Naturalism in Question
New term, new reading group here at tpn towers. This term we'll be reading (bits of) de Caro and Macarthur (eds.), Naturalism in Question. More details soon.
Labels: Naturalism
posted by Joel at 7:44 am
A blog for the AHRC project hosted in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Essex
Labels: Naturalism
posted by Joel at 7:44 am
4 Comments:
So, after two and a half years of a project that was supposed to be devoted to transcendentalism and naturalism, you're finally deigning to take a look at the latter ... well, I suppose late is better than never! And yet what book do you choose to read to get you belatedly up to speed? -- a book which is explicitly and vehemently *anti*-naturalist (even going so far as to call contemporary naturalism a "new faith" and a "complacent orthodoxy" on its cover), and which does not contain a single contribution by an advocate of naturalism (and let’s be honest: if McDowell counts as a naturalist, anyone does).
Do you not think that this might be just a tad intellectually dishonest? In fact, mightn't one be forgiven for thinking that you had misled the British Academy in securing a huge amount of funding for a project which evidently never had any real intention of seriously treating fully half of its supposed theme? Where is the treatment of naturalism *on its own terms*? Would it suffice to treat the transcendental tradition solely through the lens of its naturalist critics?
Having devoted a full year to the history of transcendentalism while ignoring the history of naturalism altogether (as if naturalism were some kind of unchanging dogma), you now seem bent on eliding just about all contemporary naturalism too! How many members of the TPN team (or, even, of its steering committee) have devoted themselves to the serious, dedicated study of the work of prominent contemporary naturalists such as Millikan, Dretske, Fodor, the Churchlands, Kornblith, Giere, Dennett, Metzinger et al.? Is there even one?
How many of the speakers you have invited to your conferences over the past two and a half years have been advocates of a naturalistic approach? Well, here is a full list of the papers so far presented at your conferences ostensibly devoted to naturalism:
The Explanatory Role of Normative Considerations
Primitive Normativity and Skepticism about Rules
Norms of Judgement and Theories of Content
Rules and Norms
How is Intersubjectivity Possible?
The Significance of Others
Action Explanation
The Unity of Kant's Active Thinker
Is this what you call taking naturalism seriously?!
Perhaps it would have been more honest if you had entitled your project ‘Transcendental Arguments and Normativity’? – but then, you would hardly have secured such a huge amount of funding from the BA if you’d done that, now would you? If I were the BA, I’d be demanding my money back!
"The project's aim is to understand the nature of transcendental philosophy, with the intention of assessing whether it leaves contemporary philosophical naturalism with a cogent case to answer.
The project consists of three phases, corresponding to these concerns: First, to chart the range of philosophical positions that can appropriately be regarded as transcendental, second to understand the theoretical structures involved in transcendental explanation, and third to assess the contemporary relevance of the transcendental orientation."
I wonder which of these stated aims our anonymous (but intellectually honest!) critic feels has been overlooked?
I trust I will see you at our upcoming workshop on the Nature of Naturalism at which are speaking such noted anti-naturalists as Penelope Maddy and David Papineau.
Well, at least you admit that the project was already hopelessly biased towards transcendental philosophy from the very beginning. But this only begs the question: why was it entitled 'Transcendental Philosophy and Naturalism' in the first place if there was never any real intention of seriously engaging with the latter?
Plus, you still haven't answered any of my questions, and I hardly think that pointing out that you've invited contributions from TWO proponents really makes the case that you're taking naturalism seriously considering the fact that you've invited around SIXTY speakers altogether, now does it?
Finally, thanks for the ivitation, but I don't think I'll bother crossing the Atlantic to participate in your little workshop, though I must say I -- like I dare say the rest of the philosophical world -- await with baited breath your ultimate assessment of whether transcendental philosophy "leaves contemporary philosophical naturalism with a cogent case to answer". Since you haven't even begun to engage with their work, I'm sure that the naturalists mentioned in my previous email are shaking in their boots!
There is no case to answer, the criticisms are quite evidently based on both a misunderstanding of the project and an ignorance of AHRC research funding.
Further abusive, anonymous comments will be deleted.
Post a Comment
<< Home