Loading...

Still committed to the normativity of folk psychology

Kazemi, A ; Sharif University of Technology | 2022

18 Viewed
  1. Type of Document: Article
  2. DOI: 10.1080/13869795.2021.1963820
  3. Publisher: Routledge , 2022
  4. Abstract:
  5. In what sense can one claim that intentional explanations are essentially normative, given that people’s actions and thinking are replete with various irrationalities, yet are still pretty well explained by this explanatory framework? This article provides a novel response to this enduring objection. First, following Brandom, it is suggested that, to understand the normativity of intentional states, we should countenance and distinguish between two normative categories of commitment and entitlement, only the former of which is argued to be essential for intentional explanations. Conflating these two normative dimensions is noted to be one of the main sources of the objections leveled against the view. Second, it is shown that the committive dimension is rich and flexible enough to accommodate all the apparently problematic cases. © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
  6. Keywords:
  7. Commitment ; Entitlement ; Folk psychology ; Intentional psychology ; Normativism ; Robert Brandom
  8. Source: Philosophical Explorations ; Volume 25, Issue 1 , 2022 , Pages 58-74 ; 13869795 (ISSN)
  9. URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13869795.2021.1963820