Asian journal of philosophy最新文献

Mādhyamikas frequently claim that the emptiness of all dharmas follows from the fact that they originate. This claim is in some tension with Madhyamaka’s alleged thesislessness, a stance that seems to entail that there can be no master argument for emptiness—that Madhyamaka can only refute specific formulations of realism about dharmas and cannot offer a definitive refutation of all possible realist positions. It is thus worth investigating whether the argument from origination actually succeeds in establishing emptiness. A crucial part of the argument seeks to show that origination from distinct cause and conditions is incoherent. The argument typically deploys the three-times strategy, relying on the point that effect succeeds cause, and pointing out that the entity h that is alleged to bring about the origination of the entity in question p cannot be said to be a cause—to perform the function of originating—when p does not yet exist, nor when p does exist, and that there is no third time that is somehow intermediate between the two. I assess this and other arguments deployed by Candrakīrti in his defense of the view (MAv 6.103) that all things lack intrinsic nature. In doing so, I try to respond to Westerhoff’s recent criticisms of a regularity theory of causation, a conception meant to evade the difficulties of the ‘power’ conception of causes.

This paper examines the potential educational uses of chat-based large language models (LLMs), moving past initial hype and skepticism. Although LLM outputs often evoke fascination and resemble human writing, they are unpredictable and must be used with discernment. Several metaphors—like calculators, cars, and drunk tutors—highlight distinct models for student interactions with LLMs, which we explore in the paper. We suggest that LLMs hold a potential in students’ learning by fostering proleptic reasoning through scaffolding, i.e., presenting a technological accompaniment in anticipating and responding to potential objections to arguments. Here, the technical limitations of LLMs can be reframed as beneficial when fostering anticipatory reasoning. Whether their outputs are accurate or not, evaluating them stimulates learning. LLMs require students to critically engage, emphasizing analytical thinking over mere memorization. This interaction helps solidify knowledge. Additionally, we explore how engaging with LLMs can prepare students for constructive collective discussions and provide first steps in addressing epistemic injustices by highlighting potential research blind spots. Thus, while acknowledging the sociopolitical and ethical complexities of using LLMs in education, we suggest that when used in an informed way, they can promote critical thinking through anticipatory reasoning.

Under what conditions would an artificially intelligent system have wellbeing? Despite its clear bearing on the ethics of human interactions with artificial systems, this question has received little direct attention. Because all major theories of wellbeing hold that an individual’s welfare level is partially determined by their mental life, we begin by considering whether artificial systems have mental states. We show that a wide range of theories of mental states, when combined with leading theories of wellbeing, predict that certain existing artificial systems have wellbeing. Along the way, we argue that there are good reasons to believe that artificial systems can have wellbeing even if they are not phenomenally conscious. While we do not claim to demonstrate conclusively that AI systems have wellbeing, we argue that there is a significant probability that some AI systems have or will soon have wellbeing and that this should lead us to reassess our relationship with the intelligent systems we create.

Hinge epistemology is sometimes thought to have controversial relativist and non-evidentialist commitments. This paper develops and motivates an explicitly relativist and radically non-evidentialist version of hinge epistemology, following and combining aspects of Ashton’s (2019) defense of relativist hinge epistemology and Pritchard’s (2016) defense of a non-epistemic reading of hinge commitments. I argue that radical relativist hinge epistemology shares in a main attraction of hinge epistemology in general, namely, offering a dissolution of closure-based radical skeptical problems. I then motivate RR as a social hinge epistemology by showing that it is particularly well-suited for fruitful applications in topics such as deep disagreement, testimonial injustice, and hermeneutic injustice.

It has often been argued that we face a trade-off between accuracy and opacity in deep learning models. The idea is that we can only harness the accuracy of deep learning models by simultaneously accepting that the grounds for the models’ decision-making are epistemically opaque to us. In this paper, we ask the following question: what are the prospects of making deep learning models transparent without compromising on their accuracy? We argue that the answer to this question depends on which kind of opacity we have in mind. If we focus on the standard notion of opacity, which tracks the internal complexities of deep learning models, we argue that existing explainable AI (XAI) techniques show us that the prospects look relatively good. But, as it has recently been argued in the literature, there is another notion of opacity that concerns factors external to the model. We argue that there are at least two types of external opacity—link opacity and structure opacity—and that existing XAI techniques can to some extent help us reduce the former but not the latter.

This paper is a contribution to a symposium on Herman Cappelen’s 2023 book The Concept of Democracy: An Essay on Conceptual Amelioration and Abandonment. In that book, Cappelen develops a theory of abandonment—a theory of why and how to completely stop using particular linguistic expressions—and then uses that theory to argue for the general abandonment of the words “democracy” and “democratic”. In this paper, I critically discuss Cappelen’s arguments for the abandonment of “democracy” and “democratic” in political theory specifically.

Alan Richardson’s short book on the history and significance of logical empiricism not only illuminates the importance of logical empiricists’ projects, but also tells us something useful about the ways we choose to do philosophy in the first place. The book’s primary task is providing us with a critical re-evaluation of the legacy of logical empiricism; in doing so, it raises several important metaphilosophical questions. In this article, I will outline three such issues that I think Richardson’s piece brings out and consider some of their impacts on philosophical practice. First, there is the question of philosophical canons and how we teach the history of philosophy. A second related question is how we classify and understand philosophical positions and movements. And the last question I will discuss through logical empiricism is the extent to which we should and can view academic work as morally and politically neutral.

This paper critically engages with the arguments for the meaninglessness of ‘democracy’ and for abandoning use of that word, in Herman Cappelen’s book The Concept of Democracy. It explaining the distinctive nature of Cappelen’s style of argument for abandoning a word. It argues against Cappelen’s case for the meaninglessness of ‘democracy’ and its cognates. It explores an important unclarity in the sort of ethical thesis Cappelen wants to defend in this book. Finally, it suggests that Cappelen’s argument for abandoning ‘democracy’ retains some force despite the criticisms raised.

This paper argues that a wise person is an intellectually virtuous person. The intellectual virtue requirement is explained as a necessary condition for wisdom, intuitively the highest epistemic good. This provides an answer to Duncan Pritchard’s question as to the significance of the intellectual virtues for the epistemological project. In other words, the requirement explains why the intellectual virtues are central to the concerns of epistemology. The paper starts by providing an overview of intellectual virtue. An overview of recent analytic philosophical literature on wisdom is set out. This discussion leads to the claim that the wise person understands how to live well. The claim that intellectual virtues are required for understanding how to live well is then examined. The case is made that understanding how to live well in a modally robust way requires possession of the intellectual virtues.

In psychology, the principle of “Behaviorism” has a negative connotation. The ascription of the philosophical stance as “behaviorist” is usually nuanced with criticism, and those labeled behaviorists often deny it (For example, Gallagher says, “But then, a surprise! Barrett also wants to recruit the behaviorists, and specifically, B. F. Skinner. Is this “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” type of strategy? Can we maintain peace within our own ranks if we mix phenomenologist with behaviorists?” (Gallagher, Philosophical Studies, 176(3), 839-851, 2019 p. 841)). However, some recent re-evaluations have rescued Behaviorism by indicating that these arguments were based on a caricatured view. This study further argues a point of agreement in their fundamental concept of “behavior” and “action,” leading to a more productive relationship, in three steps. First, it starts with an overview of the development of Behaviorism. This step identifies that the concept of “behavior” in the sense of contemporary Behaviorism has interactive properties between an agent and the environment instead of mere physical movements, which can be summarized in two key features: modern Behaviorism understands behavior (1) in relation to subsequent events and (2) as inseparable from mental phenomena, which is discussed in usual cognitive science; it also understands mental phenomena as something observable in behaviors (Sect. 1). Next, we demonstrate that some of the distorted criticism of Behaviorism arises due to a lack of understanding of behavior (Sect. 2). It is revealed that the characterization as Behaviorism per se should be value-neutral once the behavior concept is accurately articulated. Finally, Sects. 3 and 4 shed light on the approach taken by enactivists in their treatment of actions, aligning them with the concept of behavior. It will be contended that these theories exhibit the presence of two characteristics previously outlined within Behaviorism.