CAUTION AND NECESSITY

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: González Varela, José Edgar
Data de Publicação: 2015
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641970
Resumo: In this paper I examine Crispin Wright’s modal anti-realism as based on the availability of a certain attitude of Caution towards judgements of necessity. I think that Wright’s account should be attractive in several ways for modal theorists with an antirealist bend. However, the attitude of Caution to which it appeals has attracted some controversy. Wright himself has later come to doubt whether Caution is ultimately coherent. Here I first address Wright’s worries concerning the coherence of Caution and show that they are unfounded. But then I argue that although the attitude of Caution is coherent, it cannot provide a suitable basis for a non-eliminativist account of necessity. I offer two different objections against Caution. (1) I argue that Wright’s appeal to Caution, if successful, would show not only that modal judgement is nonobjective but also that it is dispensable. Thus, I claim that appeal to Caution would seem to serve more as a threat against a non-eliminativist account of necessity, rather than as a potential adequate basis for it. However, (2) I argue that Wright’s appeal to Caution is unsuccessful, for there is no genuine Caution: Caution is a mere verbal attitude.
id UNICAMP-17_b2d34b606be7c75190b6007c51dde890
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8641970
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling CAUTION AND NECESSITYCaution. Conventionalism. Necessity. Anti-Realism. WrightIn this paper I examine Crispin Wright’s modal anti-realism as based on the availability of a certain attitude of Caution towards judgements of necessity. I think that Wright’s account should be attractive in several ways for modal theorists with an antirealist bend. However, the attitude of Caution to which it appeals has attracted some controversy. Wright himself has later come to doubt whether Caution is ultimately coherent. Here I first address Wright’s worries concerning the coherence of Caution and show that they are unfounded. But then I argue that although the attitude of Caution is coherent, it cannot provide a suitable basis for a non-eliminativist account of necessity. I offer two different objections against Caution. (1) I argue that Wright’s appeal to Caution, if successful, would show not only that modal judgement is nonobjective but also that it is dispensable. Thus, I claim that appeal to Caution would seem to serve more as a threat against a non-eliminativist account of necessity, rather than as a potential adequate basis for it. However, (2) I argue that Wright’s appeal to Caution is unsuccessful, for there is no genuine Caution: Caution is a mere verbal attitude.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2015-11-29info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641970Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 36 n. 2 (2013): Jul./Dec.; 229-261Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 36 No. 2 (2013): Jul./Dec.; 229-261Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 36 Núm. 2 (2013): Jul./Dec.; 229-2612317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641970/14966Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscritoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGonzález Varela, José Edgar2017-01-09T10:10:08Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8641970Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2017-01-09T10:10:08Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv CAUTION AND NECESSITY
title CAUTION AND NECESSITY
spellingShingle CAUTION AND NECESSITY
González Varela, José Edgar
Caution. Conventionalism. Necessity. Anti-Realism. Wright
title_short CAUTION AND NECESSITY
title_full CAUTION AND NECESSITY
title_fullStr CAUTION AND NECESSITY
title_full_unstemmed CAUTION AND NECESSITY
title_sort CAUTION AND NECESSITY
author González Varela, José Edgar
author_facet González Varela, José Edgar
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv González Varela, José Edgar
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Caution. Conventionalism. Necessity. Anti-Realism. Wright
topic Caution. Conventionalism. Necessity. Anti-Realism. Wright
description In this paper I examine Crispin Wright’s modal anti-realism as based on the availability of a certain attitude of Caution towards judgements of necessity. I think that Wright’s account should be attractive in several ways for modal theorists with an antirealist bend. However, the attitude of Caution to which it appeals has attracted some controversy. Wright himself has later come to doubt whether Caution is ultimately coherent. Here I first address Wright’s worries concerning the coherence of Caution and show that they are unfounded. But then I argue that although the attitude of Caution is coherent, it cannot provide a suitable basis for a non-eliminativist account of necessity. I offer two different objections against Caution. (1) I argue that Wright’s appeal to Caution, if successful, would show not only that modal judgement is nonobjective but also that it is dispensable. Thus, I claim that appeal to Caution would seem to serve more as a threat against a non-eliminativist account of necessity, rather than as a potential adequate basis for it. However, (2) I argue that Wright’s appeal to Caution is unsuccessful, for there is no genuine Caution: Caution is a mere verbal attitude.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-11-29
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641970
url https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641970
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8641970/14966
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscrito
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2015 Manuscrito
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 36 n. 2 (2013): Jul./Dec.; 229-261
Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 36 No. 2 (2013): Jul./Dec.; 229-261
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 36 Núm. 2 (2013): Jul./Dec.; 229-261
2317-630X
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1800216565238464512