Affiliation:
1. The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, School of Philosophy, Linguistics and Science Studies , Tel Aviv University , Israel
Abstract
Abstract
Robert Brandom’s notion of historical rationality seeks to supplement his inferentialism thesis by providing an account for the validity of conceptual contents. This account, in the shape of a historical process, involves the same self-integration of Brandom’s earlier inferentialism and is similarly restricted by reciprocal recognition of others. This article argues that in applying the synchronic social model of normative discourse to the diachronic axis of engaging the past, Brandom premises a false analogy between present community and past tradition, which obscures the important differences between the two axes. This is explored by looking closely at how Brandom’s own engagements with the past exemplify his historical rationality. Taking its cue from Brandom’s critics, the article shows that Brandom’s own discourse with tradition is not, and cannot be, dialogical and, in accordance, that historical rationality is not, and cannot be, governed by the same social structure of inferentialism. The article concludes with the implications of such a claim on Brandom’s thesis as a whole and on the role of tradition in the process of normative change, in light of it.
Reference33 articles.
1. Baynes, Kenneth. “‘Gadamerian Platitudes’ and Rational Interpretations.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 33:1 (2007), 67–82.
2. Beaney, Michael. “Two Dogmas of Analytic Historiography.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28:3 (2020), 594–614.
3. Bennet, Jonathan. Learning from Six Philosophers: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume. New York: Clarendon Press, 2001.
4. Brandom, Robert B. Making It Explicit. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
5. Brandom, Robert B. Articulating Reasons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献