Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 81, Issue 3, pp 613–627 | Cite as

Conceptual Instability and the New Epistemic Possibility

  • Raamy Majeed
Original Article

Abstract

We tend to think that our concepts are stable in the sense that, whilst their extensions may vary across distinct epistemic scenarios, the reference-fixing conditions by which we discover these extensions remain fixed. This paper challenges this orthodoxy. In particular, it aims to motivate the position that some concepts are unstable in that their reference-fixing conditions themselves vary across distinct epistemic scenarios. Furthermore, it aims to draw out the implications such instability has for epistemic possibility and apriority. I shall argue that when unstable concepts are concerned epistemic space will be widened, which in turn will restrict our a priori knowledge; and in ways that might be salient to solving certain familiar philosophical problems.

Keywords

Actual World Conditional Analysis Phenomenal Concept Epistemic Possibility Conceptual Stability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Sam Baron for comments on the draft.

References

  1. Alter, T. (2007). On the conditional analysis of phenomenal concepts. Philosophical Studies, 134, 235–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, J. P. (2013). Autism at 70—Redrawing the boundaries. New England Journal of Medicine, 369, 1089–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd, R. (1988). How to be a moral realist. In G. Sayre-McCord (Ed.), Moral realism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Braddon-Mitchell, D. (2003). Qualia and analytic conditionals. The Journal of Philosophy, 100, 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chalmers, D. (1996). The conscious mind. In search of a fundamental theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chalmers, D. (2004). The foundations of two-dimensional semantics. In M. Garcia-Caprintero & J. Macia (Eds.), Two-dimensional semantics: Foundations and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, D. (2009). The two-dimensional argument against materialism. Abridged version in B. McLaughlin (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the philosophy of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chalmers, D. (2006a). Two-dimensional semantics. In E. Lepore & B. Smith (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chalmers, D. (2006b). Perception and the fall from Eden. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 49–125). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chalmers, D. (2007). Phenomenal concepts and the explanatory gap. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge: New essays on consciousness and physicalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chalmers, D. (2011). The Nature of Epistemic Space. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Damnjanovic, N. (2012). Revelation and physicalism. Dialectica, 66(1), 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. First, M. B. (2012). The development of DSM-III from a historical/conceptual perspective. In K. S. Kendler & J. Parnas (Eds.), Philosophical issues in psychiatry II: Nosology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Frege, G. (1977). On concept and object. In Geach & Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege (pp. 31–52). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Haukioja, J. (2008). A defence of the conditional analysis of phenomenal concepts. Philosophical Studies, 139, 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawthorne, J. (2002). Advice for physicalists. Philosophical Studies, 108, 17–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal Qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defense of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Johnston, M. (1992). How to speak of the colours. Philosophical Studies, 68, 221–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kripke, S. (1972). Naming and necessity. In G. Harman & D. Davidson (Eds.), The semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted as Naming and necessity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (1980).Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, D. K. (1986). On the plurality of worlds. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. K. (1994). Reduction of mind. In S. Guttenplan (Ed.), Companion to the philosophy of mind. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, D. K. (1995). Should a materialist believe in qualia? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 73, 140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Majeed, R. (2014). A priori conditionals and the conceivability of zombies. Philosophical Papers, 43, 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Majeed, R. (Unpublished Manuscript). On the conditional analysis of concepts.Google Scholar
  27. Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia Ethica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Revised edition with “Preface to the second edition” and other papers, T. Baldwin (Ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1993).Google Scholar
  28. Nagel, T. (1974). What it is like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 4, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pereboom, D. (2011). Consciousness and the prospects of physicalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Putnam, H. (1975). ‘The meaning of meaning’, reprinted in his Mind, language and reality, philosophical papers (Vol. 2, pp. 215–271). NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sidgwick, H. (1907). The methods of ethics (7th ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Simchen, O. (2004). On the impossibility of nonactual epistemic possibilities. Journal of Philosophy, 101(10), 527–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smart, J. C. C. (1959). Sensations and brain processes. Philosophical Review, 68, 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stalnaker, R. (2002). What is it like to be a zombie? In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Conceivability and possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Stoljar, D. (2005). Physicalism and phenomenal concepts. Mind and Language, 20(2), 296–302.Google Scholar
  36. Stoljar, D. (2009). The argument from revelation. In D. Braddon-Mitchell & R. Nola (Eds.), Conceptual analysis and philosophical naturalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and in man. New York: The Century Company.Google Scholar
  38. Yetter-Chappell, H. (2013). Circularity in the conditional analysis of phenomenal concepts. Philosophical Studies, 165(2), 553–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations