Skip to main content

Again with the Four-Part Question

Susan Haack.JPG

Another candidate.

As some of you may remember, I've been wondering aloud for some time whether there are any prominent ethical/meta-ethical philosophers active today who fit each of four labels in those fields that seem to me to go together rather naturally.

Maybe Susan Haack would qualify. I recently reviewed a work of hers on the philosophy of the law of evidence, and in the process I expounded on her epistemology, "foundherentism." The idea is that learning about the world is like filling in a crossword puzzle. There is the foundational matter of satisfying the clues that come in from your senses (from outside the grid of the puzzle) and there is the coherentist matter of maintaining consistency within the grid, because of course the words cross each other.

What occurred to me only after my review was published was that it is in principle possible that certain crossword puzzles will have more than one perfectly correct answer.

Indeed, this is sometimes done. I remember that for the morning of election day, 1996, someone cleverly devised a puzzle that included the clue, "tomorrow's headline." The puzzle was so arranged that either "BobDoleWins" or "ClintonWins" could fit into that spot.   This required ambivalence as to each of seven crossing words.

For example, one clue for a crossing word asked for the name of an "animal associated with recent holiday." The recent holiday was Halloween. The animal could be either "cat" or "bat," consistent with one or the other of the two possible results of the as-yet-undecided election.

Anyway, the thing can be done. And THIS got me to thinking about what Haack might say about ethical pluralism.

As a reminder, I've asked before whether any contemporary philosophers adhere to the following four positions in ethics/meta-ethics:

1) cognitivist -- we do have knowledge of the good and the right;
2) intuitionist -- some components of this knowledge are both non-sensory and non-inferential (i.e. Moore's notion of the good);
3) teleological -- we infer the right rationally, learning its consequences for the good, but;
4) pluralist -- there may be more than one equally fundamental right. I have in mind Isaiah Berlin's thoughts on crooked timber, tragedy, etc.

Haack's image of a crossword puzzle seems consistent with this combination. Consider pluralism especially. There is no a priori reason to believe that there is only one way of completely filling out the pertinent crossword puzzle. We can get to Berlin's notion of the tragic side of life if we acknowledge 1 - 3, plus this founherentist indeterminacy.

UPDATE.

After I wrote this I decided to solicit Dr. Haack's opinion directly. she kindly replied. She does not meet this test. She is "probably" on board with cognitivism in ethics and a pluralism, but wouldn't sign on to (2) or (3).

She also writes, "please be aware that the crossword is only an analogy: the theory must stand on its own feet, and there are bound to be elements of disanalogy (e.g., sadly, no solution in tomorrow's paper!)"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...