![]() ![]() There’s much of interest here I’ll say more about it below. The second, more constructive, part develops an original theory of structural rationality, centrally including accounts of the unity and normativity of structural rationality. The first part, which spells out and defends Worsnip’s autonomy thesis, provides a lucid explication of the two forms of rationality, and a searching examination of attempts to reduce or eliminate one or the other. The traditional worries about the demands of morality are an example-one among many-of the confusions that can result from failing to distinguish the two forms of rationality. ![]() For Worsnip, substantive rationality is also genuine and irreducible. But Worsnip’s view is not a defence of the tradition either. For Worsnip, structural rationality is genuine-a real, ineliminable form of rationality autonomous-irreducible to substantive rationality unified-instances of (in)coherence share something in common and normatively significant-facts about structural rationality constitute normative reasons to deliberate in ways that lead to coherence (ix). In this book, Alex Worsnip defends the importance of structural rationality against this recent trend. Rationality is fundamentally about responding correctly to reasons coherence matters only to the extent that it is a byproduct of this (Kolodny 2007 Kiesewetter 2017 Lord 2018). Partly because of this, some now take the tradition to have got things backwards. We can intelligibly ask why coherence matters (or as it is often put, whether structural rationality is normative), and the answer is elusive (Broome 2005 Kolodny 2005). One of the most striking developments of normative philosophy over the past twenty five years has been a general pushback against this line of thought. For example, while we can intelligibly question the demands of morality, we cannot, it has been thought, raise the same questions about the demands of coherence. There is a long tradition of seeing structural rationality as having a kind of bedrock, or especially secure, status. You are structurally rational, or coherent, when your attitudes ‘fit together right’-for instance, when your beliefs are consistent, and you intend what you take to be the necessary means to your ends. You are substantively rational when you respond correctly to normative reasons-for instance, when you believe what your evidence supports, or make sensible decisions. Philosophers often distinguish-if not always in these terms-between substantive rationality and structural rationality. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |