Simon Blackburn

The Frege-Geach problem is one of the most famous and important issues in ethics of the last century. There were several significant attempts to solve the Frege-Geach problem. One of the most influential attempts was made by Simon Blackburn in his 1984 book 'Spreading the Word'. Unfortunately for Blackburn, there were some counterexamples and problems with his account. The most important objection was made by Mark van Roojen in 1996. Besides the Van Roojen problem, expressivists face another challenge: the negation problem, formulated by Nicholas Unwin in 1999 and 2001.
This paper aims for a re-evaluation of Blackburn’s theory. To show why, I will argue that the Van Roojen problem begs the question and therefore misses the mark. If it is the case that the Van Roojen problem does not repudiate Blackburn, then Blackburn is able to solve Unwin’s negation problem adequately. I will show that Blackburn’s account works just as intuitively and constructively as a cognitivist account. Hopefully, this paper will undermine the objections to Blackburn’s theory.

Foot argues that there are certain things that all human beings - perhaps all rational agents - need.  This gives a sense in which certain values and disvalues can be called 'objective'.  I suggest that, with certain relatively minor adjustments, her argument can be made cogent but that it cannot be used to show that there are objective answers to questions about what one should do when values conflict.  If Foot's own virtue ethics, utilitarianism, Kantian ethics or any other first-order moral system were to be established as objectively valid, this would require some completely different form of argumentation. 


Almost sixty years ago Philippa Foot published an article that began: To many people it seems that the most notable advance in moral philosophy during the past fifty years or so has been the refutation of naturalism; and they are a little shocked that at this late date such an issue should be reopened. It is easy to understand their attitude: given certain apparently unquestionable assumptions, it would be about as sensible to try to reintroduce naturalism as to try to square the circle. Those who see it like this have satisfied themselves that they know in advance that any naturalistic theory must have a catch in it somewhere, and are put out at having to waste more time exposing an old fallacy. This paper is an attempt to persuade them to look critically at the premises on which their arguments are based. 1 The paper in question was one of a number written by Foot around the time that were highly successful in reopening the issue of naturalism in ethics. Nowadays no one can just take it for granted that naturalism has been refuted, that there is a sharp distinction (or indeed any clear distinction) between fact and value or that it is impossible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. This is not to say that the naturalists have been completely victorious, of course; only that naturalism is today a live option. I shall argue that Foot's paper contains an important insight and an equally important mistake; and that the insight and the mistake are linked. I believe that the thinking behind it has influenced the subsequent course of moral philosophy to a quite remarkable extent and that this has been in some ways beneficial and in some ways harmful – not surprisingly, if I am right in seeing it as containing both truth and error. I do not want to exaggerate the influence of this one paper 2 but I do not know of any other that so neatly encapsulates the coupled insight and mistake. The anti-naturalism that Foot is attacking she characterises as follows: It would not be an exaggeration to say that the whole of moral philosophy, as it is now widely taught, rests on a contrast between statements of fact and evaluations, which runs something like this: The truth or falsity of statements of fact is shewn by means of evidence; and what counts as evidence is laid down in the meaning of the expressions occurring in the statement of fact … It follows that no two people can make the same statement and count completely different things as evidence; in the end one at least of them could be convicted of linguistic ignorance. It also follows that if a man is given good evidence for a factual conclusion he cannot just refuse to accept the conclusion on the ground that in his scheme of things this evidence is not evidence at all. 3 But, on the view she is criticising, [w]ith evaluations, however, it is different. An evaluation is not connected logically with the factual statements on which it is based. One man may say that a thing is good because of some fact about it, and another may refuse to take that fact as any evidence, for nothing is laid down in the meaning of 'good' which connects it with one piece of 'evidence' rather than another. It follows that a moral eccentric could argue to moral conclusions from quite idiosyncratic premises; he could say, for instance, that a man was a good man because he clasped and unclasped his hands and never turned NNE after

No es sólo en nuestras horas más bajas cuando sentimos que la ética está amenazada por el escepticismo, el relativismo, la hipocresía y el nihilismo. Acciones tales como dar caridad, cumplir con nuestro deber o reivindicar nuestros derechos pueden darnos motivos para sentirnos desconcertados o paralizados por el temor de que nuestros principios carezcan de fundamento. Muchas personas temen que la ciencia haya demostrado que éste es un mundo sin Dios y que todos somos criaturas genéticamente condenadas a ser egoístas y tribales, competitivas y agresivas. Simon Blackburn, autor del best-seller Pensar, estructura este libro alrededor de estas y otras amenazas dirigidas contra la ética. En su intento de dar respuesta a siete argumentos distintos contra la imagen que tenemos de nosotros mismos como seres morales y civilizados, Blackburn empieza esbozando un recorrido por un pantanoso terreno filosófico en el que, sin su ayuda, seguramente quedaríamos encallados. Luego se enfrenta a los problemas de la vida y de la muerte y nos enseña a pensar sobre el significado de la vida, así como a desconfiar de los rígidos eslóganes que a menudo dominan los debates morales. Y, por último, ofrece un recorrido crítico por los distintos intentos de fundamentación de la ética que ha elaborado la tradición filosófica, desde Platón y Aristóteles hasta el pensamiento contemporáneo.


Libro escaneado
Biblioteca Central, UNAM
Sobre la bondad
Una breve introducción a la ética
Simon Blackburn
Editorial: Paidós
Temática: Filosofía | Ética
Colección: Contextos
Número de páginas: 240

Almost sixty years ago Philippa Foot published an article that began: To many people it seems that the most notable advance in moral philosophy during the past fifty years or so has been the refutation of naturalism; and they are a little shocked that at this late date such an issue should be reopened. It is easy to understand their attitude: given certain apparently unquestionable assumptions, it would be about as sensible to try to reintroduce naturalism as to try to square the circle. Those who see it like this have satisfied themselves that they know in advance that any naturalistic theory must have a catch in it somewhere, and are put out at having to waste more time exposing an old fallacy. This paper is an attempt to persuade them to look critically at the premises on which their arguments are based. 1 The paper in question was one of a number written by Foot around the time that were highly successful in reopening the issue of naturalism in ethics. Nowadays no one can just take it for granted that naturalism has been refuted, that there is a sharp distinction (or indeed any clear distinction) between fact and value or that it is impossible to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. This is not to say that the naturalists have been completely victorious, of course; only that naturalism is today a live option. I shall argue that Foot's paper contains an important insight and an equally important mistake; and that the insight and the mistake are linked. I believe that the thinking behind it has influenced the subsequent course of moral philosophy to a quite remarkable extent and that this has been in some ways beneficial and in some ways harmful – not surprisingly, if I am right in seeing it as containing both truth and error. I do not want to exaggerate the influence of this one paper 2 but I do not know of any other that so neatly encapsulates the coupled insight and mistake. The anti-naturalism that Foot is attacking she characterises as follows: It would not be an exaggeration to say that the whole of moral philosophy, as it is now widely taught, rests on a contrast between statements of fact and evaluations, which runs something like this: The truth or falsity of statements of fact is shewn by means of evidence; and what counts as evidence is laid down in the meaning of the expressions occurring in the statement of fact … It follows that no two people can make the same statement and count completely different things as evidence; in the end one at least of them could be convicted of linguistic ignorance. It also follows that if a man is given good evidence for a factual conclusion he cannot just refuse to accept the conclusion on the ground that in his scheme of things this evidence is not evidence at all. 3 But, on the view she is criticising, [w]ith evaluations, however, it is different. An evaluation is not connected logically with the factual statements on which it is based. One man may say that a thing is good because of some fact about it, and another may refuse to take that fact as any evidence, for nothing is laid down in the meaning of 'good' which connects it with one piece of 'evidence' rather than another. It follows that a moral eccentric could argue to moral conclusions from quite idiosyncratic premises; he could say, for instance, that a man was a good man because he clasped and unclasped his hands and never turned NNE after

Uma definição sustentável de libertismo é a seguinte: doutrina metaética  que sustenta que o ser humano dispõe de livre-arbítrio num mundo natural que é, em si mesmo, libertista ou indeterminista, isto é, não se rege por leis necessárias mas por casualidades. Mas neste caso é um compatibilismo: a liberdade do ser humano compatibiliza-se com a liberdade da natureza.

It is necessary to underline the errors of Blackburn: he confuses determinism with fatalism or with determinism in a world without free will. Determinism does not excludes necessarily free will. An action can be the end of a causal chain, being formed by determinism and free will along all the chain. So this chain does not excludes free will.

Was Nietzsche a nihilist? Yes, because, like J. L. Mackie, he was an error-theorist about morality, including the elitist morality to which he himself subscribed. But he was variously a diagnostician, an opponent and a survivor of certain other kinds of nihilism. Schacht argues that Nietzsche cannot have been an error theorist, since meta-ethical nihilism is inconsistent with the moral commitment that Nietzsche displayed. Schacht’s exegetical argument parallels the substantive argument (advocated in recent years by Wright and Blackburn) that Mackie’s error theory can’t be true because if it were, we would have to give up morality or give up moralizing. I answer this argument with a little bit of help from Nietzsche. I then pose a problem, the Doppelganger Problem, for the meta-ethical nihilism that I attribute to Mackie and Nietzsche. (If A is a moral proposition then not-A is a moral proposition: hence not all moral propositions can be false.) I solve the problem by reformulating the error theory and also deal with a variant of the problem, the Reinforced Doppelganger, glancing at a famous paper of Ronald Dworkin’s. Thus, whatever its demerits, the error theory, is not self refuting, nor does it require us to give up morality.

Hume appeals to a mysterious mental process to explain how to world appears to possess features that are not present in sense perceptions, namely causal, moral, and aesthetic properties. He famously writes that the mind spreads itself onto the external world, and that we stain or gild natural objects with our sentiments. Projectivism is founded on these texts but it assumes a reading of Hume’s language as merely metaphorical. This assumption, however, conflicts sharply with the important explanatory role that “spreading” and “staining” are supposed to play, which, ironically, is the very appeal of Hume’s texts to projectivists. In this paper, I first consider the difficulties readers of Hume have encountered in their attempts to ascertain nature of the key psychological process. I then identify in Hume’s texts novel theoretical resources that allow Hume to produce a satisfying answer to the question of process, that is, an account of the precise nature of the key process. I offer this explanation assuming what I take to be Hume’s austere conception of the elements involved in the process: sense impressions and “internal impressions” lacking intrinsic intentionality. On my reading, the spreading process explains the gap between the meager input and the rich, novel output: causal, moral and aesthetic judgments.

Expressivism is a metaethical thesis about the function and structure of moral language. Whereas descriptive claims like ‘grass is green’ express truth-apt propositions, expressivism supposes that moral claims express non-cognitive mental states such as emotions. Thus the claim ‘killing is wrong’, on this analysis, is an expression of the speaker’s strong disapproval of killing. Crucially, moral claims cannot be true or false on this view, because the attitudes they express are not truth-apt. This essay examines whether, given this analysis of the meaning of moral claims, expressivists can explain how moral claims feature in apparently valid arguments without expressing propositions. The focus is on the accounts of Simon Blackburn and Mark Schroeder, both of whom attempt to formulate alternative semantics in terms of attitudes that are isomorphic with, and yield the same results as, truth-functional semantics, while removing the dependence of valid inference on truth. The essay argues that each of the solutions offered fails because it is unable to replicate some crucial part of ordinary truth-functional semantics. Moreover, it argues that this problem is not dependent on the particular details of either account, but results from the general way in which expressivists construe the meaning of both descriptive and normative language. It concludes that expressivists should abandon the semantic project and instead focus on the metaphysics of truth for normative claims.

Let me start with two claims: 1) I am a moral nihilist, 2) so was Nietzsche. The first claim is not particularly controversial. Absent brain injury or massive self-deception, I am the best authority on what I believe, and I can assure you that I believe something that can reasonably be described as 'moral nihilism', namely a minor variant of the error theory of J.L. Mackie. It is otherwise with the second claim. Some say Nietzsche was a nihilist, indeed a perfect, complete or uninhibited nihilist 1. Some say that this is all a horrible misunderstanding and that Nietzsche was nothing of the kind 2. I shall argue that he was a nihilist in much the same sense as I am, but variously a diagnostician, an opponent and a survivor of certain other kinds of nihilism 3. Then, with Nietzsche's aid, I shall defend the moral nihilism that we both believe (meta-ethical nihilism or the error theory) against a common line of criticism that nihilism can't be true because if it were we would have to give up morality or, at least, moralizing. I then raise a problem (the Doppelganger Problem) for meta-ethical nihilism, reinforce the problem, and solve it by reformulating the doctrine. Thus although I think that trying to get Nietzsche right is a worthwhile intellectual enterprise, the real point of the paper is to vindicate the error theory (of which Mackie was the foremost defender) against certain kinds of criticism. For the record, I agree with (what I take to be) Nietzsche's metaethic but disagree with his ethic of Calliclean self-assertion. I also think that there are lots of historical, psychological and philosophical insights scattered through Nietzsche's works (mixed with a good deal of silliness) though they don't always repay the effort of putting up with his big-noting, his buttonholing and his 'Hi Ma! Look at Me! ' style of writing.

However, not all attitudes are so easily classifiable. In many cases we might find ourselves unable to tell whether someone's attitude is approvable or condemnable from the moral standpoint. Does this imply that, in such situations, our moral judgement is neither true nor false in a determinate way? The projectivist may handle this case by advising us to keep on doing what we often do, namely to argue about the undecidable moral judgement as if it would be either true or false, and not both. The principle of bivalence would still figure as part of the logic of moral discourse, although it would be justified as a regulative principle. 12 The above considerations show that ethical antirealism is not incompatible with the adoption of the principle of bivalence. The semantic definition of realism alleges that this principle is acceptable only by ethical realists. It seems, therefore, that the purely semantic approach to the debate over realism in ethics is wrong. In general, I would argue that the issue between ethical realists and their opponents is not whether some semantic or logical principle applies in moral discourse, but why it does so. In order to answer this question we need to take a closer look at the ontological and epistemological theses of the participants in the moral realism debate. 1.4 Ontology Whatever else it involves, realism is a claim about the reality of something. Ethical realism, at its minimum, is the claim that ethical qualities are real. The notion of 'reality' is part of the conceptual armour of ontological inquiry. Therefore, ethical realism is an ontological position. 12 Cf. Blackburn's discussion of the pragmatic considerations that may justify the adoption of the principle of bivalence in legal contexts-(1980): 23-27, (1984) sec. 6.4. The above paragraph provides a simple, intuitive way to understand realism in ethics. However, the very simplicity of the ontological definition might leave us unsatisfied, perhaps on the ground that it does not suffice to state that according to ethical realism ethical qualities are real: it should also be explained what it is for an ethical quality to be real. More accurately, we need an account of the reality of ethical qualities that would help us demarcate the doctrine of ethical realism from its rivals. A first way to clarify the claim that ethical qualities are real would be to present it as equivalent to the claim that these qualities exist. 13 The correspondent attack on the doctrine of ethical realism would be to argue that ethical qualities do not exist. 14 However, many contemporary antirealists do not dispute that, in a certain sense, ethical properties indeed exist. Therefore, the thesis that ethical properties or facts exist is not the distinguishing mark of the realist position. I shall support this claim by illustrating how prescriptivists and projectivists can argue for the existence of ethical properties without committing themselves to the ontological doctrine of ethical realism. Prescriptivists suggest that a moral property, like 'goodness' may be said to exist if it fulfils any of the following criteria: (i) we can meaningfully say of something that it is good; (ii) we can truly say of something that it is good; or (iii) 'goodness' can be referred to, i.e. it can take the subject-place in a true or false statement. 15 Prescriptivists accept (i) because they assert that judgements including ethical predicates are meaningful. They can also accept (ii) and (iii) because, as we saw earlier in this chapter, they can hold that the notion of truth is applicable in moral discourse. Therefore, prescriptivists can be happy to embrace the view that 13 Platts (1980a), Brink (1984), Dancy (1993) ch. 5. 14 Mackie (1977): 19. Note, however, that Mackie asserts that only objective values do not exist; cf. below sec. 2.2. 15 Hare (1985a): 41-43. The above considerations show that antirealists need not object to the claim that, in a certain sense, ethical properties exist. Therefore, the realist position in ethics has to involve something more than the claim that these properties exist. Dummett's account of realism seems to indicate what this 'more' could be. He claims that realism entails that the referents of statements in a given class exist independently of our knowledge of them. 19 This claim combines an ontological with an epistemological assertion. More precisely, it qualifies the ontological doctrine of the existence of certain things with an epistemological clause about the relation of those things to human knowledge. I call the latter clause 'epistemological' with some reservations, since it does not directly concern either the nature or the possibility of human knowledge. 20 However, I admit that it might be useful to think of this claim as epistemological for two reasons. From a systematic standpoint, the claim that certain objects exist independently of human knowledge reveals something of importance about the limits of human knowledge and, hence, about its nature. From a historical standpoint, the above claim is a product of the succession of ontology by epistemology in the throne of first philosophy. As we shall see in the next section the role of knowledge in a proper definition of realism was first underlined by one of the best epistemologists of all times. 1.5 Epistemology Declarations of independence from knowledge figure predominantly in the modern discussions of metaphysical realism. Kant was probably the first to define realism as the claim that the world 19 Dummett (1982): 230. 20 For an unreserved adoption of the label, as well as of the doctrine that it expresses, see Grayling (1992). exists independently of the cognitive aspects of human mind. 21 His approach has influenced the work of several philosophers who endorse realism in ethics. 22 It may be useful, therefore, to consider some of the elements of the Kantian theory that bear directly on the problem of the definition of realism in ethics. Kant asserts that we perceive objects as existing independently of our perception of them. He calls this position "empirical realism". 23 The question he set himself to answer is how we could justify this position. There are two ways to approach this issue. One is to adopt the doctrine of "transcendental realism" according to which space, time and the things that appear in them exist independently of our cognition. 24 The other is to adopt the doctrine of "transcendental idealism" according to which things appear necessarily in ways determined by the a priori categories of human mind. 25 Kant, of course, favours the latter of the above options. Transcendental idealism states that the objects of our perception are not things "in themselves" but things in their relation to "us and [to] our sensibility". 26 Kant calls things of the former type "noumena" and of the latter type "phenomena". 27 He asserts that 21 Kant (1781/87, henceforth KrV) A 439. 22 See, for instance, Nagel (1980), McDowell (1981b), Putnam (1987). In what follows I refer only to this school of ethical realism and, in particular, to the work of John McDowell and of his realist allies. See below, secs 3.4-3.6, for a discussion of the ontological doctrines of 'Cornell' realists, and Hatzimoysis (1993) for a critical account of their epistemological doctrines. 23 KrV A 369. 24 KrV A491/B519, A543/B571. 25 KrV A26/B42-A28/B44. 26 KrV A369. 27 KrV B307-309. the dependence of phenomena on our sensibility explains how human subjects may form representations of objects, that seem to correspond to real items in the world. According to Kant, the transcendental idealist's account of the objects of our perceptions explains and, in that sense, justifies the empirical realist's claim that we perceive phenomena as existing independently of us. 28 It might help our understanding of Kant's position if we consider it in the light of the distinction between ontological and phenomenological claims. Transcendental idealism is an ontological claim about how certain objects exist : it asserts that the objects of our experience exist only in relation to our cognitive apparatus. Empirical realism is a phenomenological claim about how we experience these objects: it states that we experience spatiotemporal objects as existing 'outside us', independently of our cognition. Contemporary ethical realists employ a revised version of the above Kantian distinction in claiming that we experience the world of natural and moral facts as existing independently of us. They argue also that this claim is best supported by the hypothesis that the realm of appearances is metaphysically dependent on human mind. However, they disagree with Kant on a crucial point: whereas Kant believed that the dependence of appearances on our conceptual apparatus entails some form of idealist ontology, most contemporary ethical realists contend that such a dependence deducts nothing from the reality of ethical properties or facts. I shall now reconstruct, in outline, the main argument offered in support of their contention. The distinction between reality and appearances can be drawn only from a human standpoint, by employing the tools offered by our language or 'conceptual scheme'. We can place an object on either side of this distinction only if we can talk or reflect about that object in a 28 An examination of Kant's arguments in support of this claim is, needless to say, beyond the scope of this introduction. I have discussed some of the methodological aspects of Kant's defence of transcendental idealism in (1991): 2-9. coherent, meaningful way. However noumena are, by definition, inaccessible by means of our conceptual apparatus. Hence, noumena cannot figure in either part of the reality-appearances distinction. Therefore, this ontological distinction concerns only the realm of phenomena or, in Kant's terms, the realm of things that exist dependently on us and our sensibility. Ethical qualities are dependent on the...

Critics argue that non-cognitivism cannot adequately account for the existence and nature of some thick moral concepts. They use the existence of thick concepts as a lever in an argument against non-cognitivism, here called the Thick Concept Argument (TCA). While TCA is frequently invoked, it is unfortunately rarely articulated. In this paper, TCA is first reconstructed on the basis of John McDowell’s formulation of the argument (from 1981), and then evaluated in the light of several possible non-cognitivist responses. In general, TCA assumes too much about what a non-cognitivist is (or must be) committed to. There are several non-cognitivist theories, and only some fit the view attacked by TCA. Furthermore, TCA rests on a contestable intuition about a thought experiment, here called the External Standpoint Experiment (ESE). It is concluded that TCA is remarkably weak, given how frequently the argument is invoked.
----------------------------------
Critical responses:
http://upenn.academia.edu/adamcroom/Papers/153199/Thick_Concepts_Non-Cognitivism_and_Wittgensteins_Rule-Following_Considerations
https://www.academia.edu/1537387/Thick_Ethical_Concepts_Still_Cannot_be_Disentangled_A_Critical_Response_to_Payne_Blomberg_and_Blackburn

Simon Blackburn has not shied away from the use of vivid imagery in developing, over a long and prolific career, a large-scale philosophical vision. Here one might think, for instance, of 'Practical Tortoise Raising' or 'Ramsey's Ladder' or 'Frege's Abyss'. Blackburn develops a 'quasi-realist' account of many of our philosophical and everyday commitments, both theoretical (e.g., modality and causation) and practical (e.g., moral judgement and normative reasons). Quasi-realism aims to provide a naturalistic treatment of its targeted phenomena while earning the right to deploy all of the 'trappings' of realism—i.e., while eschewing any idea that our normal thought and talk about such phenomena are pervasively in error. The quasi-realist project is that of explaining how (as Huw Price puts it here) 'the folk come to "talk the realist talk" without committing ourselves—us theorists, as it were—to "walking the metaphysical walk"' (p. 136). Quasi-realism, too, can speak of truth, facts, properties, belief, knowledge, and so on. The imagery in this collection also abounds, though, in capturing a different view of quasi-realism: No fewer than three of the contributors picture Blackburn as wanting to have his cake and eat it too (Louise Antony asking, in addition, 'Who doesn't? It's cake' [p. 19]).

This brief note critically assesses the central arguments in Morato’s (2014) recent contribution to the growing literature on contingent necessity-makers. In particular, I demonstrate that (i) neither of Morato’s two novel arguments against contingentism succeed, since both turn on false premises; and, (ii) Morato’s case for a radical ‘trans-world’ view about the nature of explanation in modal contexts is inconclusive at best.

The paper discusses supervenience theses, particular in relation to their use in metaethics. The paper argues that most formulations of moral supervenience are false, because they illicitly assume that moral properties cannot vary independently of variations within moral agents naturalistically described. The primary thesis of the paper, however, is that Simon Blackburn's much-discussed supervenience-based argument against moral realism rests upon a tangle of confusions concerning the nature of supervenience relations. Blackburn's argument is unsound, and no threat to moral realism.

What is at stake in the dispute between moral objectivism and subjectivism is how we are to give a rational grounding to ethical first principles or basic commitments. The search is for an explanation of what if anything makes any commitments good. Subjectivisms such as Blackburn's quasi-realism can give any set of commitments no ‘rational grounding’ in this sense except in considerations about internal consistency. But this is inadequate. Internal consistency is not sufficient for ethical rationality, since a set of obviously bad commitments could be internally consistent. Nor is it necessary, since a set of obviously good commitments could be internally inconsistent. I therefore argue for an objectivist view of the grounding of commitments, taking them to be attitudes which get their rationality, or lack of it, from their responsiveness to natural human needs and well-being. Since this view is objectivist, it avoids the problems which face subjectivism.

There has been a great deal of discussion in the recent philosophical literature of the relationship between the minimalist theory of truth and the expressivist metaethical theory. One group of philosophers contends that minimalism and expressivism are compatible, the other group contends that such theories are incompatible. Following Simon Blackburn (manuscript), I will call the former position ‘compatibilism’ and the latter position‘incompatiblism.’ Even those compatibilist philosophers who hold that there is no conflict or tension between these two theories—minimalism and expressivism—typically think that some revision of minimalism is required to accommodate expressivism. The claim that there is such an incompatibility, I will argue, is based on a misunderstanding of the historical roots of expressivism, the motivations behind the expressivist theory, and the essential commitments of expressivism. I will present an account of the expressivist theory that is clearly consistent with minimalism.

There is a mistake, a missing of dialectics in Simon Blackburn: the contrary of objectivism is not relativism. It is subjectivism, the singular and intimate view of each person. Relativism means the theory which sustains that the truth varies according to the societies, according to each social class and political, philosophical, cultural or religious group within the same society, the continents and the ages, the space and the time, but possesses objectivity.

This paper aims to investigate Allan Gibbard’s norm-expressivist account of normativity. In particular, the aim is to see whether Gibbard’s theory is able to account for the normativity of reason-claims. For this purpose, I first describe how I come to targeting Gibbard’s theory by setting out the main tenets of quasi-realism cum expressivism. After this, I provide a detailed interpretation of the relevant parts of Gibbard’s theory. I argue that the best reading of his account is the one that takes normativity to be carried by a controlled, coherent, comprehensive set of norms. Finally, I present a potential obstacle to Gibbard’s approach: the regress problem. The idea is to examine the structure of the non-cognitive state expressed and find it inadequate due to the possibility of an infinite regress in the justification of the norms whose acceptance it contains. I then end the paper with some concluding remarks.

The book will discuss and criticize the objections from Blackburn, Searle and Glock to Quine's arguments for the indeterminacy of translation, i.e., that these arguments result in a denial of first-person authority, as well as Hylton’s solution to these objections. The book argues that these objections, as well as Hylton's solution, all rely on a misconstrual of Quine, among other things, that there can be a distinction between meaning and translation for Quine. I will then offer a Strawsonian-Wittgensteinian account of first-person authority and show that this account can work within Quine’s naturalism.

Simon Blackburn confuses different levels, mixing genus with species of other genus, separating genus which mutually intersect. For example, quietism is not contrary to realism - in his last philosophical phase, Wittgenstein was realist and quietist - and can not be placed as it is (bellow realism) on the chart above. Realism belongs to the genus ontology and quietism belongs to the genus praxiology (this term means the discipline centred in action/ no action). Quietism is opposite to epistemological Mobilism.

It is time to stop invoking narcissism in the diagnosis of so many modern ills. Self love has its virtues Mar 22nd 2014 | From the print edition Mirror, Mirror: The Uses and Abuses of SelfLove. By Simon Blackburn. Princeton University Press; 209 pages; $24.95 and £16.95.