Haslanger, Sally. Gender and Race: (What) Are They? (What) Do We Want Them To Be?
2000, Nous 34(1): 31-55.
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Carl Fox
Abstract: This paper proposes social constructionist accounts of gender and race. The focus of the inquiry--inquiry aiming to provide resources for feminist and antiracist projects--are the social positions of those marked for privilege or subordination by observed or imagined features assumed to be relevant to reproductive function, or geographical origins. I develop these ideas and propose that other gendered and racialized phenomena are usefully demarcated and explained by reference to these social positions. In doing so, I address the concern that attempts to define race or gender are misguided because they either assume a false commonality or marginalize some members of the group in question.Comment : Seminal reading for modules on gender or race.Hendricks, Vincent. Mainstream and Formal Epistemology2006, Cambridge University Press.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jamie Collin
Publisher's Note: Mainstream and Formal Epistemology provides the first easily accessible yet erudite and original analysis of the meeting point between mainstream and formal theories of knowledge. These two strands of thinking have traditionally proceeded in isolation from one another but in this book Vincent F. Hendricks brings them together for a systematic comparative treatment. He demonstrates how mainstream and formal epistemology may significantly benefit from one another, paving the way for a new unifying program of 'plethoric' epistemology. His book will both define and further the debate between philosophers from two very different sides of the epistemological spectrum.Comment : This would be useful in a course on epistemology, formal epistemology, philosophical logic or formal methods in philosophy. Though the abstract describes the book as easily accessible, it is fairly technical in places (though remains a good introduction to the topic). Later chapters do rely, to some extent, on earlier ones; however, individual chapters from this book would provide very good introductions to topics such as the analysis of knowledge, modal epistemology, contextualism in epistemology etc.Herzog, Lisa. Ideal and Non-ideal Theory and the Problem of Knowledge2012, Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4):271-288.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Chris Blake-Turner, Contributed by: Jojanneke Vanderveen
Abstract: This article analyses a hitherto neglected problem at the transition from ideal to non‐ideal theory: the problem of knowledge. Ideal theories often make idealising assumptions about the availability of knowledge, for example knowledge of social scientific facts. This can lead to problems when this knowledge turns out not to be available at the non‐ideal level. Knowledge can be unavailable in a number of ways: in principle, for practical reasons, or because there are normative reasons not to use it. This can make it necessary to revise ideal theories, because the principle of 'ought implies can' rules out certain theories, at least insofar as they are understood as action‐guiding. I discuss a number of examples and argue that there are two tendencies that will increase the relevance of this problem in the future: the availability of large amounts of sensitive data whose use is problematic from a normative point of view, and the increasing complexity of an interrelated world that makes it harder to predict the effects of institutional changes. To address these issues, philosophers need to cooperate with social scientists and philosophers of the social sciences. Normative theorising can then be understood as one step in a long process that includes thinkers from different disciplines. Ideal theory can respond to many of the charges raised against it if it is understood along these lines and if it takes the problem of knowledge and its implications seriously.Comment : Helen Reviewing - Topical article engaging with the debate about ideal and non-ideal theory and the relation between these.Hieronymi, Pamela. Responsibility for Believing2008, Synthese 161(3): 357-373.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jie Gao
Abstract: Many assume that we can be responsible only what is voluntary. This leads to puzzlement about our responsibility for our beliefs, since beliefs seem not to be voluntary. I argue against the initial assumption, presenting an account of responsibility and of voluntariness according to which, not only is voluntariness not required for responsibility, but the feature which renders an attitude a fundamental object of responsibility (that the attitude embodies one's take on the world and one's place in it) also guarantees that it could not be voluntary. It turns out, then, that, for failing to be voluntary, beliefs are a central example of the sort of thing for which we are most fundamentally responsible.Comment : This is a great paper on epistemic responsibility about belief. It elucidates how we can be held responsible for our doxastic attitudes even if we don't have voluntary control over them. It is suitable for teachings on epistemic responsibility and belief in an upper-level undergraduate course on epistemology.Hieronymi, Pamela. Controlling Attitudes2006, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 87 (1):45-74-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Simon Fokt, Contributed by: Lizzy Ventham
Abstract: I hope to show that, although belief is subject to two quite robust forms of agency, "believing at will" is impossible; one cannot believe in the way one ordinarily acts. Further, the same is true of intention: although intention is subject to two quite robust forms of agency, the features of belief that render believing less than voluntary are present for intention, as well. It turns out, perhaps surprisingly, that you can no more intend at will than believe at will.Comment : I find this paper to be a valuable addition to classes on implicit biases, reasons, and moral psychology. It provides a good basis for discussion on how these topics relate to free will, and what sorts of control (and responsibilities) we have over our mental lives - including our desires, our beliefs, and other thoughts.Hoagland, Sarah Lucia. Denying Relationality: Epistemology and Ethics and Ignorance2007,-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Giada Fratantonio
Summary: In this chapter, the author argues that epistemological and ethical practices of ignorance are strategic and involve a strategic denial of relationality, namely, of the way in which subjects are formed through relation with each other.Comment : Good as a further reading for a course on epistemology of ignorance.Howard-Snyder, Frances. Divine Freedom2017, Topoi 36(4): 651-656.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Emily Paul
Abstract: In 'Divine Freedom,' I argue that morally significant incompatibilist freedom is a great good. So God possesses morally incompatibilist freedom. So, God can do wrong or at least can do worse than the best action He can do. So, God is not essentially morally perfect. After careful consideration of numerous objections, I conclude that this argument is undefeated.Comment : Useful for a unit on divine freedom with an intermediate level Philosophy of Religion course - would suit as the primary reading for this, as it gives a great overview and is relatively short, and also presents the central arguments in the debate over divine freedom: the alleged tension between incompatibilist freedom, and the thought that God always chooses the best possible action. It could be good to spend a whole seminar discussing how this tension is created, why it's problematic, and whether it can be resolved.Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female1986, In Feminist Approaches to Science, Ruth Bleier, (ed.), New York: Pergamon.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Benny Goldberg
Introduction: For over three decades, a handful of partially true assumptions were permitted to shape the construction of general evolutionary theories about sexual selection. These theories of sexual selection presupposed the existence of a highly discriminating, exually 'coy' female who was courted by sexually undiscriminating males. Work by female primatologists undermined these assumptions.Comment : This is an essential paper for any courses in standpoint epistemology, feminist philosophy of science, or general philosophy of science.Ichikawa-Jenkins, Jonathan, Matthias Steup. The Analysis of Knowledge2012, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jamie Collin
Summary: This entry provides an overview of attempts to analyse knowledge, including the topics: knowledge as justified true belief; lightweight knowledge; the Gettier problem; no false lemmas; modal conditions; doing without justification?; is knowledge analyzable?; epistemic luck; virtue-theoretic approaches; knowledge first; pragmatic encroachment; contextualism; and an introduction that briefly discusses what it is to analyse knowledge.Comment : This would be useful in a course on epistemology. It provides an overview - though quite a detailed one - of all the main strands in the analysis of knowledge: justified, true belief; Gettier cases; modal conditions; reliabilism; epistemic luck; virtue-theoretic approaches; contextualism and more. This covers ground that may take a few weeks - even an entire course - to teach, and so is particularly useful as an intial survey of the topic.Ivanova, Milena, Paternotte, Cedric. Theory Choice, Good Sense and Social Consensus2013, Erkenntnis 78 (5):1109-1132.-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Chris Blake-Turner, Contributed by: Milena Ivanova
Abstract: There has been a significant interest in the recent literature in developing a solution to the problem of theory choice which is both normative and descriptive, but agent-based rather than rule-based, originating from Pierre Duhem's notion of 'good sense'. In this paper we present the properties Duhem attributes to good sense in different contexts, before examining its current reconstructions advanced in the literature and their limitations. We propose an alternative account of good sense, seen as promoting social consensus in science, and show that it is superior to its rivals in two respects: it is more faithful to Duhemian good sense, and it cashes out the effect that virtues have on scientific progress. We then defend the social consensus account against objections that highlight the positive role of diversity and division of labour in scienceCan’t find it?Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!
-
-
-
This site is registered on Toolset.com as a development site. -
-
-
-
-
-