Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Philosopher's Digest

Don't forget to get your reviews in to Philosopher's Digest. Don't forget to check Philosopher's Digest for reviews. I've just written a review of Mikkel Gerken's forthcoming article, "Warrant and Action" (found here). It might take a while to post, but I thought I'd send out the reminder for authors and readers.

5 comments:

mikkel gerken said...

Dear Clayton (if I may (and Prof. Littlejohn, if I may not)),

Thanks for reviewing my piece! As someone straight outta grad school, I’m happy that my stuff is read ‘n reviewed. I look forward to read what you think once the review is up on PD.

Best,
Mikkel

Clayton said...

Hey Mikkel,

It's a great paper. I think that you pretty effectively undermine the positive case offered for the Knowledge-Action Principle and the Gettier case examples you offer show that we need less than knowledge to treat something as a reason for action.

My only complaints had to do with the discussion of excuses. I still think that the K-team can appeal to excuses to try to deal with your objections. I think you're right that there's something fishy going on if they say that in Gettier cases it's an excusable wrong to treat something as a reason for action, but I think it's less fishy in the false belief case.

mikkel gerken said...

I agree that my arguments leave room to develop an excuse maneuver. My aims were mainly to show that there a viable alternative and to argue that knowledge first theorists owe an adequate account of excuses. Hopefully your review will help drawing attention to the issue.

It looks like the two of us have a disagreement as to whether there is a relevant asymmetry between Gettier-style cases and false warranted belief cases. I just skimmed your J. Phil. paper (that I was unaware of when I wrote W&A). So, I think I can see why you are attracted to such an asymmetry.

I think there is a lot to be said against the bifurcated justification + truth view that you hold. I’d like to write something up on it. If I find time to do so, I’ll email you.

Cheers,
Mikkel

PS: The link in your post appears to be broken.
PPS: Although it only refers, I dig the name of your blog.

Clayton said...

Hey Mikkel,

I think that the warrant account is more than a viable alternative, it's the right alternative. It's just that I think that truth gets folded into justification/warrant/permission, etc... At any rate, if you find the time I would love to exchange work and discuss this stuff. It's certainly something I have an enduring interest in and maybe I can convince you that a version of the excuse maneuver saves the truth requirement. Not that I'm holding my breath on that one.

I'll try to fix the link.

Best,

C

mikkel gerken said...

Hey Clayton,

I’m in the midst of something else these days and I have a bunch of talks coming up. So, it’ll be few months, at least, before I get back to these issues. But I’ll email you once I’ve got something worth reading. Feel free to do likewise!

Meanwhile, I look forward to read your review (as you predicted, the wheels of the DP site are grinding slowly).

Cheers,
Mikkel