Two Orders of Things: Wittgenstein on Reasons and Causes (in: Philosophy) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Two Orders of Things: Wittgenstein on Reasons and Causes
This paper situates Wittgenstein in what is known as the causalism/anti-causalism debate in the philosophy of mind and action and reconstructs his arguments to the effect that reasons are not a species of causes. On the one hand, the paper aims to reinvigorate the question of what these arguments are by offering a historical sketch of the debate showing that Wittgenstein's arguments were overshadowed by those of the people he influenced, and that he came to be seen as an anti-causalist for reasons that are in large part extraneous to his thought. On the other hand, the paper aims to recover the arguments scattered in Wittgenstein's own writings by detailing and defending three lines of argument distinguishing reasons from causes. The paper concludes that Wittgenstein's arguments differ from those of his immediate successors; that he anticipates current anti-psychologistic trends; and that he is perhaps closer to Davidson than historical dialectics suggest.
Davidsonian Causalism and Wittgensteinian Anti-Causalism: A Rapprochement (in: Ergo)
Ergo, 2018
A longstanding debate in the philosophy of action opposes causalists to anti-causalists. Causalists claim the authority of Davidson, who offered powerful arguments to the effect that intentional explanations must be causal explanations. Anti-causalists claim the authority of Wittgenstein, who offered equally powerful arguments to the effect that reasons cannot be causes. My aim in this paper is to achieve a rapprochement between Davidsonian causalists and Wittgensteinian anti-causalists by showing how both sides can agree that reasons are not causes, but that intentional explanations are causal explanations. To this end, I first defuse Davidson's Challenge, an argument purporting to show that intentional explanations are best made sense of as being explanatory because reasons are causes. I argue that Wittgenstein furnishes anti-causalists with the means to resist this conclusion. I then argue that this leaves the Master Argument for the claim that intentional explanations are causal explanations, but that by distinguishing between a narrow and a wide conception of causal explanation, we can resolve the stalemate between Wittgensteinian anti-causalists impressed by the thought that reasons cannot be causes and Davidsonian causalists impressed by the thought that intentional explanations must be causal explanations.
Wittgenstein on the Chain of Reasons (in: Witt. Stud.)
Wittgenstein-Studien, 2016
In this paper, I examine Wittgenstein’s conception of reason and rationality through the lens of his conception of reasons. Central in this context, I argue, is the image of the chain, which informs not only his methodology in the form of the chain-method, but also his conception of reasons as linking up immediately, like the links of a chain. I first provide a general sketch of what reasons are on Wittgenstein’s view, arguing that giving reasons consists in making thought and action intelligible by delineating reasoning routes; that something is a reason not in virtue of some intrinsic property, but in virtue of its role; and that citing something as a reason characterises it in terms of the rational relations it stands in according to context-dependent norms. I then argue that on Wittgenstein’s view, we misconceive chains of reasons if we think of them on the model of chains of causes. Chains of reasons are necessarily finite, because they are anchored in and held in place by our reason-giving practices, and it is in virtue of their finitude that chains of reasons can guide, justify and explain. I argue that this liberates us from the expectation that one should be able to give reasons for everything, but that it limits the reach of reasons by tying them to particular reasoning-practices that they cannot themselves justify. I end by comparing and reconciling Wittgenstein’s dichotomy between chains of reasons and chains of causes with seemingly competing construals of the dichotomy, and I clarify its relation to the dichotomy between explanation and justification.
Wittgenstein on the Chain of Reasons
Wittgenstein-Studien, 2016
In this paper,¹ I examine Wittgenstein’s conception of reason and rationality through the lens of his conception of reasons. Central in this context, I argue, is the image of the chain, which informs not only his methodology in the form of the chain-method, but also his conception of reasons as linking up immediately, like the links of a chain. I first provide a general sketch of what reasons are on Wittgenstein’s view, arguing that giving reasons consists in making thought and action intelligible by delineating reasoning routes; that something is a reason not in virtue of some intrinsic property, but in virtue of its role; and that citing something as a reason characterises it in terms of the rational relations it stands in according to context-dependent norms. I then argue that on Wittgenstein’s view,we misconceive chains of reasons if we think of them on the model of chains of causes. Chains of reasons are necessarily finite, because they are anchored in and held in place by our ...
Reasons, Causes, Desires, and Dispositions
in: G. Schumann (ed.), Explanation in Action Theory and Historiography: Causal and Teleological Approaches, Routledge, 2019
Revisiting the Wittgenstein/Davidson debate on whether reason explanations are a type of causal explanations, and considering in particular John Hyman’s recent reassessment and attempt to defend a causalist account of desires (2015), I argue for the following claims. First, the deviant-causal-connection problem remains an insurmountable objection to causalism. Secondly, using words in their ordinary senses, intentions are not desires, nor are desires dispositions; but more importantly (granting for argument’s sake that intentions are desires of sorts, and desires are dispositions of sorts), dispositions are neither causes nor ‘causal factors’. Finally, Hyman’s reassessment of the debate leaves out what is most crucial in Wittgenstein’s view, namely the observation that statements of one’s own reasons for acting are covered by first-person authority.
2009
rated the primacy of Wittgenstein's methodological remarks while at the same time avoiding what some have seen as the rather all-tooresolute approach of the resolute reading. Even if Wittgenstein on Rules and Nature does raise many unanswered questions, Dromm puts forth a plausible source of consistency to a set of otherwise apparently contradictory remarks. This in itself is already an important achievement. If Dromm's own intension has been to remove a sort of intellectual tension produced by this inconsistency, if he has sought to put forth his own philosophical explanation, then he will have succeeded despite these remaining questions.
Wittgenstein on Causation and Induction
Final version forthcoming ind eds. H-J Glock & J Hyman, A Companion to Wittgenstein (Wiley-Blackwell)
which only the last revisits the material in the light of the New Wittgenstein debate. As we shall see, however, Wittgenstein's earlier treatment of causation and induction remains thought--provoking and relevant to contemporary debates in the philosophy of science.
Review of The New Wittgenstein-- Crary & Read Eds 403p (2000)(review revised 2019)
The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 2nd Edition Michael Starks, 2019
Ludwig Wittgenstein is the most famous philosopher of modern times but very few understand his pioneering work and there has been a collective amnesia regarding him in recent decades. Most of the essays are new but some date as far back as 1979 and whether they give a new view of his ideas depends on one’s understanding of what he said. For me, the interpretations are not new and mostly just as confused as nearly all the other commentary on W and on human behavior throughout the behavioral sciences and by the general public. As usual, nobody seems to grasp that philosophy is armchair psychology, and that W was (in my view) the greatest natural psychologist of all time. He laid out the general structure of how the mind works, which is often referred to as intentionality and is roughly equivalent to cognition or personality or thinking and willing or higher order thought (HOT). He can thus be regarded as a pioneer in evolutionary psychology, although hardly anyone but me seems to realize it. W was thus nearly 50 years ahead of his time as the first to reject (though not entirely consistently) the blank slate or cultural view of human nature, though this has gone unrecognized and he has generally been interpreted as supporting a communal consensus view of psychology—exactly the opposite of his overall thrust (e.g., see Short’s comment on p 115). I provide a table of intentionality for a current frame of reference from the two systems point of view before remarking on each of the essays. Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) ,The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019).