Home  About us  Contact
 

Basic Argument (basic + argument)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences80%

Selected Abstracts

DENNETT ON THE BASIC ARGUMENT

METAPHILOSOPHY, Issue 4 2005
John Martin Fischer
Abstract: I argue that Dennett does not adequately support his rejection of the "Basic Argument" for the incompatibility of causal determinism and the sort of free will that involves genuine access to alternative possibilities (sometimes referred to as the "Consequence Argument"). In addition, I seek to highlight the plausibility and importance of the incompatibilist's interpretation of this sort of free will. [source]

Between Reason and Common Sense

PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS, Issue 2 2005
On the Very Idea of Necessary (though Unwarranted) Belief
This essay is intended as a companion-piece to my article, "Reality in Common Sense: Reflections on Realism and Anti-Realism from a ,Common Sense Naturalist' Perspective." (Philosophical Investigations, Vol. 25, No. 4 (October 2002). It explores the epistemological dimension of the Common Sense Naturalism that I developed in that earlier, predominantly metaphysical essay; a position that combines the views of David Hume, Thomas Reid, and the Wittgenstein of On Certainty. My ultimate aim is to produce a comprehensive philosophy of common sense, one that with future installments, will come to include an ethical and social-political philosophy as well. "Between Reason and Common Sense" offers a common sense naturalist reply to the skeptic. My basic argument is that the skeptic makes a Rylean category mistake, when he applies the concept of warrant to epistemologically basic beliefs, such as the belief in the external world or in the continued and distinct existence of bodies. He misidentifies these beliefs as being ordinary, when they are really a part of the framework that make the practices of believing and justifying possible. As a result, they are not themselves open to confirmation or disconfirmation. I also try to characterize the nature of the necessity carried by framework beliefs, in a way that avoids the charge that the common sense naturalist is simply a closet foundationalist. [source]

The Perils of Rights Discourse: A Response to Kitzinger and Wilkinson

ANALYSES OF SOCIAL ISSUES & PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 1 2004
Susan B. Boyd
This commentary responds to Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson's argument for the use of human rights discourse rather than a discourse of mental health when arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Without disagreeing with their basic argument, I "problematize" it, showing that legal and human rights discourses also have a history of reinforcing power dynamics and operating to the disadvantage of marginalized groups such as lesbians and gay men. First, equality rights discourse can force lesbians and gay men into a conservative mode of argument, for instance, having to show how similar they are to traditionalist opposite-sex couples, rather than emphasizing potentially significant differences. Second, the increasing use of rights discourse has arguably narrowed the scope of the lesbian/gay social movement and rendered its political strategies more conservative, rather than aiming for the elimination of heterosexism and patriarchy. Third, the focus on marriage as a human right tends to render invisible, and to reinscribe, the extent to which marriage as a socio-legal institution has operated in oppressive ways. Modern marriage is not innocent of oppression, tied as it is to the increasing privatization of social and economic responsibilities. While human rights discourse offers an important avenue for lesbians and gay men, the perils of its use should not be overlooked. [source]

The Civil Society,State Relationship in Contemporary Discourse: A Complementary Account from Giddens' Perspective1

BRITISH JOURNAL OF POLITICS & INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Issue 2 2006
Karel B. Müller
The article attempts to offer a framework for understanding the interdependence between modern civil society and the democratic state in its complexity. The author seeks inspiration mainly from two very significant sources,in Toqueville's social theory and in Giddens' theory of reflexive modernity. In the first stage the author summarises basic arguments in empirical discussions on the civil society concept. In the second stage he offers the overview of a robust normative perspective of the concept and, in the third stage, he tries to outline the complex interpretative framework for an empirical analysis of state,civil society relations. The author follows the ambition of overcoming to a certain extent the crucial sociological paradox between the macro- and micro- sociological approaches and considering both the functional-structural perspective and the empirical point of view of the civil society concept. [source]