Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Philosophical Reflections on Reasons for Belief, Intention and Action
The Reasoner
- AVERY ARCHER
- Today my self-esteem hit an all time low when I stumbled across an argument proving conclusively that I don't exist. I’m quite distressed. This probably explains why my jeans are so loose-fitting. What’s equally upsetting is that I learned that non-existence does not exempt one from local or federal taxes.
Categories
- Action Theory (46)
- Akrasia (3)
- Announcements (65)
- Anscombe (9)
- Anti-individualism (3)
- Audio Clips (3)
- Brunero (1)
- Calls For Papers (4)
- Causal Theory (8)
- Cognitivism (1)
- Counterfactuals (4)
- Davidson (6)
- Desire (2)
- Disjunctivism (3)
- Epistemology (45)
- Ethics (1)
- Evidentialism (1)
- Experience (4)
- Explanation (4)
- Externalism (13)
- Frege (5)
- Gettier (6)
- Goldman (4)
- Grice (2)
- Guise of the Good (5)
- Hedonic Tone Theory (1)
- Hornsby (1)
- Hume (1)
- Humeanism (1)
- Humour (4)
- Intention (2)
- Internalism (10)
- Interrogatives (1)
- Justification (20)
- Kant (6)
- Kripke (1)
- McDowell (26)
- Metaethics (21)
- Metaphilosophy (8)
- Modal Logic (5)
- Modern Philosophy (10)
- Moore (1)
- Moral Luck (1)
- Moral Psychology (8)
- New Evil Genius (1)
- Paper Outline (10)
- Perception (22)
- Philosophy of Language (6)
- Philosophy of Mind (11)
- Philosophy Papers (3)
- Pictures (8)
- Politics (1)
- Practical Reason (2)
- Quine (5)
- Rationality (14)
- Reasons (2)
- Reid (6)
- Reliabilism (6)
- Religion (4)
- Russell (3)
- Scepticism (4)
- Self-knowledge (1)
- Sense Data (2)
- Setiya (1)
- Theology (2)
- Trying (1)
- Velleman (2)
- Video Clips (22)
- Virtue Ethics (4)
- Wittgenstein (2)
Recent Comments
LEMMings
- Bloggin The Question
- Brains
- Certain Doubts
- Consequently.org
- Enigmania
- Epistemic Value
- Flickers of Freedom
- Fragments of Consciousness
- In the Space of Reasons
- Inverted Spectrum
- Knowability
- Lemmings
- Long Words Bother Me
- Obscure and Confused Ideas
- Selbsttatigkeit
- Snow is White
- Struggling to Philosophize
- Subjunctive Moods
- The Boundaries of Language
- Think Tonk
- Thoughts Arguments and Rants
- Virtual Philosopher
Other Philosophy Blogs
- Barefoot Bum
- Being a Woman in Philosophy
- Blogging the Question
- Common Sense Philosophy
- Crooked Timber
- Faux Philosophy News
- Florida Student Philosophy
- Go Grue
- Leaky Faucet
- Leiter Reports
- MQPhil
- Overcoming Bias
- Philosopher's Carnival
- Philosophy Brood Comb
- Philosophy Hurts Your Head
- Philosophy, et cetera
- Rise and Fall/Rise or Fall
- SOH-Dan
- The Brooks Blog
- The Ends of Thought
- The Last Positivist
Philosophy Links
- A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names
- Epistemology @ Edinburgh
- Guide to Philosophy on the Internet
- Online Papers in Philosophy
- Phil Events
- Philosophical Fortnights
- Philosophy Talk
- phOnline
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- The American Philosophical Association
- The Epistemology Page
- The Epistemology Research Guide
- The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- The Philosopher's Annual
- The Philosopher's Zone
- The Philosophical Gourmet Report
- The Philosophical Lexicon
Affiliated Departments
Affiliated Links
2 comments:
Very good talk. Overcoming our biases is what the scientific method is intended to overcome. It is interesting that it might also be considered something that impedes free will, and yet as with the scientific method, we can explore it and allow for it as much as possible by the very exercise of free will to do so. I agree with the presenter's optimism there, for those reasons.
However, I would not merely say it is an evolutionary inevitability (as that is not explanatory). I might relate it to satisfaction with a status quo, and the fact that we always hang on tight to where we are initially. We apply a burden of proof to any change to that status quo we might contemplate. This is also the basis for skepticism and legal burdens of proof.
Monkeys with a choice of change up to more grapes apply the burden against change, to a 'smooth' new status quo (compromise) rather than 'wild' change involving risk. They are already happy. With a choice of change down, they resist the change down if possible by wild risk, because they don’t want to be unhappy. It is their response to a change to current satisfaction that must be accounted for. More is less important than less.
Indeed, in Hume, I tend to see an "is" as a porocess of maintaining the status quo unless confronted by another "is", at which point they must stop comfortable coasting and deal with resolving what "ought" be the case. It is like particles in physics: "is" as inertia changed by impact to become a different "is" by settlement of "oughts" from the impacting "is's".
Extending the above ideas, they might also relate to the fact that the future is unknown and one proceeds cautiously (accumulating), while the past is known and one has knowledge of real losses (losing) as a motive to avoid slipping back. They might even be consistent with the evolutionary process, as future selection will operate as it may and the organism is cautious moving forward, but with a more complete aversion to regression. In economics, fear of loss would be more important than hope of gain, and perhaps socially too.
Post a Comment