Comments for Grundlegung

Comment on Ethics and the Moral Law, Part II: Saint Paul by buikem

buikem — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 13:11:41 +0000

I love this.

Comment on Brandom’s Circular Semantics? by Caleb

Caleb — Tue, 03 May 2011 22:56:36 +0000

If I follow your objection, without something like the notion of perception which McDowell puts forward in Mind and World, objectivity in the sense of rational constraint on our claimings by the objects which those claimings are about, is impossible.

This seems to me correct. Brandom’s account of perception in MIE, can either be explicated in a fashion similar to McDowell in Mind and World or MIE’s account of perception is susceptible to the same criticisms which McDowell put forth when speaking of Quine and Davidson.

Brandom is able to avoid this because he speaks as if inferential practice is sufficient to confer conceptual content and objectivity independently of settling the issue concern rational constraint by objects and perception. But this truncated account is only sufficient to speak about some abstract areas of mathematics. And in these areas an account of objectivity does not need an account of the way in which perception provides reasons for belief by putting us in touch with the objects of which we speak.

Comment on Division Day by Amod Lele

Amod Lele — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 04:22:25 +0000

Alas! I had looked forward to hearing more from you here. I enjoyed your writing on the blog. But, needing to take a long break is entirely understandable. I do hope that you return to putting your thoughts on the Web when you are ready to do so, whether that’s in six months or 20 years.

Comment on Norms, Rationality and Communication by Back From The Dead « Deontologistics

Back From The Dead « Deontologistics — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 00:05:24 +0000

[...] else I’m guilty of (which Tom from grundlegung has called me out on before) is of equivocating between the deontic and the normative. The issue here is that although everyone [...]

Comment on Division Day by N. Pepperell

N. Pepperell — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:47:11 +0000

Hey! Sorry to be so late to comment (I haven’t been online in several weeks), but I wanted to say congratulations!!! Even though I’ve been very quiet online recently due to offline obligations, I’ve always enjoyed your blog, and I hope you do start blogging again elsewhere in the near future…

Comment on Division Day by duncan

duncan — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 05:01:10 +0000

Oh, that’s a shame Congratulations on finishing though – I hope the time to work in silence bears fruit…

Comment on Division Day by Chris

Chris — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 09:02:27 +0000

Well done for getting there! Hope you set up a new blog so that I can continue to track your work. Too many philosophers are abandoning normativity as a subject, and I feel there is still much work to do.

All the best!

Comment on Division Day by skholiast

skholiast — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 03:41:47 +0000

When I saw the new post I was excited. Then as I read, I felt an involuntary “Noooooooooo……!” rising up within me.

But I absolutely get the desire to shut up for a while. There’s a danger in setting oneself up for the pressure to produce, even in a purely voluntary medium.

Anyway, though I didn’t comment here, I have always appreciated your posts and your comments on other blogs, and I hope both that the blog will stay up, and that eventually you will be back.

And– congratulations, Dr. O’Shea. Will the thesis be available eventually?

Comment on Division Day by Dave M

Dave M — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 14:30:06 +0000

Congratulations on finishing! Please do return sometime (I’m not into Twitter …).

Comment on Richard Rorty by micheal-

micheal- — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:00:07 +0000

very cool perspective of the R-guy. I have similar feeling towards his work. One thing no one can deny though is how clear his prose was/is. No other philospher before or since was as amazingly clear and concise a writer as he…