allowed us to adopt those
00:40:15.000 --> 00:40:24.000
Okay. So one last thing about
the sport and predictions. So, brand new Dell have this debate about
whether logic use is necessary for reason laundering.
00:40:24.000 --> 00:40:37.000
Things that know there could
have been human beings that were engaged in the practice of giving and
asking for reasons without logic yet being on the scene, and that the
virtue of logic is that makes explicit what was implicit in those
00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:46.000
because there's no, there's no
sense in which a group of people, reasoning accepted so they're using
00:40:46.000 --> 00:40:51.000
My suggestion is that that logic
makes the difference that single minded.
00:40:51.000 --> 00:40:57.000
This is what allows you to
recognize this piece
00:40:57.000 --> 00:40:59.000
to the convention.
00:40:59.000 --> 00:41:10.000
So it's entirely possible as far
as I can see the community that have been using logical aging in the
nation and getting an internet connection stable message.
00:41:10.000 --> 00:41:13.000
I hope people can still hear
00:41:13.000 --> 00:41:22.000
that say about that. The way
00:41:22.000 --> 00:41:27.000
run the sort of
00:41:27.000 --> 00:41:30.000
throw my hat in.
00:41:30.000 --> 00:41:45.000
My father always said that you
should never get the middle of between two pods that are bigger than
you, and so it's not a good idea but that's, that's my claim.
00:41:45.000 --> 00:41:48.000
00:41:48.000 --> 00:41:54.000
that's Yes, yes. Okay, thank
you. So now I'm going to get into the stuff that's a little.
00:41:54.000 --> 00:42:06.000
It's this this this stuff is all
still in process, so maybe I've only got about 10 minutes left so
maybe I'll do this a little quicker. Anyway, I'm positive will not get
to absolute knowing but it's implicit in what we're doing.
00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:16.000
Okay, so consider the following.
I want to get to Prague the morning, the best way to get to Prague
tomorrow morning it's take the a train us
00:42:16.000 --> 00:42:32.000
maintain and the other condition
involves minus worse than the body, the sandbox The conclusion is
strong, the expression of intention, through the article and we're.
00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:46.000
a conditional patch. But this
treaty on decoding cognition is a kind of punk tape mental act. That
is something like observing facts and then proceeding to draw some information.
00:42:46.000 --> 00:43:02.000
I think clarity.
00:43:02.000 --> 00:43:11.000
So I, it seems to me that this
influence is perfectly fine on its own there's there's no need to
impose digital reason here involves the kind of material.
00:43:11.000 --> 00:43:21.000
It's just part of what it is to
have desire and to think that stuff but his desire is to kentisbeare this
00:43:21.000 --> 00:43:24.000
00:43:24.000 --> 00:43:37.000
And then single mindedness to be
seen. Not in some particular act, but in a commitment that spells
itself out over the course of planning or realizing the plan that's
expressed with that intention.
00:43:37.000 --> 00:43:52.000
So as I'm thinking about what to
do in the night before I have to make decisions to make sure I'm ready
and I'm awake and then my bags are packed. When I wake up in the
morning, I have to make sure I'm not allowing desire to sleep to
suppress my admit
00:43:52.000 --> 00:43:56.000
this is single minded This is a
kind of self government.
00:43:56.000 --> 00:44:04.000
I suppress my desires, even
though I'd like to sleep in because I committed myself to 10 reasons
for later so of course.
00:44:04.000 --> 00:44:16.000
And so the intention then acts
as a kind of guide that my single mindedness finds itself to over the
course of realizing that plan.
00:44:16.000 --> 00:44:29.000
Okay, so I think that we can
then spell a difference between world and instrumental practical
rationality, it says the moral law applies independently of one's
personal place in space and time, it's not intentional on one person
or group of people's desires,
00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:31.000
00:44:31.000 --> 00:44:50.000
That's about the semantics for
the article ality is being unrestricted when it comes to agencies, the
agents and circumstances that have a duty or obligation applies to.
It's not a claim in normative ethics so as far as I can see that's
compatible with being at the ontology just a virtue theorists and
00:44:50.000 --> 00:44:53.000
ethics of care consequential ism
00:44:53.000 --> 00:45:10.000
Okay, so let me mention just
I've got about five minutes left here so let me just get enough of the
proof theory model theory stuff on the board to at least indicate how
I think my view which might look to be in conflict with Stephanie's is
00:45:10.000 --> 00:45:21.000
So there's a tortured history to
the term intentional semantics in contemporary philosophers at LX
intentional semantics co obsessional of possible worlds semantics.
00:45:21.000 --> 00:45:35.000
This is owed to current EPS
decision and meaning and assessing to use the potential to replace
what Fred talked about in terms of senses. Now the distinction between
sense and reference it didn't work for centuries, it shows up in the
00:45:35.000 --> 00:45:54.000
syncopation distinction in logic
report well it's in a logical font and purse cool and just about
everyone Prager sense of reference card app and meaning and it says,
it says well look, since we can't get a grip on it.
00:45:54.000 --> 00:46:01.000
I'm going to use this lead Mitzi
in turn, and I'm going to define intention as a function for the state
description to extension.
00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:17.000
Now, that is, essentially
possible world semantics state descriptions are maximally determined
states of affairs where every sentence organizations including a
current app doesn't have an accessibility relation, it was one of
cookies brilliance discoveries
00:46:17.000 --> 00:46:28.000
was to see accessibility is what
allows us to distinguish the modal teams sky Lewis button eyes in the
20s, but it's there and current and potential.
00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:36.000
OK, so the this view of
intentions takes the outputs to be extensions to be referencing the world.
00:46:36.000 --> 00:46:50.000
But the old notion of intention
or comprehension I prefer the term comprehension because it doesn't
seem to have this this baggage that tension it's got the old term of
comprehension was not about a relationship between words or concepts
in the world,
00:46:50.000 --> 00:46:56.000
but about a relationship between
concepts or between five minutes. Okay. Yes.
00:46:56.000 --> 00:47:09.000
So, this is to the notion of
comprehension then it doesn't involve word world relations, but rather
inter linguistic relations relations within language or within thought.
00:47:09.000 --> 00:47:25.000
So I think what I've developed
is a model theory is the basis for word to fit world extensions
involve modeling theoretical rationality and world to fit word
extensions modeling, practical rational.
00:47:25.000 --> 00:47:28.000
Using possible worlds.
00:47:28.000 --> 00:47:46.000
Now, this leaves room then for
taking proof theory as specifying comprehension and terms of concept
containment or word word relations. And if that's right if that's a
good way of reconstructing the old extension comprehension
distinction, so that option
00:47:46.000 --> 00:48:01.000
is modeled with proof theory as
opposed to trying to build comprehension inside model theory, then it
should be useful and sorting out some debates. So what I want to do is
mention to and look at at least both so this is Stephanie's account of
00:48:01.000 --> 00:48:10.000
and what she calls the middle
and mystic interpretation of sellers account of ethical statements.
And then the other is in providing slaughters proof theoretic
interpretation of the Arctic modality.
00:48:10.000 --> 00:48:18.000
Because if I'm right that model
theory and proof or complementary then there should be a way to
reconcile these different.
00:48:18.000 --> 00:48:28.000
These essay, she argued the
sellers in his later work comes around understanding the object
language claim one ought to AMC question.
00:48:28.000 --> 00:48:41.000
But as what we said in the
middle is we spell a is implied by we shall promote the general
welfare and the double use of the quotes there indicates that we're
talking about language, and she knows that this involves an indirect
connection agency, because
00:48:41.000 --> 00:48:43.000
we're going through the middle
at which here.
00:48:43.000 --> 00:48:58.000
Now, in other words, I've argued
that you can give an interpretation of the atomic sentences in proof
theoretic semantics, in terms of the role of those sentences, as
00:48:58.000 --> 00:49:14.000
meaning of Eric's matrix is the
role that plays in explaining things and being explained by things
that gives you an introduction in a way for Adams, that intended
interpretive Missy and Fred says has this book on probiotics Mannix
where he lays this
00:49:14.000 --> 00:49:25.000
out, and he uses introduction
elimination rules for specifying the meaning of a sentence so the idea
is that the conjunction means, what it does in virtue of the
introduction wolf or conjunction and the elimination of overhead reduction.
00:49:25.000 --> 00:49:30.000
So specify McCullough.
00:49:30.000 --> 00:49:40.000
To give an introduction the
nation rules for Adams, in terms of roles and explanation that gives
them a meeting prophetic semantics.
00:49:40.000 --> 00:49:54.000
So this is intentional, versus
hyper intentional. But the very term hyper intentionality is an
artifact of the decision to use extensions, as the meanings of of what
get called intentional sentences.
00:49:54.000 --> 00:50:11.000
So, it's just confused to think
in those terms, but it's easy to say that it's hyper intentional
because the meaning of a is going to different from the meaning of
Ana, because an days will be justified by the introduction, and is
going to be just.
00:50:11.000 --> 00:50:14.000
So it's easily.
00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:29.000
So now consider what duck
sellers would say in response to the phone. Why not one a response
would be, because we show a is implied by we shall promote the general
work will deliver because we shall a is implied by we shall promote
the general welfare.
00:50:29.000 --> 00:50:37.000
That's the same there's a good
explanation for why why not a the, what's the implication relation
between shirt intentionality and promoting the general welfare.
00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:51.000
But according to France says and
my work. That's the finest is to give the proof theoretic meaning of
one not eight, so we can see, Stephanie than giving her middle
linguistic interpretation approved through theoretic analysis of the
00:50:51.000 --> 00:50:57.000
claims like one day, whereas I'm
giving a model theoretic analysis of their extension.
00:50:57.000 --> 00:51:01.000
And so this then I claim is
compatible the two views are compatible.
00:51:01.000 --> 00:51:12.000
Okay, if I had more I'll stop
here if I had more time I talked about the directness of the middle
linguistic account, something similar is true of the account, given by loader.
00:51:12.000 --> 00:51:30.000
And I think that if you look at
bilateral semantics, there's a way of seeing the bilateral semantics
produces logically complex sentences to complexes of attitudes of
assertion and denial, in a way that suggests, there's an additional
into position between
00:51:30.000 --> 00:51:42.000
Thomas fellows collective
intentionality and cognition. Not only do you need single mindedness,
which involves what I call a agent of rejection where I'm rejecting choices.
00:51:42.000 --> 00:51:48.000
You also need linguistic
00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:52.000
intro linguistic word word relation.
00:51:52.000 --> 00:52:00.000
So that's, that's in the
background, and I as I say this stuff is all tentative.
00:52:00.000 --> 00:52:14.000
I'm hoping I can spell it out,
as I go forward, and I look forward to questions and comments from
people so thank you for bearing with me
00:52:14.000 --> 00:52:24.000
to press them.
00:52:24.000 --> 00:52:25.000
00:52:25.000 --> 00:52:45.000
So if you have a question, raise
your hand wave with me, or give a signal in the chat.
00:52:45.000 --> 00:52:52.000
00:52:52.000 --> 00:53:02.000
Hey Preston Thanks a lot, wow
that was massive and thanks for the PowerPoint slides they helped a
lot. given that your internet connection was really shaky.
00:53:02.000 --> 00:53:15.000
So I have just a clarification
question about the earlier parts of the papers over the you introduce
the idea of his formal semantics, representing if I understand.
00:53:15.000 --> 00:53:31.000
Believe contents or meanings of
declarative sentences in sets of positive terms of sets of possible
worlds and the meaning of prescriptive sentences or sentences
expressing intentions in terms of sets of the antic hyper plans, the
only type of states.
00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:37.000
I get this right. So,
00:53:37.000 --> 00:53:54.000
could you could this formal
semantics account for the possibility that a belief and an intention
or a declarative statement and statement expressing a intention could
have the same propositional content.
00:53:54.000 --> 00:54:07.000
I mean, given that one is
modeled in terms of of hype of plans, versus the other is modeled in
terms of possible world so it seems like very very formally speaking
00:54:07.000 --> 00:54:18.000
state cognitive states all the
sentences expressing them with different directions of fit could not
have the same propositional content is that is that right and.
00:54:18.000 --> 00:54:23.000
00:54:23.000 --> 00:54:28.000
it depends what you mean but
00:54:28.000 --> 00:54:41.000
That's not something I've given
much thought to, I think, I would, I would like to be in a position to
say that although I don't know that that's true I probably use it at
00:54:41.000 --> 00:54:56.000
But I haven't given it much
thought to the extent that I do use it I just think it. I just think
of it in terms of what stipulated as the semantic turbulence for these
things so, strictly speaking, managers, interpret in our sets of
triples of worlds
00:54:56.000 --> 00:54:58.000
plans and intentions.
00:54:58.000 --> 00:55:10.000
And then it's going to be the
case that the means of the cup is on the shelf, and I shall put the
cup on the shelf is the goal, different sets of hyper states.
00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:16.000
Now, you might have a view that has
00:55:16.000 --> 00:55:29.000
been on the shelf for cup is on
the show, and give some kind of an account of attitude as a force
marker for soccer attitude that if something that's not part of that
is a different thing.
00:55:29.000 --> 00:55:32.000
That's not my view.
00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:53.000
It's not obviously for be more
clearly committed to the distinction between cases, but I'm not
committed in the case so if someone wants to tweak it and do something
00:55:53.000 --> 00:55:59.000
Okay. Preston we still have
problems hearing you speak really slowly articulate, very carefully.
00:55:59.000 --> 00:56:11.000
Particularly, very carefully.
Yeah, yeah. It's a pity. Have another my kid.
00:56:11.000 --> 00:56:13.000
All right. Thanks.
00:56:13.000 --> 00:56:29.000
Yeah, many interesting things,
and I am interested in the work of people looking at the intersection
or, you know, points for dialogue between settlers and Tomasello.
00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:54.000
I think it's an exciting bit of
sort of cross disciplinary work but I'm kind of a bit confused I guess
about why I haven't really seen critiques of time so there's
particular brands of philosophizing about his own findings from solutions.
00:56:54.000 --> 00:57:14.000
I think to myself kind of pics
bits of philosophy from here in there he's quite keen on sell his
quite keen on Davidson, but from a psychological point of view there
seem to be quite a few problems and quite a few places where to miss
others and Schmitz
00:57:14.000 --> 00:57:34.000
record cheese journalism will
have a problem for solution, I'm not sure what a shared mental states
is, for example, when does one mental state ends and the next one
starts to an agent extra mental state to know and I'm sharing mental
state with someone,
00:57:34.000 --> 00:57:41.000
and that Thomas says, starting
position of influence.
00:57:41.000 --> 00:57:59.000
Starting from a veil of
ignorance where they have mutual trust and respect from each other,
and then go through a process of inner labeling that they then share
in order to become, social, and communicative.
00:57:59.000 --> 00:58:02.000
This idea of
00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:15.000
lots of fully fledged concepts
that they've got up and running, and they then once they have those
private concepts, make explicit.
00:58:15.000 --> 00:58:37.000
I think I, yeah, that there's
lots of part of part of it, which of course a really unique and
powerful bits of empirical work but I often feel like I wish solutions
would push back against some of the ways in which Thomas other
especially and to some
00:58:37.000 --> 00:58:38.000
00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:45.000
Schmidt and phrase it
00:58:45.000 --> 00:58:46.000
00:58:46.000 --> 00:59:03.000
I would directly to chat to my
eye. One of the things that Thomas Bo does is he rolls on Brad Smith
Bradman's notion of shared intentionality, he just sort of has a, an
offhand remark and a couple of places that that's the way he's
approaching it now.
00:59:03.000 --> 00:59:17.000
Glenda that me and lots of
course, both argue that there's problems with that, precisely because
Robin has this really conceptually sophisticated notion of shared
intentionality, I not only have to share an intention with you, but I
have to know, you
00:59:17.000 --> 00:59:21.000
have to know that you that I
started attention with you.
00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:34.000
In chapter two my book I take
this stuff on board and I argue that some of the work that butterfill
in particular has done in looking at neural mirroring and processes of
what I call share practical picturing and accounting for shared
00:59:34.000 --> 00:59:48.000
be slotted in as a substitute
for tomatoes appeal to Bradman's analysis in a way that allows him to
entitle himself to the non discursive resources that I claim these
notions of picture.
00:59:48.000 --> 00:59:50.000
So absolutely right.
00:59:50.000 --> 01:00:03.000
You know, Thomas Ellis, it's
great that he's doing all this popularizing work that the first. Not
only does he really appeal to sellers in workplaces and some of his
work with him do as well, first page of a natural history of human
thinking refers to
01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:15.000
both Hegel and purse so he's
squarely in the in the field and the kind of work that folks like I
should be from a, but I absolutely agree we shouldn't be taking it on
critically and we have just as much
01:00:15.000 --> 01:00:18.000
benefit off of the science.
01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:26.000
I think so, That's fair.
01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:29.000
01:00:29.000 --> 01:00:39.000
Just have a look if there's
another question if not then I would like to ask one myself or two.
01:00:39.000 --> 01:00:44.000
Yeah, the first question that I have.
01:00:44.000 --> 01:01:02.000
I wonder how sharp that
distinction between choosing single mindedly and choosing in
differently is in the real life situations, because I understand that
when you use these notions for semantic modeling then you can just say
that there's a shop boundary
01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:20.000
Yeah, but then you want to apply
that to real life situations, and how chapters that distinction like
sometimes we do not choose in terms of something like a real moral art
we choose based on preferences, but still say the preference, this
might be very
01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:33.000
strong. Yeah, and my attitude of
not rejecting rejecting the alternatives that might be a week
attitude, actually a week out just a week rejection, in terms of
strength of the rejection.
01:01:33.000 --> 01:01:41.000
So, it would be hard to change
my decision. On the other hand, it might be decisions which are
generally moral decisions.
01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:55.000
But where my attitude of
rejecting the alternatives might still be rather weak as a moral in a
moral dilemma for example, you know, but I'm might be easily swayed in
my, in my decision.
01:01:55.000 --> 01:01:57.000
I might be unsure. Yeah.
01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:07.000
So, so that would be the
question is, how sharp is that distinction. That would be the first
one and the second one out when you talked about
01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:14.000
introducing odd statements as
01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:21.000
as being explained by statements
about the implication relations between we intentions.
01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:32.000
I just wondered what kind of
explanation you have in mind because there are different kinds of
explanations you know their causal ones are the ones in terms of
mechanics and more this just maybe broadly reason given once.
01:02:32.000 --> 01:02:36.000
So, what just what kind of
01:02:36.000 --> 01:02:58.000
Yeah, well, so thank you. And
I'm sorry I wasn't able to get more into to your essay in the, in the
chat, the bills do justice to your view, because I think it's great you
01:02:58.000 --> 01:03:02.000
01:03:02.000 --> 01:03:16.000
get to throw my hands up and say
yeah we're some lunar being, we think we think, most of what we do is
motivated by all kinds of unreflective processes lots of conscious.
01:03:16.000 --> 01:03:22.000
Know that possible for us to
know what motivates.
01:03:22.000 --> 01:03:26.000
And then, I don't know what to say.
01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:47.000
I hope this is, I hope that
could be used for people to do things like conflict resolution. So
think about what involved, you are engaged in certain oftentimes what
you do is imagine yourself in the other person's perspective, try to
adopt their point
01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:48.000
01:03:48.000 --> 01:03:58.000
It seems that the trend perfect
on practical actually that I'm hoping my approach can help model.
01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:07.000
And then he, but that kind of
work this is gonna be on underscores what I was calling the non
01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:28.000
In particular logic picturing.
And when it comes to the antic picturing if there is anything like
that. It's not going to be this sort of thing that's modeled by
rejection is an attitude that's in taking everything in compatible
with the action and rejecting
01:04:28.000 --> 01:04:35.000
this on one of the.
01:04:35.000 --> 01:04:46.000
But I think it's worth looking
into his third, really, is a notion of mindedness that objection
01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:51.000
01:04:51.000 --> 01:04:55.000
01:04:55.000 --> 01:05:05.000
Two years of age children who
are playing in a joint game with a, with an analogy break off and do
another game, if it's if the game is more enjoyable.
01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:15.000
He first game explicitly entered
into something they're going to do together. By the age of three
children who have extended the game to.
01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:21.000
They're all the way back. Nicely
will ask for permission.
01:05:21.000 --> 01:05:39.000
So it seems like at this stage
where more dimension pose itself on top of our share of activities, if
I'm right the attention of the article and bolts rejected.
01:05:39.000 --> 01:05:57.000
three is receptive to that the
child to it. So, that's a way of trying to address your question by
emphasizing the need to look at the wear of the brain, and the
physiology and psychology.
01:05:57.000 --> 01:06:07.000
When it comes to the semantics.
Yeah, I'm just taking them as explicit, sort of, I'm treating them.
01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:10.000
01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:20.000
And then I what the, the actual
fact of the matter in our brains is going to look like. But my hope is
that there's enough here that aren't getting your second question.
01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:29.000
What kind of explanation is
involved in my.
01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:32.000
So this proof of bonuses.
01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:44.000
The similarity to my ensure
01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:54.000
we can attack you anymore. Preston
01:06:54.000 --> 01:06:57.000
Preston I you're still there.
01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:02.000
01:07:02.000 --> 01:07:04.000
so it seems.
01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:09.000
Preston has gone
01:07:09.000 --> 01:07:13.000
person we can't hear you.
01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:32.000
So maybe I suggest that we
finish the this session, have a break, and maybe Preston will be back
with a with a stable connection afterwards, we can chat about things afterwards.
01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:34.000
If there's from.
01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:44.000
Yeah. Maybe if I record pri is
present if you can hear us disconnect, or I can disconnect you
actually enforce it to reconnect and, maybe, I don't know.
01:07:44.000 --> 01:07:50.000
Shall we try that. Yeah, I think
I might as well.
01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:56.000
01:07:56.000 --> 01:08:12.000
Reston, you might also try
rebooting your Wi Fi, as well as hotspot and so I don't know if it
matters. Can you guys hear me right now again.
01:08:12.000 --> 01:08:14.000
01:08:14.000 --> 01:08:24.000
Well, I don't know what I don't
want to go over time. Let me just at least answer Stephanie's last
question. It's a great question. What kind of explanation is involved,
I have not given it much thought.
01:08:24.000 --> 01:08:34.000
In the essay where I lay out the
semantics for atomic sentences and approved theoretic semantics, I
rely on Jared Mickelson's notion of best explanation.
01:08:34.000 --> 01:08:49.000
But that's developed in the
sciences, so I'm open to the possibility that there are, say moral
explanations or other kinds of explanation, and I just haven't given
it much thought.
01:08:49.000 --> 01:09:00.000
Okay, thank you for for these
answers I just have a look. Whether there's more questions.
01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:02.000
01:09:02.000 --> 01:09:06.000
01:09:06.000 --> 01:09:20.000
I don't know if there's time,
but just to present thanks a clarity victory question Could you say
something about the connection between single minded choice and self
government by norms.
01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:39.000
So is the idea that endorsing
normative statements is somehow is implicit in the practice of of
every single minded chooser and, and if so, how and if not, what is
the what is the connection you see between those between self single
minded choice and
01:09:39.000 --> 01:09:41.000
01:09:41.000 --> 01:10:00.000
I wouldn't say that every single
minded choice is a responsiveness to a thought of what what to do, but
that every response to this to a thought about what not to do, is or
expresses this in light of choice.
01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:17.000
And then the way I see them. So
in the book, I adopt psychological psychological nominal ism at the
beginning, and my claim is that responsiveness to reasons as rules
prescribing behavior requires a language that represents those rules,
and then psychological
01:10:17.000 --> 01:10:32.000
model ism is the mechanism for
having a representation of a rule by the end of it. I'm open to the
possibility that we might be responsive to rules representatives such
in ways that are non linguistic what's important for my story though,
is that you
01:10:32.000 --> 01:10:48.000
can get a language on the scene
in terms of norms enforced by shared intentionality without anybody
exercising single mindedness so that once you've got language on the
scene, then the ability to exercise single mindedness gives you a
capacity to be responsive
01:10:48.000 --> 01:10:58.000
to rules representatives such
and languages What gives you the representation of rules. Does that
answer your question, and maybe I'll have to think more about it.
01:10:58.000 --> 01:11:00.000
01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:03.000
01:11:03.000 --> 01:11:10.000
01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:16.000
So, there seemed to be no more
01:11:16.000 --> 01:11:26.000
At the end, now we could hear
you really well. I don't know what now.
01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:28.000
01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:38.000
Oh, it's a, it's great. This is
my first time being back in Montana and three years it's great to be
home but you make certain concessions when you, when you live out.
01:11:38.000 --> 01:11:40.000
I know, I know.
01:11:40.000 --> 01:11:48.000
Okay, then. I think that we
think Kristen, thanks a lot for the talk.
01:11:48.000 --> 01:12:03.000
I look forward to the rest of
this to this is just great.
01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:09.000
See y'all on 13 minutes.
01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:11.000
01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:21.000
Continue at one window, can we
continue, we continue at 20 past the hour.
01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:23.000
01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:29.000
So, 1120. Eastern Standard Time.
01:12:29.000 --> 01:12:59.000
01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:07.000
I'm gonna go get myself some
01:13:07.000 --> 01:13:37.000
Sounds good. see you shortly.
Yep. Take care of me.
01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:29.000
Anyone hanging around.
01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:32.000
I just got back, got myself some coffee.
01:17:32.000 --> 01:17:38.000
Yeah, I do too, so Oh,
01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:41.000
it's warm and very humid.
01:17:41.000 --> 01:17:45.000
Yeah, yeah it's it's over 90
01:17:45.000 --> 01:17:51.000
I've been freezing all winter
long. I'm not going to complain.
01:17:51.000 --> 01:17:59.000
Yeah, I start melting it about
80 or 85 degrees so and it gets over 90 I just look.
01:17:59.000 --> 01:18:06.000
I've become too used to the
colder weather this hot stuff in the summer.
01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:08.000
01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:10.000
01:18:10.000 --> 01:18:15.000
The song has not been far from
01:18:15.000 --> 01:18:21.000
And who knows after the next
election. That may be the only the only place left.
01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:27.000
You know we have a decent refugees.
01:18:27.000 --> 01:18:43.000
Welcoming studies, especially
for people lacking medications and stuff like that. So, I, I think I
understood that you were retired. I am now retired I'm officially retired.
01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:47.000
Okay, it's not old just retired.
01:18:47.000 --> 01:18:54.000
I'm just retired. That's why I
was questioning you
01:18:54.000 --> 01:19:04.000
yeah well you know i figured 70
was about the right time and I may be waited a year too late I
teaching last year was not fun.
01:19:04.000 --> 01:19:15.000
I guess that was the worst
teaching experience ever for both of us. Yeah, yeah, I really hated it.
01:19:15.000 --> 01:19:18.000
I know, me too.
01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:32.000
I, I was been moved by all the
testimonies that some of your former students wrote on social media as
to your teaching, and that was so great and one of them.
01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:49.000
I think that was a woman and she
wrote a she wasn't a song. And to me because well, this was amazing. I
wish I could have pushed kind of kid.
01:19:49.000 --> 01:20:02.000
I was terribly moved by it. And,
you know, I still those some of those students are still, you know
obviously in contact with me and I I treasure that
01:20:02.000 --> 01:20:06.000
I was very. Yeah, I was, I was
sort of gobsmacked by it.
01:20:06.000 --> 01:20:11.000
Could you have a genuine
01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:13.000
01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:28.000
Well they say well we can't do
it now but we'll do do in the fall, but here comes the fall and now
we've got the Delta variants. So, I don't know, at some point, we'll
have a big party and.
01:20:28.000 --> 01:20:32.000
And I'll insisted Everyone dance.
01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:35.000
01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:37.000
I'll be there.
01:20:37.000 --> 01:20:43.000
Alright, well I'll send you an invitation.
01:20:43.000 --> 01:21:00.000
Not that far drive it's about
what, five hours up to 90 oh yeah yeah yeah i know but I don't know
whether the border is as reopened. Yeah, no, the Canadians have
reopened for us we can get into Canada but the US is being pissy and
not allowing the Canadians
01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:08.000
into the US, ya know the
Canadians now are more thoroughly vaccinated than we are.
01:21:08.000 --> 01:21:17.000
was reading that something like
38 states would qualify as as like you know read countries if they
were countries, from which crap travel would be banned.
01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:20.000
So, we should do that.
01:21:20.000 --> 01:21:27.000
Maybe the Oh yeah, I'm like,
okay, fine in states like you know Florida.
01:21:27.000 --> 01:21:48.000
Yeah, well I keep thinking that
maybe at some point will will reconsider the idea of secession and
we'll just, you know, Red Sox nation will succeed from the union and
become the ideologically better alternative for ages, Canada, invade
the United States.
01:21:48.000 --> 01:21:51.000
Yes, what would you, you would
01:21:51.000 --> 01:21:55.000
Oh you know you did once we tried.
01:21:55.000 --> 01:21:57.000
01:21:57.000 --> 01:21:59.000
01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:05.000
Yeah, but we just love when we
01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:09.000
Thanks to the, the American soul.
01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:21.000
Well, at some point, it may be
necessary for Canada to liberate America.
01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:27.000
So, called birthday.
01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:30.000
Your birthday yesterday.
01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:34.000
Ah, that's why that's why I had
to leave to.
01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:40.000
I had to, I had to get either
sort of cooking and cleaning for the party.
01:22:40.000 --> 01:22:44.000
Well belated Happy birthday to
you then. Thank you.
01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:49.000
So how are you fine.
01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:52.000
How are you,
01:22:52.000 --> 01:23:06.000
I'm now 47 spring chicken. Yeah,
well and I was like wait like you know because but you know this is
this is of course the oldest I've I've ever been.
01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:13.000
Yeah, it feels old to me,
01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:19.000
if, if, if Canada were to
liberate us, we'd be back under British rule. Right.
01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:22.000
01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:30.000
Yeah. I mean, you know, all of
our all of our wars that you get managed to the home office.
01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:36.000
Participate in the Commonwealth
Games. Yeah. See, I think there are advantages here.
01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:41.000
Do we have to be Doctor Who fans
then I don't know how this works. Yeah.
01:23:41.000 --> 01:23:49.000
That is a requirement. I'm way
ahead of you know, And you will have to pledge to them.
01:23:49.000 --> 01:23:55.000
The Queen, and maybe should you
should do that now before I pass.
01:23:55.000 --> 01:24:00.000
It will pass pledge to the key
and you don't want.
01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:02.000
01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:07.000
Also will have to our last month
to have, like, roughly some.
01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:18.000
Please know get rid of baseball
just play cricket and soccer and you know just, you know, the whole
sports is image names for you know it's it's going to be a, yeah.
01:24:18.000 --> 01:24:21.000
It'll be a lot.
01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:29.000
You will have to learn to be
sorry for everything all the time
01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:33.000
01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:39.000
as a Jewish person I think I
already have, I think I already have a handle on that one.
01:24:39.000 --> 01:24:42.000
Oh no, the Jews.
01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:44.000
01:24:44.000 --> 01:24:56.000
Sorry folks the British. The
British are the cream of apologies, they're very good at apologize not
very good at fixing anything but they're very good at apologizing for
the fact that it's broken.
01:24:56.000 --> 01:25:03.000
All right, very sorry to
interrupt you guys.
01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:08.000
So, you're welcome back everybody.
01:25:08.000 --> 01:25:15.000
It is my great pleasure and
honor to introduce our keynote speaker for this workshop.
01:25:15.000 --> 01:25:27.000
Danielle McMath Danielle is the
TV sub brown professor at Haverford College, and Professor and Chair
of the philosophy department they are.
01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:49.000
Danielle did a PhD in philosophy
at the University of Pittsburgh. In, 1988, working under the
supervision of john Haugland and prior to that she earned a Bachelor
of Science in biochemistry at the University of Alberta, and a BA in
Philosophy and Religion
01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:52.000
study at McGill.
01:25:52.000 --> 01:26:09.000
Danielle has sold over 50
articles and book chapters, focusing mainly on Philip on the
philosophy of language, mainly pragmatist and male pragmatist
approaches on reasoning and rationality and on the history of
philosophy of mathematics and logic.
01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:24.000
She has also published two
books, one on Craig is logic of Harvard in 2005 and in 2014 with
Oxford University Press, realizing reason, a narrative of truth and knowledge.
01:26:24.000 --> 01:26:41.000
And in this later massive 500
page world she offers a detailed narrative of the development of
reason and rationality in the west towards greater power and clarity
focusing on mathematic mathematical reasoning and mathematical
practices in the ancient
01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:43.000
01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:54.000
In, in the 17th and 18th century
Europe following the cart. And then fragrance and following.
01:26:54.000 --> 01:27:13.000
So given these focuses
Danielle's focuses on these issues in the history of mathematics
philosophy of mathematics logic reason I'm all the more grateful that
she accepted our invitation to be our keynote speaker in a conference
on ethics, well for itself
01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:15.000
01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:22.000
So her keynote address is
entitled morality tribalism and value.
01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:28.000
Please join me in welcoming Dr Macbeth.
01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:36.000
Thank you, Ronald, and thank you
for the invitation, this is as Ron said I do not.
01:27:36.000 --> 01:27:54.000
This is not an area that I work
in, but I am very pleased to be here and to me, he sort of a first
foray for me into into a practical philosophy and that itself is I
think is special to.
01:27:54.000 --> 01:28:07.000
So, in the closing chapter of
science and metaphysics sellers takes out what he describes in the
preface of that work as the keystone of the argument of the lock
lectures from which the book is derived.
01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:22.000
The topic is the objectivity and
inter subjectivity of ethical judgments and as is true of the lectures
overall sellers here finds many of his most fundamental insights and
motivations already in current.
01:28:22.000 --> 01:28:39.000
He follows current first in
distinguishing between on the one hand, wants desires and feelings and
on the other one ought to one, the moral art, and also in correlating
that distinction, with the dichotomy of causes and reasons, the realm
of nature, in
01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:42.000
the realm of freedom.
01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:56.000
With con sellers furthermore
finds an analog of objective truth as what any rational being not
believe in the idea of objective goodness as what any rational being
ought to will.
01:28:56.000 --> 01:29:08.000
But where's caught thinks that
the only good is a good will. The will to act for the sake of the
moral law seller sees the need for something less formal more substantive.
01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:20.000
According to sellers, what is a
good reason for action is a particular sort of we intention, namely,
that it shall sub we be the case that our welfare is maximized.
01:29:20.000 --> 01:29:31.000
As will become evident, I cannot
see how sellers account in avoiding formalism avoids a deeply
problematic form of tribalism.
01:29:31.000 --> 01:29:43.000
What I aim for here then is a
sketch emphasis on sketch of an alternative still salon ASEAN
conception of what practical philosophy might be
01:29:43.000 --> 01:30:00.000
sellers names I quote to explore
the fundamental principles of a metaphysics of practice with
particular reference to the values in terms of which we lead not just
one compartment of our lives, but our lives, so far as the task is to
provide a viable
01:30:00.000 --> 01:30:15.000
alternative to a life of sellers
as informed or enlightened self interest. An alternative to a life
dominated by an overarching ego directed valuing expressed in our that
is sellers terminology.
01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:34.000
By, would that I lead a
satisfying life for all that it may appear externally
indistinguishable such a life is not properly, a moral life, as shown
by the fact, if it is a thought, and sellers that does hedge his bets
a bit here, that he says there's
01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:53.000
no conceptual absurdity in
either doing a I would be conducive to a satisfying life, but I ought
not to do AI, or doing be would would not be conducive to a satisfying
life but I ought to do be a satisfying life, at least as sellers
understands it is
01:30:53.000 --> 01:31:11.000
grounded ultimately in what one
wants or desires. But as anyone knows the question what one ought to
do, but it is right or good to do what one has reason to do is
essentially different from the question, what one wants to do.
01:31:11.000 --> 01:31:25.000
It may be that in some cases
what one ought to do is, whatever one once, but there's a crucial
conceptual difference nonetheless. And it is one two which we rational
beings are especially sensitive.
01:31:25.000 --> 01:31:43.000
We know that a life governed by
desires, especially sensory desires, the pleasures of the flesh is a
life suitable only for pigs, and even higher desires, for instance the
desire for social recognition for on for the honor and the esteem of
01:31:43.000 --> 01:31:56.000
cannot satisfy us rational
beings, we rational beings know that the crucial thing is not to be
honored and esteemed, but to be worthy of honor and esteem.
01:31:56.000 --> 01:32:06.000
The life of honor, no better
than the life of pigs is not the best life for a human being as Plato
already argued in Republic.
01:32:06.000 --> 01:32:13.000
According to Plato, the best
life is instead, the life of wisdom, the life of the lover of truth.
01:32:13.000 --> 01:32:21.000
Sellers clearly rejects the
account, but not because he thinks that the focus on truth is misguided.
01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:25.000
The problem is instead with the
formulation, in terms of desire.
01:32:25.000 --> 01:32:39.000
Again the worth of inaction for
sellers as for content lies and it's having been done not out of any
desire, not even for the love of truth, but for the sake of duty,
because that is what ought to be done.
01:32:39.000 --> 01:32:48.000
The distinction between what one
wants to do even all things considered, and what one ought to do is
fundamental for sellers as for content.
01:32:48.000 --> 01:33:03.000
The problem is defined something
that is clearly rational that can properly justify a course of action
as what one ought to do. Wow. By the same token, being such as can
01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:19.000
What sort of thing is, one's
duty, that it can at once justify and motivate properly moral action,
unsurprisingly sellers rejects what he calls the point of view of
benevolence the point of view, according to which one x out of a
desire for the welfare
01:33:19.000 --> 01:33:27.000
of people generally, and he
objects to that point of view on the grounds that it is, so to speak,
and external point of view.
01:33:27.000 --> 01:33:43.000
But when once, even if it is the
welfare of people generally is, again, nearly accidental something one
finds oneself to be motivated by, but with which one cannot as a
rational being identify oneself.
01:33:43.000 --> 01:33:59.000
Of course, a person can in fact
identify with such a desire to live a life that is grounded in such a
desire, but because an insofar as such a life is merely something one
once the one may have wanted something else instead.
01:33:59.000 --> 01:34:12.000
It cannot find the property
immoral, for me to view the moral arc is essentially, unlike any
particular want one might find oneself with in being so it seems
unequivocal in principle.
01:34:12.000 --> 01:34:16.000
What we're trying to do is
seller says uniquely determined.
01:34:16.000 --> 01:34:27.000
But if that is right, then the
unqualified ought the moral lot cannot be a matter of what we want.
All things considered.
01:34:27.000 --> 01:34:36.000
Sellers unequivocally rejects
any appeal to desires, including a desire for the general welfare of
people in his account of moral point of view.
01:34:36.000 --> 01:34:53.000
Sellers his view is nonetheless.
Nonetheless deeply related to the hypothetical imperative of impartial
benevolence, the imperative to do this or that, if one wants the
general welfare of all people, the imperative sellers focuses on is to
be at once
01:34:53.000 --> 01:35:08.000
categorical and interests
objective. A we intention and objective, that is true, or at least
truth apt quote in that there is, in principle, decision procedure
with respect to specific ethical statements.
01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:25.000
According to sellers at the
heart of the moral point of view, is the intention that each shell sub
we be the case that our welfare is maximized quote to value from a
moral point of view is in this way to value as a member of the
01:35:25.000 --> 01:35:40.000
Indeed, according to sellers, it
is a conceptual fact that people constitute a community, a week by
virtual thinking of each other as one of us, and by willing the common
good, not under the species of benevolence, but by willing it as one
of us, or from
01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:42.000
from the moral point of view.
01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:47.000
People constitute a community, a
Wi Fi willing the common good as one of us.
01:35:47.000 --> 01:36:08.000
And it is this constitutes the
moral point of view. So sellers argues, this sounds like tribalism
indeed sellers himself suggests as much, though he clearly takes his
to be a benign form of tribalism sellers rights in a footnote, I, this
is the this is
01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:27.000
the complete footnote, quote,
does interesting points remain to be made about the tribal centricity
of moral judgments in the not to remote past and on what it would be
to change from speaking of a being as it to speaking of it as one of
them, in a sense,
01:36:27.000 --> 01:36:43.000
which radically contrast with
one of us. And from there to speaking of the being as a member of the
encompassing community within which we draw relative distinctions
between me and they perhaps most interesting point is that to discuss
with another person
01:36:43.000 --> 01:36:54.000
what ought to be done
presupposes shall I say dialectically that you and your members of one
01:36:54.000 --> 01:37:11.000
seller seems to have no problem
with tribalism according to which ones attitudes and behaviors are not
to be grounded in one's tribe, the social group with which one
identifies his concern is only with what he calls tribal centricity,
which is characterized
01:37:11.000 --> 01:37:16.000
by excluding from the tribe.
Those who are included.
01:37:16.000 --> 01:37:26.000
The thought is that if we can
talk with them about what is to be done, what ought to be done.
Whether or not we actually do engage with them in such a discussion.
01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:31.000
Then they are members of our
community that is the moral community.
01:37:31.000 --> 01:37:34.000
And not to be recognized as.
01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:52.000
Thus, If there is a meaningful,
they to contrast with us, that contrast can ultimately be made only
from within the all encompassing community of speakers outside of
which are only things that is non persons beings that do not speak.
01:37:52.000 --> 01:38:06.000
The idea that if we can talk
with them, then they are one of us has a long history. The ancient
Greeks, for example, the other is the Barbarian the one with whom I
cannot speak, who does not speak the language I speak.
01:38:06.000 --> 01:38:11.000
Needless to say seller says
something less parochial in mind.
01:38:11.000 --> 01:38:28.000
Another is one of us, if barring
differences in the particular language we each speak, we can speak
with them as phenom puts it in the first chapter of back black skin
white masks, the chapter entitled, The Negro and language, fennel says
to speak, is
01:38:28.000 --> 01:38:32.000
to exist. Absolutely. For the other.
01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:50.000
And contrary wise to fail to
recognize that another speaks to take it that they are at best, merely
parodying speech can seem to absolve one of any obligation to listen
to them to absolve one of the requirement, the one recognized and as
one of us.
01:38:50.000 --> 01:38:55.000
So to denial need not be
explicit or even intentional.
01:38:55.000 --> 01:39:01.000
In such cases one simply finds
that one cannot hear meaning in the utterance of the other.
01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:12.000
Despite their speaking in a
language one understands this fennel suggests, is the plight of the
01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:25.000
Sellers argues that the
unqualified or the moral art is grounded in a way intention that to
value from a moral point of view, is to value as a member of the
01:39:25.000 --> 01:39:31.000
I've indicated that such an
account cannot invoice cannot avoid tribal centricity.
01:39:31.000 --> 01:39:37.000
The problem is not that of
correctly identifying the relevant community.
01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:57.000
It is that any attempt to
delineate this with that community as the relevant one is itself a
moral issue, insofar as it is. Sellers account in being tribal is
viciously circular sellers conception of the moral point of view,
requires knowing already,
01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:09.000
who ought to count is one of us,
a member of the relevant community where this must be seen as a moral
issue. Indeed, as a moral issue of the first order.
01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:14.000
The problem is structural.
01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:31.000
It is a well established fact
empirical fact about human beings that they can flourish, only if
they're able to identify with improved. Only if they can understand
themselves as one of us were who we are is defined at least in part,
by a shared project.
01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:34.000
And so by celebrity and me intentions.
01:40:34.000 --> 01:40:42.000
It is I've suggested nonetheless
a mistake to try to understand the moral point of view, in such terms.
01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:52.000
But if so, what if anything
remains to be said about quoting sellers the values in terms of which
we lead our lives Sarfaraz.
01:40:52.000 --> 01:40:55.000
Is there still a meaningful
01:40:55.000 --> 01:41:08.000
If there is, it can only be
understood as a question for each of us individually, what are the
values in terms of which I should lead my life.
01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:13.000
But what sort of question is
this, in particular, is it a moral question.
01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:22.000
I think that it is indeed it may
be the only truly fundamental moral question.
01:41:22.000 --> 01:41:38.000
In grounding practical reasoning
in we intentions seller seeks a premise, from which to reason, having
session intention gives one a reason to perform this or that action,
and so far as that action provides a means to the end.
01:41:38.000 --> 01:41:41.000
That is articulated in the intention.
01:41:41.000 --> 01:41:55.000
It is just this that seems to be
the source of the difficulty, insofar as we intentions must then be
founded on punitive facts about who we are, the relevant tribe, but
they cannot be.
01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:11.000
As we've seen, what I want to
explore them, are the prospects for seeing values as providing instead
principles, according to which to reason principles that can be made
explicit in claims and subjected to critically reflective scrutiny.
01:42:11.000 --> 01:42:21.000
But there are nonetheless
categorically different from premises from which to reason and cannot
be made to follow from.
01:42:21.000 --> 01:42:33.000
Consider again, the fact that we
humans as the essentially social beings we are can flourish only
through our identification with some group.
01:42:33.000 --> 01:42:40.000
There are two ways we can think
about the relationship between this fact about us and questions of
morality and value.
01:42:40.000 --> 01:42:51.000
The first way sellers way is to
try to make the in group maximally wide in the relevant premise, so
wide that there is de facto know out.
01:42:51.000 --> 01:43:04.000
The second is to recognize the
moral principle grounded in reason transcends such as situated
thinking in requiring over and above the treatment appropriate to
those in the in group and those are the out group.
01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:21.000
The one recognize that all
within one interacts are to be treated with respect. That is as ends
rather than as means with is not about who one is or is not about who
is or is not a person, but is instead of fundamental principle of
one's active relationships
01:43:21.000 --> 01:43:24.000
world, and everything in it.
01:43:24.000 --> 01:43:40.000
In this way we distinguish
between a negative and purely formal demand of reason not to interfere
with the projects of others any others, not to treat them as means,
and a positive demand in regard to the in group to promote their
welfare as one zone,
01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:45.000
that is to have an active regard
for they're flourishing.
01:43:45.000 --> 01:44:03.000
We need also finally to
distinguish between on the one hand, the pragmatic question of how the
various members of any defacto community. For example, those living in
our town here and now in our state, or even in our world, how they are
to live together
01:44:03.000 --> 01:44:15.000
to get along, and as far as
possible to thrive. And on the other hand, the question of principle.
How I ought to live my life, some flowers.
01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:32.000
Among the relevant
considerations in regard to the first pragmatic question, are for
example, our actual history and resources are homogeneous it or
diversity, or knowledge and power structures, perhaps even our
national character, or if we are might
01:44:32.000 --> 01:44:37.000
leave our lack of any such character.
01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:47.000
It must be decided with the
institution institutions and laws are to be what is to be promoted and
what suppressed. Our children are to be educated, and so on.
01:44:47.000 --> 01:44:51.000
But this is again a practical issue.
01:44:51.000 --> 01:45:08.000
It concerns not how in the
abstract one should live according to what values, but how here and
now, given all the contingencies and messy details of our actual
circumstances, some actual group might arrange its communal life.
01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:23.000
Still, the values in terms of
which one leads one's life, obviously do enter into the nuts and bolts
of addressing such a question. Most immediately in one's reflections
on the aims, the laws and institutions are to serve.
01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:31.000
We turn them to our second
question, the question of principle of the values by which to live
01:45:31.000 --> 01:45:41.000
This question. The question of
the values by which to live one's life, at least as it is understood
here as a characteristically Cartesian cast.
01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:54.000
Having reached a sufficiently
mature age, I sit alone in my study wondering what I ought to value
above all else, how I ought to live my life.
01:45:54.000 --> 01:45:57.000
I have furthermore come to realize.
01:45:57.000 --> 01:46:12.000
Come explicitly to realize that
neither the desires and aversions I find myself with nor reason alone
can provide the answers I seek sellers would say that there is nowhere
left to turn.
01:46:12.000 --> 01:46:23.000
But that is just not so. There
are also emotions as indeed sellers himself can help us to see.
01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:39.000
Although the distinction is not
invariably recognized the emotional states or dispositions of a person
are essentially different from the current feelings one can have
emotions do often give rise to feelings and they can easily be
confused with feelings
01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:43.000
But in fact, emotions and
feelings are different.
01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:54.000
We of course often do find
ourselves with feelings pair dogmatically of desire and aversion. And
insofar as we have such feelings. We are motivated to act.
01:46:54.000 --> 01:47:07.000
Just desire something just is to
pursue it, other things being equal, and to be averse to something is
to shun it again, other things being equal, and some animals have only feelings.
01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:24.000
Feelings are enough to guide
them through a complex world of things that can benefit them
biologically and things that can harm them biologically other animals
in particularly inherently social animals such as primates cannot live
by desire and aversion
01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:45.000
alone, social animals need also
to have emotions biting the changeable disposition of states of the
animal that can give rise to feelings of current events, of which the
animal is in some sense conscious, but are not themselves, feelings,
01:47:45.000 --> 01:48:01.000
not events but disposition of
state states of which one may not be conscious emotions or
Furthermore, responsive to things and they are evaluated have settled
understandings of the significance of things, whether kinds of things
such as certain sorts
01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:08.000
of activities or particular
individuals. Most immediately. This or that specific.
01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:25.000
And again, social animals do
need emotions, as well as feelings, if they are to live. The socially
articulated lives. They do social animals need to identify with the
booth and hence to be motivated to become one of us, they need to take
pride in being
01:48:25.000 --> 01:48:26.000
one of us.
01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:29.000
And to be ashamed at failing to
01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:46.000
And if they are to navigate
successfully the complex social worlds. They need to have a biding
valuations of others in the group who matters, and who does not, then
in what ways such emotions can again give rise to feelings, but they
are not themselves
01:48:46.000 --> 01:48:52.000
feelings, but instead
disposition states of the animal.
01:48:52.000 --> 01:49:10.000
This distinction between
emotions and feelings can be clarified at least initially by an
analogy with the contrast between perceptible objects and our sensory
experience of them perceptible objects, though they are changeable and
perishable also persist
01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:20.000
over time and have various
characteristic features and relations, and they can affect us
perceptual it causes us to have characteristic sensory experiences.
01:49:20.000 --> 01:49:34.000
We know such objects through our
sensory experiences of them, but objects and our sensory experiences
of them are nonetheless, different, the object shows up and
experience, but exists, independent of it.
01:49:34.000 --> 01:49:41.000
We can think of one's emotional
states, as in certain respects like perceptible objects.
01:49:41.000 --> 01:49:57.000
Although changeable and
perishable, they persist over time and have characteristic features
and relations to one another and emotions like perceptible objects can
affect us catalyzed by things in the environment emotions lead us to
01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:01.000
desires and the versions that
are inherently motivating.
01:50:01.000 --> 01:50:06.000
We can let us know our emotions
through the feelings, to which they give rise.
01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:09.000
But again, the two are
01:50:09.000 --> 01:50:24.000
I can for example be in an
emotional state of extreme frustration leads me to lash out angrily at
another who's annoyed me in some way, my response to that person may
be the first indication that I have the emotion that I not only feel
anger but am frustrated.
01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:29.000
It's disposed to feel an act in
certain characteristic ways.
01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:45.000
Emotions reveal things as
meaningful or significant to one in a particular way, one cares
positively or negatively about the activity or thing personal type of
person, the thing matters to one, and it's mattering is, it's
constituted by one's being in
01:50:45.000 --> 01:50:57.000
a certain emotional state in
relation to it. Such states can develop over time. And they are, at
least to some extent, culturally shaped over the course of one's upbringing.
01:50:57.000 --> 01:51:09.000
Much is once perceptions are
shaped at least to some extent by how we perceive things to be. So
once emotional life is shaped at least to some extent by how we value things.
01:51:09.000 --> 01:51:21.000
Emotions are further more deeply
personal, though, perceptions are not motions or personal first and
they're being different for different people, even within the same
01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:32.000
However, culturally, like we
are. it is nonetheless to the what gives you joy, what you love and
esteem may be very different from what gives me joy. What gives what I
love and esteem.
01:51:32.000 --> 01:51:42.000
What gives what I love and
esteem. But emotions are personal also in being a source of meaning
01:51:42.000 --> 01:51:56.000
We identify with our emotions,
in a way, we cannot identify with our feelings, our desires and
aversions, and we do so because emotions aren't stitched ugly sources
of meaning and significance for us.
01:51:56.000 --> 01:52:05.000
Emotions constitute what a
person as that particular person cares about what in the world is a
value to them.
01:52:05.000 --> 01:52:19.000
Emotions are in this way
fundamental to who we are, not only as essentially social animals, but
as persons, that is, as rational social animals.
01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:30.000
Emotions connect us whether
positively or negatively to the things we encounter in our lives. And
they do so not in the fleeting and motivating way of desire and aversion.
01:52:30.000 --> 01:52:47.000
But abiding Lee. And
fundamentally. And personally, it is in virtue of our emotional states
that we not only our perception to be aware of things, but find them
to be a value to us to matter to who and what we are.
01:52:47.000 --> 01:52:52.000
But of course, this is all
merely contingent at least so far.
01:52:52.000 --> 01:53:13.000
Emotions revealed to one what is
for one as it happens, significant, what we need now to ask is what
one ought to find significant what is truly significant what the world
point of view, reveals to be of actual value as sellers more than
anyone else has
01:53:13.000 --> 01:53:31.000
helped us to realize there is no
absolute beginning or foundation for knowledge, but only the ongoing
work of correcting mistakes, and misconceptions being rational is not
a matter of having some absolute foundation for knowledge, but instead
01:53:31.000 --> 01:53:46.000
But instead, a matter of
reasoning in a certain way, a matter more specifically a being
constitutive Lee, a critically reflective thinker, able and willing to
call anything into question as reason sees fit.
01:53:46.000 --> 01:53:50.000
Though not, of course, all at once.
01:53:50.000 --> 01:54:06.000
This capacity for critical
reflection was for the more radically transformed. With the advent of
maturity with the realization dramatically enacted in Descartes'
meditations that it is possible to withdraw the mind from the senses
and stay card puts it
01:54:06.000 --> 01:54:24.000
to reconceived one's perceptual
experience not this or that perceptual experience, but perceptual
experience as such as near experience perceptual experience so
reconceived is not regulatory of how things are or mistakenly seem to
be, but is to be understood
01:54:24.000 --> 01:54:29.000
simply as experienced as how
things show up for one.
01:54:29.000 --> 01:54:32.000
However, they in fact, our.
01:54:32.000 --> 01:54:48.000
With the advent of modernity,
the everyday idea that reality sometimes shows itself in its true
colors, and sometimes miss needs as we mere appearances would be
replaced, at least for the purposes of scientific practice with the
idea that things just
01:54:48.000 --> 01:54:54.000
do show up in various ways to
various sorts of procedures.
01:54:54.000 --> 01:55:07.000
The connection, which previously
seemed to be constituent of between months experience of things and
once beliefs about them between ones experiences of things and what
they actually are had been severed.
01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:19.000
Now, consider the relationship
between ones emotional states on the one hand, and one's desires and
feelings and the intentional actions they provoke on the other.
01:55:19.000 --> 01:55:35.000
Emotional attitudes, we have two
things do give rise to feelings and desires when we are confronted
with various sorts of objects in various sorts of circumstances, and
at least at first, such desires are acted upon unless some other
desire or feeling
01:55:35.000 --> 01:55:51.000
leads one to refrain from
acting, much as at first ones experiences of things culminating
beliefs, unless something leads one to doubt that things are quite as
they seen part of coming to maturity in everyday life involves learning.
01:55:51.000 --> 01:56:04.000
Not only that things are not
always what they seem that one can have a loser experiences of things,
but also that not all desires are desirable that one can have wayward desires.
01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:11.000
On the side of knowing. There's
also the coming to a distinctively modern understanding with respect
to perceptual experience.
01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:25.000
What we need to see is that a
relative move can be made on the side of action. Although in the
course of one's upbringing when it comes to find oneself within the
array of values that is reasons for acting in various ways in various
circumstances in ways
01:56:25.000 --> 01:56:37.000
that are for instance benevolent
courageous temperate one still at some point must explicitly and
subconsciously examine those inherited values, assess them for their
01:56:37.000 --> 01:56:45.000
Only so is one properly or fully
a free agent to be fully and properly free.
01:56:45.000 --> 01:56:59.000
One must not only have good
reasons for actions, for instance, those acquired growing up in one's
community, one must make those reasons one its own as the reasons they
are only this does one take full responsibility for what one does.
01:56:59.000 --> 01:57:07.000
For who. One is we can
understand how this is to work on analogy with the corresponding move
on the side of perception.
01:57:07.000 --> 01:57:22.000
At first, with the dawning of
any self consciousness at all. The task is to establish what is a good
reason for action all things considered, that is on reflection given
the full array array of values that are at least in part, once
inheritance, as one
01:57:22.000 --> 01:57:39.000
of us a member of the community,
into which one has been acculturated cetera reflection is again
available from the beginning. And in essence involves nothing more
than determining which apparently valuable actions are indeed to be
valued and which are
01:57:39.000 --> 01:57:55.000
merely apparently valuable, a
life lived according to such values may be satisfying. And indeed, it
may be held by all concerned to be honorable what it is not, I think,
is a properly moral life not in the full moral sense, modern sense of
01:57:55.000 --> 01:58:14.000
sellers, what is needed to
realize it is properly moral is something akin to the transformative
Cartesian moment of withdrawing one's mind from the census namely the
transformative moment of withdrawing one's mind from one's feelings
01:58:14.000 --> 01:58:22.000
The effect of such a
transformation on the side of cognition, we know this December the tie
between perceptual experience and belief.
01:58:22.000 --> 01:58:32.000
On the side of action. It is to
sever the tie between desires and feelings on the one hand, and what
one does. On the other.
01:58:32.000 --> 01:58:39.000
And given the one has no
motivating force for one can no longer properly be conceived as
feeling or desire at all.
01:58:39.000 --> 01:58:55.000
What remains is only the emotion
to withdraw the mind from one's desires is one withdraws the mind from
the senses on Day cards account leaves one with mental states of
valuation of things mattering to one, but in something like the
01:58:55.000 --> 01:59:01.000
beautiful things matter to one
in the static experience as current understands it.
01:59:01.000 --> 01:59:18.000
And this I submit is true
freedom, or at least the ground of true freedom, precisely because and
insofar as one identifies with one's emotional states recognizes them
as constitutive of who one in particular have who, in particular one is.
01:59:18.000 --> 01:59:26.000
Where's desires and feelings or
brute forces that act willy nilly on ones will causing one to do
whether one would or not.
01:59:26.000 --> 01:59:34.000
Emotions are constitutive of
one's very being one sense of who and what one is of what matters, why
it matters and read it from your. Okay.
01:59:34.000 --> 01:59:47.000
10 minutes from y'all. Okay.
Whereas feelings move on to act directly to act because one wants this
or that. Emotions move on to act on the indirectly by providing
principles according to this to reason.
01:59:47.000 --> 01:59:53.000
It is because of this or that is
a value that when it's moved,
01:59:53.000 --> 02:00:08.000
obviously much more might be
said about just what such a transformative moment amounts to and I
think a lot more needs to be said. But I want to focus on what can be
said in favor of the rationality of this or that emotional state.
02:00:08.000 --> 02:00:13.000
Since we need to distinguish, in
principle, between one values and what ought to be valued.
02:00:13.000 --> 02:00:19.000
And here I want to suggest Kant
can guide us
02:00:19.000 --> 02:00:37.000
consider first what con
describes is the common human understanding that is merely healthy not
yet cultivated understanding which conference is done this con, the
least that can be expected from anyone who lays claim to the name of a
human being can identify
02:00:37.000 --> 02:00:53.000
three Maxim's of such
understanding that in the anthropology, he said, set suggest can be
made unalterable commands for the class of thinkers. That is, as I
understand the class of especially reflective human beings, those who
go into the sort of thing
02:00:53.000 --> 02:01:11.000
that philosophers, typically do
the capacity for rationally reflective criticism is a capacity we have
insofar as we're human is because we are not merely animals in
particular social animals, but rational social animals that we asked
whether what we
02:01:11.000 --> 02:01:27.000
ourselves believing is really
true whether what we find ourselves valuing is really worth value me.
Really good. We are the animals that are responsive two reasons as
reasons and cons three Maxim's unpack what is involved in the rational
activity if such
02:01:27.000 --> 02:01:34.000
animals, what is involved in
particular I want to suggest in the moral reasoning of such animals.
02:01:34.000 --> 02:01:42.000
The first Maximus to think for
oneself to make up one's own mind rather than have it made up through
one by something or someone else.
02:01:42.000 --> 02:01:58.000
And in the case of moral
thinking, in particular, concepts maximum common human understanding
would seem to enjoy that one recognized for oneself, the value in
something, one cannot take it on testimony, either that have another
or that of one's own desires
02:01:58.000 --> 02:02:01.000
that the thing is indeed valuable.
02:02:01.000 --> 02:02:07.000
Can't con second maximum is to
think from the standpoint of everyone else.
02:02:07.000 --> 02:02:19.000
What does that mean to think
from the standpoint of everyone else in particular how is this
different from thinking as one of us, which I've already rejected as
unavoidably an objection to the tribal centric.
02:02:19.000 --> 02:02:29.000
The clue lies in constant
lighten the NSA and what current describes as the public use a reason
they use which someone makes a reason as a scholar.
02:02:29.000 --> 02:02:33.000
But, before the entire public of
02:02:33.000 --> 02:02:43.000
Interestingly cons point here is
not that we need to agree with others. It's rather that we need to
attend to the reasons people give for and against the different views.
02:02:43.000 --> 02:02:55.000
What is distinctive of thinkers
on this view is that they do not merely have reasons for their
judgments, nor even that they worry as much, one might about what are
the reasons for their reasons.
02:02:55.000 --> 02:03:09.000
What is distinctive of thinkers,
and I've suggested or its distinctive of thinking from a properly
moral point of view, in particular, is that they are critically
reflective of the rational linkages between reasons on the one hand,
and what they are puter
02:03:09.000 --> 02:03:12.000
reasons for on the other.
02:03:12.000 --> 02:03:20.000
There are critically reflective
not only of their reasons, but of the principles according to which
02:03:20.000 --> 02:03:32.000
So the problem is not to know
what is the reason in this or that case but what sort of thing, I had
to count as a reason at all that is in accordance with what principle
when take something to be a reason for something.
02:03:32.000 --> 02:03:51.000
The morally serious person needs
explicitly and self consciously to consider other points of view other
perspectives relative to which one's own principles of reasoning, may
be revealed to be merely parochial or question Baby, I'm right sellers have,
02:03:51.000 --> 02:04:05.000
as, as if I'm right sellers have
been revealed to be insofar as they uncritically acquiesce to the
authority of a particular conception of reason one associated first
and foremost, with the practice of the exact sciences.
02:04:05.000 --> 02:04:20.000
The third Maxim, to think
consistently is it tells us in the critical judgment. The most
difficult to achieve. And something that can only be achieved through
the combination of first two, and after frequent observance of them
has made them automatic
02:04:20.000 --> 02:04:32.000
course in the ordinary case
thinking consistently is not very difficult when has contradictory
beliefs perhaps and inconsistent pride of beliefs, and so must reject
one rather, but sometimes it is not that simple.
02:04:32.000 --> 02:04:48.000
Even in the argument of, even in
the case of beliefs, and perhaps it is never simple, in the case of
one's values is not simple in the case of belief, when it is a
principle rather than merely a belief that in is in question.
02:04:48.000 --> 02:05:03.000
And if the line we've been
pursuing here is correct, it's not simple in the case of values,
precisely because I mean so far is to embrace and value, just is to
embrace a principal and recently, five values at the well being of
members of my family, that
02:05:03.000 --> 02:05:06.000
does not give me a reason to
act, not directly.
02:05:06.000 --> 02:05:15.000
Instead of confers value on
courses of action, according to whether or not they do promote the
value of the well being of those I care about.
02:05:15.000 --> 02:05:31.000
It provides me not with a
premise from which to reason. But instead, a principle, according to
which to reason as one might expect. The problem of resolving
conflicts among the principles governing one's reasoning is
essentially different from the problem
02:05:31.000 --> 02:05:44.000
with resolving conflicts among
ones claims about which to reason in accordance with ones existing
principles and reasoning, thinking from the standpoint of everyone
else in a way that is equally a matter of thinking for oneself.
02:05:44.000 --> 02:06:02.000
Can we require a substantive
discovery, a realization that fundamentally transforms the space of
possibilities within which one's thought moves by articulating new
principles with which to reason principles that at once reveal the one
sidedness of one's
02:06:02.000 --> 02:06:18.000
original principles and show how
they could be reconciled moral thinking that starts from substandard
valuations is I suggest such a course of critically reflective
reasoning, one that does not really overcome opposition in difference,
but at the same
02:06:18.000 --> 02:06:32.000
time incorporates the insights
that were harbored in that opposition in difference to them
consistently at once for oneself and from the standpoint of everyone
else is to think dialectically.
02:06:32.000 --> 02:06:34.000
But who is everyone else.
02:06:34.000 --> 02:06:50.000
More pointedly, how does this
conception thinking from a moral point of view, avoid tribalism here
what is crucial. Is that the relevant, others are not those with whom
one identifies once in group.
02:06:50.000 --> 02:06:54.000
But instead, those who are
exemplary for one.
02:06:54.000 --> 02:07:01.000
Those who one respects as
persons, which can again be quite idiosyncratic and personal.
02:07:01.000 --> 02:07:11.000
At first, everyone else relevant
others will be for instance members of one's own family ones closest
friends. And if one is lucky, at least some of one's teachers.
02:07:11.000 --> 02:07:21.000
The people one respects those
one looks up to and takes to be exemplary for one's own behavior and
values will be the first people in one community.
02:07:21.000 --> 02:07:37.000
But as one learns to read and
comes to extend one's reading beyond what we read within the
community, one can discover new exemplars new voices that seemed to
matter, and with them new ways of thinking about what matters at all.
02:07:37.000 --> 02:07:54.000
Over time, new writers into one
circle and old ones fall away once values change and one begins to
achieve a settled understanding of who one is and what one values were
this involves in turn the sort of dialectical development already outlined.
02:07:54.000 --> 02:08:11.000
Clearly, there is nothing here
to suggest any sort of consensus, or universality to the values one
comes on reflection to endorse the constellation of values by which
another lives and in terms of which they articulated as who they are,
can be quite different
02:08:11.000 --> 02:08:14.000
from one's own constellation of values.
02:08:14.000 --> 02:08:20.000
The writers they esteem and
read, need not be the writers, I esteem and read.
02:08:20.000 --> 02:08:38.000
There is a fundamental
difference between sellers this conception of what it is to be
irrational being and the conception of a rational being that is
gestured out here for sellers, we are as the rational beings we are
constituent ugly instances of a kind.
02:08:38.000 --> 02:08:56.000
We are instances of a kind, as
any living beings are only in our case, the relevant kind is the kind
of rational and the account outlined here by contrast, it is not only
our powers of reason of rational effective criticism, but also our individuality
02:08:56.000 --> 02:09:11.000
and uniqueness that our
constituent of us at least insofar as we are fully realized, and
therefore, fully free on our account we begin our lives as we ran most
as instance of a particular biological form of life.
02:09:11.000 --> 02:09:22.000
And through our acculturation
into the social form of life of our community. We become fully fledged
members of that community instances of that particular social of life.
02:09:22.000 --> 02:09:38.000
But if the community enables it
as it should, we embark finally on a journey of self actualization one
that only begins with all the contingencies of one socio cultural
circumstances, and the emotional profile native to one that only
begins with the values
02:09:38.000 --> 02:09:55.000
that just do seem to one to be a
value, the journey ends if all goes well with values that are truly
valuable and with an individual, someone not intelligible as an
instance of a kind, but only as itself.
02:09:55.000 --> 02:10:07.000
Moral serious non seriousness on
this view is not a matter of what any and everyone should think doing
value, but a matter of what I should think doing value.
02:10:07.000 --> 02:10:26.000
And in this, I have only my own
lights to go on my own understanding of what is valuable. What
matters, but also who is valuable to me as a reader and thinker,
aiming to discover what of all what I value, really is valuable, at
least to me.
02:10:26.000 --> 02:10:42.000
I began with sellers this idea
that we needed an alternative to a life of informed, or enlightened
self interest and alternative to the ego directed value sellers thinks
of things out as a life that is merely satisfying and an alternative
is needed sellers
02:10:42.000 --> 02:10:52.000
things because living a
satisfying life is neither necessary more sufficient for living a
worthwhile like life one ought to live.
02:10:52.000 --> 02:11:08.000
But a worthwhile life is
nonetheless, a life that one odd as a rationally will affect a person,
defined satisfying. Indeed, maximally satisfying, a worthwhile life is
a life one ought to want to live.
02:11:08.000 --> 02:11:19.000
And because of I, as I suggested
sellers his own alternative to ego directed valuing his idea of we
intentions, is not really tribal but nutritiously tribal centric.
02:11:19.000 --> 02:11:25.000
We were led again to ego
directed value, but with a difference.
02:11:25.000 --> 02:11:42.000
Whereas seller seems to assume
that satisfaction is invariably a matter of feeling satisfied. Would
you write the whole tense no intrinsic value with yours considered
satisfaction in relation to the emotions, which we saw are
02:11:42.000 --> 02:11:59.000
because emotions, including that
of satisfaction or disposition of states of a person that are as
beliefs are subject to rationally reflective criticism and correction
and can be so subject, independent of how in particular one feels
emotions are not
02:11:59.000 --> 02:12:01.000
merely self interested.
02:12:01.000 --> 02:12:18.000
They can be and in successful
cases our values of what is truly valuable. One can educate one's
emotions and as a rational reflective person one has a responsibility
so to educate them to be successful in this just is, as far as I can
see, to live a life
02:12:18.000 --> 02:12:30.000
that is at once, satisfying to
one and a life, why not to live. Thank you.
02:12:30.000 --> 02:12:33.000
Thanks a lot, Danielle.
02:12:33.000 --> 02:12:43.000
For your paper, and I see
already some hand to all, please go ahead.
02:12:43.000 --> 02:12:45.000
Thank you very much.
02:12:45.000 --> 02:12:51.000
Thank you very much it, and the
eligible for the top.
02:12:51.000 --> 02:13:10.000
My question is, to what extent,
based on your account of massaging edits, and especially in this, you
just put in the conclusion on that. The issue of the emotional education.
02:13:10.000 --> 02:13:29.000
What would you describe the kind
of virtue ethics, to set us. And then, if you do, how would that be
compatible with the kind of the oncologist data, seems to endorse as well.
02:13:29.000 --> 02:13:39.000
So where are we going on between
somehow I restore and can't according to you.
02:13:39.000 --> 02:13:53.000
Yeah. Um, this seems to be
exactly the case where because I don't work in this area.
02:13:53.000 --> 02:13:55.000
I mean to me.
02:13:55.000 --> 02:14:12.000
I It really does. As far as I
can see. Seeing that sellers is very content in the way he thinks
about ethics only he doesn't want to be so formalist, which is why I
take it he wants to have this idea of a substantive idea we intentions
that I think causes
02:14:12.000 --> 02:14:17.000
the problem right you know you
can have the purely formal notion in current.
02:14:17.000 --> 02:14:25.000
That seems to me okay but but as
soon as you try to take sellers this route to give some substance then
I then I think there are problems.
02:14:25.000 --> 02:14:29.000
02:14:29.000 --> 02:14:32.000
02:14:32.000 --> 02:14:48.000
if I was to look for a more
virtue ethics strand in sellers I would go with the difference between
odd to BS and not to do's and that's so fundamental that I think
probably one could make a lot of that.
02:14:48.000 --> 02:14:56.000
So, it is it is so crucial, the
way one lives these values for sellers.
02:14:56.000 --> 02:15:02.000
Um, so I think that would be a
strand of of a more.
02:15:02.000 --> 02:15:21.000
A more recent healing virtue
ethics just because of the way the social has a role in sellers, but
but I do think that on on his explicit thinking about this i mean i i
spent some time thinking about how I want to go in and what I think
might be deeply
02:15:21.000 --> 02:15:23.000
going on and sellers.
02:15:23.000 --> 02:15:31.000
And it's a very interesting
question in the way that he wants to, you know, be content but but
bring in the social.
02:15:31.000 --> 02:15:46.000
So I mean I think that's a
that's a really interesting and important question but, yeah, that's,
that's sort of where I would go, if I was, if I was thinking about
that, that issue.
02:15:46.000 --> 02:15:53.000
All right, I think Carol your
hand up, what's up next and then Zach, Nick, and then Preston, go ahead.
02:15:53.000 --> 02:15:54.000
02:15:54.000 --> 02:16:16.000
So, yeah, it was pretty
interesting that you brought up a phenom but funnels on phone strategy
is also sort of another option you you listed some options and then
said, we've run out of options but I think fed on goes a route which
is not Cartesian or
02:16:16.000 --> 02:16:36.000
canteen which is in the gate in
kind of Hadean Marxist direction, and in ways which are interestingly
similar to Brandon's new book as well so Infineon there is this
interesting concept of live experience.
02:16:36.000 --> 02:16:49.000
And there is a dialectic within
the experience but part of finance talking about doing is the source
of hermeneutics good genealogy genealogical exercise.
02:16:49.000 --> 02:16:58.000
So you one way in which you kind
of avoids tribalism is. And to make yourself aware of it so in a way
02:16:58.000 --> 02:17:07.000
Tutoring your lived experience
so you have a position, you have a little experience so I was yet.
02:17:07.000 --> 02:17:23.000
Rather than trying to kind of
rehash that I was kind of, I know you use the words didactic I guess I
wanted to know what specifically you held in mind there and what you
thought about the kind of reconstructive reconstructed accounts which
is in the feminine,
02:17:23.000 --> 02:17:39.000
and in that part of a living
because interestingly now being brought out in the new Brandon was a
way to avoid some of the tribalism you're talking about, well as a
method for instance case appropriate self appropriation and empowerment.
02:17:39.000 --> 02:17:43.000
Okay, good. Thank you. Um.
02:17:43.000 --> 02:17:56.000
The tribalism problem comes up
when one tries to understand the moral point of view, in terms of.
02:17:56.000 --> 02:18:09.000
We intentions were you it
already has to be settled who we are, I, I, it seems to me it's just
question begging, if, if the, you know, there's a moral issue of who
02:18:09.000 --> 02:18:19.000
I have no problem with any of
this and I mean, I think Hagen's is really interesting in this, in
02:18:19.000 --> 02:18:35.000
But, but the issue was really,
who am I, who am I speaking for here, and how Am I understanding the
moral point of view, is the moral point of view an issue for me and
how I live my life.
02:18:35.000 --> 02:18:38.000
Or does it have to be understood.
02:18:38.000 --> 02:18:42.000
02:18:42.000 --> 02:18:54.000
an understanding of who we are
and that's really what I'm seeing is problematic. And that is, I mean
in hey go, as I understand it, ethical life is in terms of the community.
02:18:54.000 --> 02:18:58.000
02:18:58.000 --> 02:19:09.000
and there I want to distinguish
between the actual community and, and the sort of celebrity in content
idea of the rational, the community rational beings.
02:19:09.000 --> 02:19:14.000
So I don't know enough about
02:19:14.000 --> 02:19:30.000
the details of funnel, but but I
have, you know, avoiding tribalism as it were in one's own thinking
through a dialectical reconstructive examination.
02:19:30.000 --> 02:19:38.000
It's it's the structural problem
that I see particularly in sellers his way of thinking about we
intentions as the ground of.
02:19:38.000 --> 02:19:41.000
Does that make sense.
02:19:41.000 --> 02:19:43.000
02:19:43.000 --> 02:19:46.000
02:19:46.000 --> 02:19:50.000
All right. Thanks a lot, Daniel fascinating.
02:19:50.000 --> 02:20:18.000
Um, so I wanted to ask something
about just this contrast between the sort of collective and sort of
individualistic understanding of what morality is all about that you
were just sort of highlighting so I understand it that your, your
critique of the
02:20:18.000 --> 02:20:40.000
we are, we're not sort of from
the on the slaughter ASEAN account we're not really capable of
reasoning, our way into the moral point of view we don't have
responsibility or control over the extent to which, who we recognize
as we fully lines up with
02:20:40.000 --> 02:21:08.000
who we ought to recognize as we
were in part at, you know, at the mercy of the kinds of abilities to
reason and conception of reason into which were acculturated, um, I, I
have, have not sort of been inclined to read sellers as as thinking of
02:21:08.000 --> 02:21:28.000
of the moral point of view as
necessarily one in which entirely we have the power to reason
ourselves into right i'd rather thought that, from the point of view,
maybe it's fine, that we're at in to some extent sort of at the mercy
of a history about
02:21:28.000 --> 02:21:37.000
the extent to which were sort of
fully achieved a kind of cosmopolitan conception of
02:21:37.000 --> 02:21:40.000
what is morally important.
02:21:40.000 --> 02:22:07.000
And my thought is that what
you're doing here is you're making a kind of trade off. So, in, in
retreating to a kind of a conception of what the sort of fundamental
moral question is that we can sort of exercise control over sort of
02:22:07.000 --> 02:22:12.000
how we exercise control over.
02:22:12.000 --> 02:22:14.000
Finding an answer to.
02:22:14.000 --> 02:22:23.000
We are a. We're now.
02:22:23.000 --> 02:22:34.000
I think, potentially sort of
limiting the scope of what morality is about, in a way that you might
find objectionable so right.
02:22:34.000 --> 02:22:43.000
I take it you, you may be
expressing some kind of a skepticism right about when you when you
talk about these kinds of questions education and so on as parochial.
02:22:43.000 --> 02:22:46.000
02:22:46.000 --> 02:23:01.000
Why not, why not just accept
that kind of pluralism here, there, there's a fun, the same maybe
there's a fundamental moral question which is, right, what we should
do and this sort of transcends this transcends
02:23:01.000 --> 02:23:18.000
any of those sort of parochial
questions about our. What we recognize today as our community and our
circumstances, there's the, the question about, you know, realizing
something, some, some kind of sort of higher purpose and then then the progression
02:23:18.000 --> 02:23:33.000
of, of humankind and in that
extent we can exercise a little bit of control over the fate of our
species but very very limited way and okay we're at the mercy of
history but that's a deeply ethical question, too. So I wanted to
suggest that as an alternative
02:23:33.000 --> 02:23:47.000
sort of pluralist alternative
which takes acknowledges, your, your right to think there's this
ethical question that our power of reasons sort of allows us to have
control over and there's another one where we're just lucky, we're
just lucky to be along
02:23:47.000 --> 02:23:55.000
for the ride. But why not
acknowledge that as a deep fundamental question about ethics, to.
02:23:55.000 --> 02:23:57.000
02:23:57.000 --> 02:24:02.000
02:24:02.000 --> 02:24:03.000
02:24:03.000 --> 02:24:21.000
The issue is not that we don't
have control over who we are to recognize the issue is, I want to say
this is a structural problem with sellers as approach that he can have
it both ways he cannot have it, that the moral point of view, is
grounded in, we
02:24:21.000 --> 02:24:37.000
intentions in the way he wants,
and that we have a movement obligation to reflect on who we are. I
mean I think we do have a moral obligation to reflect on who we are,
but well you know i that i have to speak for myself under the circumstances.
02:24:37.000 --> 02:24:53.000
But But I don't see how sellers
can have that. So this is a theoretical problem. So, and I mean, this,
this whole discussion is at a very high level in theory I wanted to
separate out practical questions, but I think sellers has a there's a structural
02:24:53.000 --> 02:25:01.000
problem, if you except main
reason is for sure, a critically reflective capacity.
02:25:01.000 --> 02:25:07.000
Is there a kind there that can
ground. The we.
02:25:07.000 --> 02:25:25.000
I am skeptical about that. Um,
but But certainly, it wasn't just, it wasn't anything about
limitations on our ability to reflect. It was a structural problem
with the very idea of we intentions as sellers understands them so
that's that's the first thing
02:25:25.000 --> 02:25:29.000
that I think is really important.
02:25:29.000 --> 02:25:52.000
The retreat, I, I, I am worried
that the way we tend to think about ethics and morality in this
universe lies the way that really seems to require that we have this
substandard notion of reason that can give us foundations is not only
sort of deeply not
02:25:52.000 --> 02:26:13.000
so early in in some, in some
sense, but really problematic, that I want to see I want to suggest
this is a way of going beyond sort of ways we've been thinking about
morality that are way too caught up in the project of science, and I'm,
02:26:13.000 --> 02:26:18.000
you know, models of truth, that
makes sense in certain contexts.
02:26:18.000 --> 02:26:38.000
So, so I mean it may sound
skeptical but it's it's it is skeptical of one kind of project I think
that's right. Um, it does limit the scope of what morality is, it, it,
we have we have practical issues you know what should we do, yeah, we
have big practical
02:26:38.000 --> 02:26:50.000
problems about what we should
do. I'm not sure philosophers theorizing about some grand we is is
actually very helpful there.
02:26:50.000 --> 02:26:56.000
Um, so So in that sense, it is
limiting the scope.
02:26:56.000 --> 02:26:59.000
It is quite radical. I.
02:26:59.000 --> 02:27:06.000
If you're going to get me to do practical.
02:27:06.000 --> 02:27:23.000
So, so I think there's, there's
the, the thought is these are deeply important questions but their
questions people should be asking for themselves that they should not
be trying to answer for everybody, which I take it is part of that,
you know, it only
02:27:23.000 --> 02:27:31.000
is valid if it's universal, and
I want to say this is my true, maybe, maybe, maybe we should think
about this differently, whereas I think the content.
02:27:31.000 --> 02:27:48.000
So rz and it's it's so closely
allied with the truth, that it can't have any validity. If it isn't,
universalised, so you end up with desires over here, more a lot over
here and simply nothing else.
02:27:48.000 --> 02:27:51.000
And I'm trying to get beyond that.
02:27:51.000 --> 02:27:56.000
02:27:56.000 --> 02:27:58.000
02:27:58.000 --> 02:28:09.000
I think I still don't understand
the charge that sellers as objection we parochial his we includes
everybody, there's nobody who's not included.
02:28:09.000 --> 02:28:21.000
Now you suggested that maybe was
problematic about it is that you have to appeal to moral properties to
draw to include them to figure out that everyone is included.
02:28:21.000 --> 02:28:37.000
But I don't know that that's
true either. So, I'm the we is the community of all rational beings
and the rational beings for sellers are just the things that can shape
their behavior by appeal to reasons that are shaped by their whose
behaviors can be
02:28:37.000 --> 02:28:49.000
shaped by reasons and not merely
by causes, which doesn't look like an especially moral thing it's, I
don't know, metaphysical or something.
02:28:49.000 --> 02:29:04.000
So yeah I don't understand how,
how is parochial, or if he is or sorry, How, how is tribal or if he is
why it's objectionable given that, there's no out group, and the lines
around, and the and the basis for including everybody doesn't refer,
as far as
02:29:04.000 --> 02:29:09.000
I can tell it anything this
02:29:09.000 --> 02:29:31.000
Okay, Fair enough. Um, I, I
don't think that's right. In fact, I mean that's that's sort of a
fundamental point here that that the idea that it includes everybody
already involves a substantive notion of for example What counts is
02:29:31.000 --> 02:29:37.000
These, these ideas I think our
need to be contested.
02:29:37.000 --> 02:29:57.000
You know there's a there's a way
we've been thinking about it, you know, in the European tradition in
philosophy that I think we're starting to have very good reason to
think is is really loaded in a programmatic way.
02:29:57.000 --> 02:30:11.000
And as I mentioned in in
responding to Zach, I think a lot of it is it's it's model too much on
the sciences, and on you know the exact science particular.
02:30:11.000 --> 02:30:30.000
So, so I'm rational beings. As
you know, having their, their being able to be shaped by reasons,
that's not going to cut it fine enough for me because I'm going to I'm
going to say, Well, okay, but what do you tend to use a reason.
02:30:30.000 --> 02:30:34.000
So it's that it's that ability
is that need.
02:30:34.000 --> 02:30:47.000
Again, it's this it's the
problem that you want some substance here, but it's got to be pre
moral because it's supposed to be the ground of the moral point of
view, and I'm saying no, that's a moral issue.
02:30:47.000 --> 02:30:51.000
You can have that you can't have
both of those.
02:30:51.000 --> 02:30:55.000
So you think, brother.
02:30:55.000 --> 02:31:13.000
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We have
four minutes, and there are two more hands up so I would like to give
press and Jim, actually, like, I can take mine down, I'd like to, what
I'd rather hear Nick's the immigration than my question.
02:31:13.000 --> 02:31:31.000
OK, now go ahead. Alright so you
think that the being able to being able to consider the pros and cons
toward have one actions.
02:31:31.000 --> 02:31:33.000
Humans are by their nature.
02:31:33.000 --> 02:31:44.000
Rule followers the sorts of
things that can be shaped by reasons. So like, Who are you concerned
that it might exclude since it's definitely going to include all people.
02:31:44.000 --> 02:31:49.000
Well, wait a minute, are we, how
are we defining human beings biologically.
02:31:49.000 --> 02:32:07.000
I mean we're going to exclude
children, we're going to exclude people with all other sorts of the
sorts of things that I'm to say that you can shape your behavior by
appeal to reasons isn't to say that you can do it right now
immediately say that you're
02:32:07.000 --> 02:32:12.000
the sort of thing whose essence
is to be reasoned directed.
02:32:12.000 --> 02:32:15.000
And again, I'm going to ask you.
02:32:15.000 --> 02:32:17.000
You know that.
02:32:17.000 --> 02:32:21.000
It can be contested what counts
as a reason.
02:32:21.000 --> 02:32:29.000
Some things that some people
would say look this is a reason other people instead that's not a
reason you're not you're not being guided by reasons here.
02:32:29.000 --> 02:32:42.000
You being guided by, I don't
know, superstition emotion, whatever.
02:32:42.000 --> 02:32:51.000
It's going to be a reason. Yeah,
I just this this goes back to talk because when you were talking about
the two groups and they, They both.
02:32:51.000 --> 02:32:59.000
You know that not such an
increase in taxes and not such a long one or whatever it was
02:32:59.000 --> 02:33:13.000
that that is like pure
pragmatics I mean, I bet the bonobos do, that's not that's not
rational necessarily that's just dealing with other social beings in.
02:33:13.000 --> 02:33:27.000
I know I'm actually quite
serious about the but almost, I don't know but bonobos but but that
you negotiate with cons specifics in ways that allow both of you to
save face and carry on.
02:33:27.000 --> 02:33:41.000
That seems to me that there's no
reason to think that as much to do with being rational, that's just
being smart in the way that animals are smart, breath from what we
have one minute.
02:33:41.000 --> 02:33:50.000
Yeah, I'll try at least what
your question please go ahead, it. I think it's circles on the same
issue and and Zachary and Nicholas has questions, sir.
02:33:50.000 --> 02:34:03.000
Help me, I think, if I see
what's going on here now. Daniel. It seems like you've got two
criticisms of sellers here there's the one the charge of parochialism
and that we intentions don't give us the right kind of universality.
02:34:03.000 --> 02:34:15.000
And then there's this criticism
that look morality involves a whole bunch of stuff. It just can't be
characterized in terms of sharing intentions, a lot of its individual,
a lot of it turns on emotional relationships with with people close to us.
02:34:15.000 --> 02:34:28.000
I'm that second criticism, it
seems to me that's a I'm totally on board with that, let me just try
to say something in defensive sellers by way of the world view of
criticism because it seems to me, he addresses some of this.
02:34:28.000 --> 02:34:43.000
So, this is at the end of
section, 13 of imperatives intentions and the logic of art so it's the
it's the closing paragraph of the penultimate section, it's
particularly important to distinguish the loyalty to people generally
the recognition of each
02:34:43.000 --> 02:34:58.000
man everywhere is one of us from
the impartial level one fellow man which is itself a matter of
principle for one confuses these two old suspect that the to defend
principles in terms of impartial love is to circle the recognition of
each man everywhere
02:34:58.000 --> 02:35:04.000
is one of us was the extension
of trouble loyalty which exploded it into something new. That sounds
straight out from Solomon.
02:35:04.000 --> 02:35:09.000
It has a precarious toehold in
the world, and we're usually a far smaller group.
02:35:09.000 --> 02:35:19.000
Cons conception of each rational
being everywhere as one of us is still more breathtaking point of
view, which may become a live auction. So that would just be a way of
trying to say.
02:35:19.000 --> 02:35:25.000
On the first criticism sellers
maybe has something to say, I think you've still got a good bite on
02:35:25.000 --> 02:35:31.000
Okay, let me just say something
really quick about the first, I think, I think.
02:35:31.000 --> 02:35:52.000
I want to distinguish I mean I
did I did claim that he had a parochial view of of rationality, but
the key, the key problem is not, it's any view of rationality is going
to be problematic, because that itself on sellers on that kind of
account that sellers
02:35:52.000 --> 02:36:12.000
sellers has. It requires a
foundation in who it is that counts as a person. And I think it's,
it's going to be a moral issue for that view, but then you can't use
it to ground, what is the moral point of view, so leave aside, you
know, whether sounds
02:36:12.000 --> 02:36:28.000
his parochial and and just go
with that structural point that the way things are set up, who we are,
has to be a moral issue and it can't be a moral issue.
02:36:28.000 --> 02:36:31.000
And that's the problem.
02:36:31.000 --> 02:36:34.000
Because the ground.
02:36:34.000 --> 02:36:50.000
So we may continue to have this
conversation, but officially I close the session but we can all hang
around here and continue talking about officially, this is closed so
please before we end do let's give another hand to Danielle paper, please.
02:36:50.000 --> 02:36:52.000
Thank you everyone.
02:36:52.000 --> 02:36:59.000
02:36:59.000 --> 02:37:05.000
I knew that would be a bit.
02:37:05.000 --> 02:37:14.000
It's a lot to take in. Yeah,
yeah. Well, yeah, yeah. I mean, it is pretty radical, but
02:37:14.000 --> 02:37:22.000
sometimes you just have to, I
have to read these comments.
02:37:22.000 --> 02:37:27.000
I mean, it seems to me that, to
me it seemed like.
02:37:27.000 --> 02:37:37.000
And I'm not sure what
dialectically going on here but parts of your paper seem to be quite
02:37:37.000 --> 02:37:47.000
ground rounding moral evaluation
and the moral point of view is reasoning because you also want
critical reflection on on the emotions and you mentioned can't.
02:37:47.000 --> 02:37:56.000
Interestingly, the aesthetics,
actually. Well it's somehow, an appreciation I'm taking it a moral appreciation.
02:37:56.000 --> 02:38:08.000
On a unaided by concepts for her.
02:38:08.000 --> 02:38:16.000
So, so I found that really
interesting I found I mean I felt like two voices friendly amendment.
02:38:16.000 --> 02:38:34.000
And then the other no tribalism
so in your paper. Well you can think of it as I mean I did, I did. I
said at the beginning, you know I wanted this to be sort of spoilers
in it so if you start with some of the sort of key fundamental themes
02:38:34.000 --> 02:38:51.000
the most important one is, as
far as I'm concerned the you know that being a rational being is being
critically reflective, that, that the rationality of of inquiry have
any way of being human, lies in that reflection and correction.
02:38:51.000 --> 02:39:01.000
It doesn't lie in.
02:39:01.000 --> 02:39:19.000
So that I'm taking is
fundamental and that's absolutely central. That's what is going to
make this different from you know the way other animals live their
emotional lives is the capacity to reflect and be critically
reflective about one's values.
02:39:19.000 --> 02:39:22.000
02:39:22.000 --> 02:39:35.000
I also I mean this The second
part is this idea of the emotions that we are social beings I mean
this is central to sellers. It's just that he didn't.
02:39:35.000 --> 02:39:54.000
He didn't take it beyond content
by saying look, there's more to being a social animal than just
desires and reasons. Right. Once you introduce sociality, you've got
to introduce emotions, and the question is can they do some work in
reflecting on our
02:39:54.000 --> 02:39:58.000
moral lives, and I want to say
yes they're critical.
02:39:58.000 --> 02:40:08.000
And I just I don't see that
reason, can do more than, give us that credit and critically
02:40:08.000 --> 02:40:22.000
Sellers wants it to do to do
substandard work and I think it's interesting that even in content
doesn't the categorical imperative imperative is formal sellers is
trying to get some substance by Appeal to Reason, and I am.
02:40:22.000 --> 02:40:32.000
I think this is questionable you
02:40:32.000 --> 02:40:38.000
think for me remedy interviewers
was the idea of we intentions he has two concerns.
02:40:38.000 --> 02:40:53.000
One is, it's like like like
almost some kind of moral foundational there's some established one
key principle. Yeah. And then to a deduction and see which kinds of we
intentions are morally appropriate which aren't.
02:40:53.000 --> 02:41:06.000
But there's also another concept
that he has when he introduces that concept of the intention and maybe
that speaks more to your concerns me the concern to enable us to do.
02:41:06.000 --> 02:41:10.000
Interpersonal rational inquiry.
02:41:10.000 --> 02:41:28.000
In, from the moral point of
view, setting the question aside whether there is any sense of moral
principle from which all right. Moreover, the intentions can can be
decided just just to allow us to to critically reflect into personally
on each other's.
02:41:28.000 --> 02:41:46.000
We intend on each other's
intentions he thinks I intentions can't do it he needs me intentions.
So maybe that second concern is more in line with what you would like
to affect because it can contribute to explain our ability to perhaps
to critically reflect
02:41:46.000 --> 02:41:49.000
on our emotions.
02:41:49.000 --> 02:42:06.000
Well that was what I was using
Kant's maxims of common human human understanding for because I do
think that yes, adopting other people's point of view is really
important, but I I'm building that into the reflective process which
is way content does
02:42:06.000 --> 02:42:19.000
it and and i mean i i mentioned
this reading thing I think this is fascinating. I don't understand
exactly how reading is, I mean there's something different between
meeting and talking to people.
02:42:19.000 --> 02:42:34.000
And I think probably this
conscious idea that we are reading public is really important, but I
don't, I don't really understand it, but that's quite different from
us talking together about what we should do.
02:42:34.000 --> 02:42:38.000
I'm gonna say we need to do that
when we have practical problems.
02:42:38.000 --> 02:42:51.000
But when you're trying to
theorize, which is what we're doing as philosophers you're trying to
theorize and understand what a moral point of view is.
02:42:51.000 --> 02:43:01.000
I I'm, I'm worried that that is
going to have this problematic. Question begun character.
02:43:01.000 --> 02:43:14.000
So, I'm all for, you know,
thinking really hard about solving our practical problems I mean
they're huge and they're really important and we need to bring them
all our moral understanding to it.
02:43:14.000 --> 02:43:17.000
I worry that
02:43:17.000 --> 02:43:33.000
in the it seems to me it's
important to distinguish the practical in the theoretical questions
that practically you can't assume that other people are with you, you
still have to solve your problems and I think often moral reasoning
gets in the way of
02:43:33.000 --> 02:43:40.000
actually addressing those
02:43:40.000 --> 02:43:44.000
different question but it's not a.
02:43:44.000 --> 02:43:54.000
It's about the, the aspect that
sellers goes with purely formal aspects of counsel, ultimately, and so on.
02:43:54.000 --> 02:44:06.000
And there is this other aspect
of sellers where he says in certain places you have, if you don't have
a sort of psychological he might have said emotional concern for others.
02:44:06.000 --> 02:44:13.000
Nothing's going to get off, off
the ground. He says this in
02:44:13.000 --> 02:44:22.000
its kind of go right at the end
of this little essay science and ethics, he says, moral principles
and, and so on.
02:44:22.000 --> 02:44:38.000
And something similar seems to
be going on in the in the logic of art, and all the way back actually
but, um, so it's not you need that kind of basic concern for others.
02:44:38.000 --> 02:44:52.000
And then he develops a notion of
impartial beloved benevolence where if you you know hopefully doesn't
he says in the logical by that. I don't know how you got there but if
you've got there so you love your neighbor for their own sake,
02:44:52.000 --> 02:44:59.000
So you've already expanded sort
of this psychological concern for others that we just need as basic.
02:44:59.000 --> 02:45:15.000
And I think that plays a role in
sellers that it doesn't didn't count but it's complicated, because
what he does is then turn that into impartial benevolence, which is
the love of impartial love of humanity.
02:45:15.000 --> 02:45:27.000
By saying I would that everyone
is happy I'm concerned for everybody. I'm expanding that everywhere,
then that's not enough.
02:45:27.000 --> 02:45:40.000
Because it's still the
egocentric perspective, even though it's other. It's benevolence
impartial benevolence. The impartial is just it's for everybody.
02:45:40.000 --> 02:45:58.000
And so then he says, the we, and
is the sort of benevolence that chimes in and the moral point of view
is then brings in these weird intentions, but I find this very
complicated because there's a, there's a sense in which this deep this
02:45:58.000 --> 02:46:15.000
concern for others is behind the
whole story in a way that it's not in current it's not it's not the
same sort of foundational grounding in our, in, in what it is to be a
reason or the way it is and current.
02:46:15.000 --> 02:46:31.000
So that's that's just, it's just
a thought. It doesn't have to your rich paper on how it's nothing like
them, Richard story about the emotions but it is non purely formulas,
they sort of feel like and sellers, because there's more to
02:46:31.000 --> 02:46:40.000
the we have all the week plays a
crucial role in universalism well and I think I would say that already.
02:46:40.000 --> 02:46:59.000
You know impartial benevolence
is already going to have the flavor of the problem that I worried
about, because in claiming that it's impartial. You're, you're
building in and understanding of, you know who the relevant beings are
so, so as I you know
02:46:59.000 --> 02:47:14.000
you're saying it's impartial but
it's still sort of egocentric so that you have to get that impartial
benevolence and then you have to sort of from there adopt the moral
point of view, which yeah i think i mean that that gives a nice, a
nice sort of developmental
02:47:14.000 --> 02:47:15.000
02:47:15.000 --> 02:47:29.000
But, it lives the, the issue
that I'm concerned with, which is, you know, that understanding of the
we and, again, it's, it's not a factual problem it's not, you know,
how do we figure out who we are.
02:47:29.000 --> 02:47:39.000
It's in the context of sellers
projects, I just don't, I, you can't deal with that question. Yeah, it
02:47:39.000 --> 02:47:53.000
I mean it's what I said isn't
doesn't really address that issue between you and so it's but it does
show that he's not a sort of purely a foundational is Pure Reason con formula.
02:47:53.000 --> 02:47:58.000
In his intentions but it
02:47:58.000 --> 02:48:02.000
But I think there, you'd have to
wait. Again, I don't know anything about this.
02:48:02.000 --> 02:48:18.000
So caught. As far as I can
reason is concerned, we've got the categorical imperative purely
formal, but then his, his theory of virtue doesn't that isn't that
about human beings and therefore, there's going to be some substance
there will know that's
02:48:18.000 --> 02:48:23.000
real important, I think, and
then, and so sort of mentioned that.
02:48:23.000 --> 02:48:37.000
But there's a difference and
it's an on the same page as Preston was talking about in this logic
about thing, only the only the revised edition, but he says I'm oh no
it's in science and metaphysics, to.
02:48:37.000 --> 02:48:41.000
He says can't, I'm not talking
02:48:41.000 --> 02:48:49.000
As a duty the way can't does in
his virtue theory because sellers is very things, the virtue theory is
very important to sell us because happiness is crucial.
02:48:49.000 --> 02:49:08.000
So, but it comes in in a
different way that comes in, when you've already got the moral point
of view, and you have a duty to develop the talents of others because
you're already playing the whole game, whereas this one, his loyalty
from Royce, or the
02:49:08.000 --> 02:49:10.000
love of your neighbor.
02:49:10.000 --> 02:49:26.000
That's, that's prior to the, to
the complete logical story so so kinds virtue ethics is still embedded
within the full we story, and that's why you got to develop other
02:49:26.000 --> 02:49:39.000
But this and I don't claim to
have it all worked out how cells tries to do it but this idea of love
of neighbor or loyalty, playing a slightly different role that has to
be bootstrapped up into that.
02:49:39.000 --> 02:49:43.000
logical we, the way that's
connected to the community.
02:49:43.000 --> 02:49:47.000
That's, that's a slightly
02:49:47.000 --> 02:49:49.000
02:49:49.000 --> 02:50:05.000
paper very I really liked it. I
did wonder about, but I'm talking too much here old old head Some say,
but on the last one I just wondered about that you listen to the
people who you respect their opinions, you've got your emotional
02:50:05.000 --> 02:50:15.000
going to be before that you had
developed the second Maxim from Canada, which was viewing people from
the standpoint, doing things from the standpoint of everyone.
02:50:15.000 --> 02:50:31.000
Right. And I know that was kind
but you seem to be very sympathetically exposing that, like it was
something you could take on board. But then I worried that your view
became the tribal because viewing from the standpoint of everyone is circumscribed
02:50:31.000 --> 02:50:35.000
by those you respect their opinions.
02:50:35.000 --> 02:50:47.000
Yeah, no, I think I mean, partly
what was interesting to me about that second one particular though yes
i i'm not everyone just raises the same problems again.
02:50:47.000 --> 02:51:06.000
Um, but that he focuses not on
the reasons but on the principles I think that is absolutely
fascinating that that when he's talking about what you need to be
doing as far as that second maximum is concerned, is thinking about
how their reasoning, rather
02:51:06.000 --> 02:51:09.000
than from what their reasoning.
02:51:09.000 --> 02:51:18.000
And I think that is that is
absolutely to the point because, you know, the idea of values.
02:51:18.000 --> 02:51:35.000
What you have to learn by
reflecting on where somebody else is coming from is thinking about how
they're thinking how they're seeing things. And yes, I, you know,
02:51:35.000 --> 02:51:47.000
Well, again, you know I am
content in so many ways you know this is the original viewing. I mean
respect is is a very peculiar thing. You don't have to listen to everybody.
02:51:47.000 --> 02:51:58.000
And there's no point listening
to people who other people say, are wonderful and you can hear it. I
mean, maybe you should work to try and hear it, but that's because you
02:51:58.000 --> 02:52:01.000
Oh do you were gonna say
02:52:01.000 --> 02:52:22.000
Oh, I don't know what extent,
very clever, but then yeah I was wondering whether you would endorse
the idea of the kind of new feminist critique
02:52:22.000 --> 02:52:48.000
that aren't saying that. Well,
when you say we and we intentions, and the Rule of the Rules of
rationality, that are supposed to pray to the usual problem of, well,
I'm thinking that he is speaking from kind of out of body universal,
and the streets,
02:52:48.000 --> 02:53:00.000
a social individual, why was the
trend of contemporary so far as the mythology and ethics, as well.
02:53:00.000 --> 02:53:12.000
Makes it rather hear that, uh,
well, every we is located, and to some extent.
02:53:12.000 --> 02:53:17.000
Sit on, as well as can't.
02:53:17.000 --> 02:53:28.000
He's just speaking in the name
of the white male, your appeal centric and so forth and so on so would
you would you go there.
02:53:28.000 --> 02:53:49.000
That is certainly part of it.
Not, not particularly from a feminist point of view but that's
included I think the more I read, the more point of views that that
open up and say, No, those values and and you know, I just wrote this
book on, you know, realizing
02:53:49.000 --> 02:54:03.000
reason. I don't think any of
that back, but that conception of rationality tied to mathematics and
the way the natural sciences are shaped by mathematics.
02:54:03.000 --> 02:54:21.000
That's not the whole story of
rationality. That's actually, I now think that having told the story
of realizing reason, having this idea that the project of science has
been completed, which is one of the main themes of that book.
02:54:21.000 --> 02:54:30.000
We can finally separate the
philosophical project from that scientific project.
02:54:30.000 --> 02:54:32.000
They were so intertwined.
02:54:32.000 --> 02:54:45.000
The project of science the
project of absolute knowledge was, I think, I now think was Miss
shaping the project to philosophy.
02:54:45.000 --> 02:55:01.000
And now, now we can let
philosophy flourish out from under the weight of that monolith of
science. And so, yes.
02:55:01.000 --> 02:55:11.000
I. That's the way I would put it
but it absolutely is, you know, consonant with what feminists have
been same time, but also other people.
02:55:11.000 --> 02:55:15.000
Um, people who worry about the arts.
02:55:15.000 --> 02:55:25.000
Um, you know, other cultures, I,
you know, Chinese culture, it's, it's choice, really different.
02:55:25.000 --> 02:55:29.000
And it does start to look like.
02:55:29.000 --> 02:55:35.000
We had this particular
conception of rationality, that has its place.
02:55:35.000 --> 02:55:45.000
But it's not the whole story,
and I and then I want to say in anytime you do try and tell the whole
story, you're going to have the same problem again.
02:55:45.000 --> 02:55:53.000
So, yeah, I think that a lot of
these feminist worries are are valid.
02:55:53.000 --> 02:55:57.000
But they're not the only people
who have who have valid worries.
02:55:57.000 --> 02:56:01.000
Yeah, you want to stick with the enlightenment's.
02:56:01.000 --> 02:56:05.000
02:56:05.000 --> 02:56:08.000
I can't give up.
02:56:08.000 --> 02:56:28.000
Enlightenment, that for that
yeah i i sure exactly the same concerns that you do, but I just have
to read your book now. Yeah, yeah. No, but I think this is really
important because I, I, I am such an enlightenment thinker, I am my
students made me This
02:56:28.000 --> 02:56:29.000
02:56:29.000 --> 02:56:32.000
So, there's content.
02:56:32.000 --> 02:56:53.000
And there's me, and I are in
conversation, they know that content is so important to me what and
sellers but but con i mean when I was when I was a graduate student, I
didn't want to just, you know, think like con i wanted to be.
02:56:53.000 --> 02:57:10.000
So, you know, this is very near
and dear to my heart and I don't think we don't have to choose between
these we just have to not make a certain mistake that I think I'm
seeing sellers making in thinking about the moral point of view.
02:57:10.000 --> 02:57:15.000
So this is not against reason
and rationality at all.
02:57:15.000 --> 02:57:24.000
It's not against science. It's
not against mathematics, but it's it saying that's not everything.
02:57:24.000 --> 02:57:30.000
There's a lot more to thinking
about our lives.
02:57:30.000 --> 02:57:32.000
02:57:32.000 --> 02:57:39.000
View from, from science. Anyway,
I'm going to go get
02:57:39.000 --> 02:57:42.000
02:57:42.000 --> 02:57:44.000
Only as well. Okay.
02:57:44.000 --> 02:58:03.000
We'll see everybody here.