PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: MARCUS,ERIC
Data de Publicação: 2018
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452018000400319
Resumo: Abstract According to one interpretation of Aristotle’s famous thesis, to say that action is the conclusion of practical reasoning is to say that an action is a judgment about what to do. A central motivation for the thesis so understood is that it explains the non-observational character of practical knowledge. If actions are judgments, then whatever explains an agent’s knowledge of the relevant judgment can explain her knowledge of the action. I call the approach to action that accepts Aristotle’s thesis so understood Normativism. There are many reasons to doubt Normativism. My focus in this paper is a pair of arguments that purport to show that a normative judgment could not constitute an event in material reality and also the knowledge of such a happening. Both highlight a putative mismatch between the natures of, on the one hand, an agent’s knowledge of her normative judgment and, on the other, her knowledge of her own action. According to these objections, knowledge of action includes (a) perceptual knowledge and (b) knowledge of what one has already done. But knowledge of a normative judgment includes neither. Hence knowledge of action cannot simply be knowledge of a normative judgment. I show why these arguments fail.
id UNICAMP-17_e6a7a6cea1532d0b8ab7b163fe7ca582
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-60452018000400319
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENTPractical KnowledgeAnscombeMemoryThe Nature of ActionPractical ReasoningAbstract According to one interpretation of Aristotle’s famous thesis, to say that action is the conclusion of practical reasoning is to say that an action is a judgment about what to do. A central motivation for the thesis so understood is that it explains the non-observational character of practical knowledge. If actions are judgments, then whatever explains an agent’s knowledge of the relevant judgment can explain her knowledge of the action. I call the approach to action that accepts Aristotle’s thesis so understood Normativism. There are many reasons to doubt Normativism. My focus in this paper is a pair of arguments that purport to show that a normative judgment could not constitute an event in material reality and also the knowledge of such a happening. Both highlight a putative mismatch between the natures of, on the one hand, an agent’s knowledge of her normative judgment and, on the other, her knowledge of her own action. According to these objections, knowledge of action includes (a) perceptual knowledge and (b) knowledge of what one has already done. But knowledge of a normative judgment includes neither. Hence knowledge of action cannot simply be knowledge of a normative judgment. I show why these arguments fail.UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência2018-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452018000400319Manuscrito v.41 n.4 2018reponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMP10.1590/0100-6045.2018.v41n4.eminfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMARCUS,ERICeng2018-12-04T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-60452018000400319Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=0100-6045&lng=pt&nrm=isoPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpmwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2018-12-04T00:00Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
title PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
spellingShingle PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
MARCUS,ERIC
Practical Knowledge
Anscombe
Memory
The Nature of Action
Practical Reasoning
title_short PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
title_full PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
title_fullStr PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
title_full_unstemmed PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
title_sort PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE AS KNOWLEDGE OF A NORMATIVE JUDGMENT
author MARCUS,ERIC
author_facet MARCUS,ERIC
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv MARCUS,ERIC
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Practical Knowledge
Anscombe
Memory
The Nature of Action
Practical Reasoning
topic Practical Knowledge
Anscombe
Memory
The Nature of Action
Practical Reasoning
description Abstract According to one interpretation of Aristotle’s famous thesis, to say that action is the conclusion of practical reasoning is to say that an action is a judgment about what to do. A central motivation for the thesis so understood is that it explains the non-observational character of practical knowledge. If actions are judgments, then whatever explains an agent’s knowledge of the relevant judgment can explain her knowledge of the action. I call the approach to action that accepts Aristotle’s thesis so understood Normativism. There are many reasons to doubt Normativism. My focus in this paper is a pair of arguments that purport to show that a normative judgment could not constitute an event in material reality and also the knowledge of such a happening. Both highlight a putative mismatch between the natures of, on the one hand, an agent’s knowledge of her normative judgment and, on the other, her knowledge of her own action. According to these objections, knowledge of action includes (a) perceptual knowledge and (b) knowledge of what one has already done. But knowledge of a normative judgment includes neither. Hence knowledge of action cannot simply be knowledge of a normative judgment. I show why these arguments fail.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452018000400319
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-60452018000400319
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/0100-6045.2018.v41n4.em
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência
publisher.none.fl_str_mv UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Centro de Lógica, Epistemologia e História da Ciência
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito v.41 n.4 2018
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_ 1748950065450319872