Advertisement

Mente Divina

  • Gerald K. Harrison
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion book series (PFPR)

Abstract

Our faculties of reason are not faculties of perception. They are best characterized as kinds of instruction manual on reality that provide us, via rational intuitions, with indirect information about what Reason favours us doing and being. As normative reasons exist indubitably, and as we are indubitably normatively aware, it follows that Reason exists and is the author of our instruction manuals. Given we are almost inescapably bound to consult our faculties of reason, Reason has considerable influence over us and thereby qualifies as some kind of a god or divine mind. To avoid the temptation to bloat my conclusion and attribute to Reason qualities that my arguments have not licensed, I adopt Samuel Johnson’s term and refer to her as a mente divina and the theory as divine psychologism.

References

  1. Audi, R. (2004). The good in the right. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ayer, A. J. (1968). I think, therefore I am. In W. Doney (Ed.), Descartes (pp. 80–87). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bealer, G. (1999). ‘A Theory of the a Priori.’ in Philosophical Perspectives 13: Episteology, edited by James Tomberlin. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Berkeley, G. (1965). Principles, dialogues, and correspondence. New York, NY: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.Google Scholar
  5. Coons, C. (2011). How to prove that some acts are wrong (without using substantive moral premises). Philosophical Studies, 155(1), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cullison, A. (2010). Moral perception. European Journal of Philosophy, 18(2), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darwall, S. (1983). Impartial reason. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Darwin, C. (1879/2004). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London, UK: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  9. Descartes, R. (1641/2006). Meditations, objections, and replies. Cambridge, MA: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  10. Finlay, S. (2010). Recent work on normativity. Analysis, 70(2), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fumerton, R. A. (1990). Reason and morality: A defense of the egocentric perspective. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Huemer, M. (2005). Ethical intuitionism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kahane, G. (2011). Evolutionary debunking arguments. Nous, 43(1), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McGrath, S. (2004). Moral knowledge by perception. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nozick, R. (1993). The nature of rationality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Parfit, D. (2011). On what matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127(1), 109–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald K. Harrison
    • 1
  1. 1.Massey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations