Inicio forosgaleriabuscarcontactanos
Urbano Peru
FAQFAQ   BuscarBuscar   MiembrosMiembros   Grupos de UsuariosGrupos de Usuarios   RegistrarseRegistrarse 
 PerfilPerfil   Entre para ver sus mensajes privadosEntre para ver sus mensajes privados   LoginLogin 

Novedades de Philosophic papers

 
Publicar nuevo tema   Responder al tema    Foros de discusión -> Novedades, Eventos culturales, Normas Legales
Ver tema anterior :: Ver tema siguiente  
Autor Mensaje
percy



Registrado: 19 May 2006
Mensajes: 308
Ubicación: Lima - Perú

MensajePublicado: Lun Nov 14, 2011 6:47 pm    Asunto: Novedades de Philosophic papers Responder citando

Les envio los ultimos reportes de PhilPapers

Nov 14th 2011 GMT

DIRECT SUBMISSION
Brian Ribeiro (2011). Epistemic Akrasia. International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 1:18-25. (Direct link)
Though it seems rather surprising in retrospect, until about twenty-five years ago no philosopher in the Western tradition had explicitly formulated the question whether there could be an epistemic analogue to practical akrasia. Also surprisingly, despite the prima facie analogue with practical akrasia (the possibility of which is not much disputed), much of the recent work on this question has defended the rather bold view that epistemic akrasia is impossible. While the arguments purporting to show the impossibility of epistemic akrasia have been criticized by some, I propose instead to make a head-on attack and defend the substantive view that epistemic akrasia is possible — indeed, actual. This leaves for another day the project of diagnosing exactly where the arguments for the impossibility of epistemic akrasia go wrong. Here, I content myself with trying to show that they must go wrong, since — as I will argue — epistemic akrasia is possible.

DIRECT SUBMISSION
Brian Ribeiro (2011). Philosophy and Disagreement. Crítica 43:3-25. (Direct link)
Disagreement as we find it in both the history and the contemporary practice of philosophy is an inadequately understood phenomenon. In this paper I outline and motivate the problem of disagreement, arguing that "hard cases" of disagreement confront us with an unresolved, and seemingly unresolvable, challenge to the rationality of philosophical discourse, thereby raising the specter of a worrisome form of metaphilosophical skepticism. A variety of responses and attempted evasions are considered, though none are found to be particularly satisfying: Thus, the specter remains unexorcised.

Benjamin Powell & Matt Zwolinski (forthcoming). The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Business Ethics:-. (Direct link)
During the last decade, scholarly criticism of sweatshops has grown increasingly sophisticated. This article reviews the new moral and economic foundations of these criticisms and argues that they are flawed. It seeks to advance the debate over sweatshops by noting the extent to which the case for sweatshops does, and does not, depend on the existence of competitive markets. It attempts to more carefully distinguish between different ways in which various parties might seek to modify sweatshop behavior, and to point out that there is more room for consensus regarding some of these methods than has previously been recognized. It addresses the question of when sweatshops are justified in violating local labor laws. And it assesses the relevance of recent literature on coercion and exploitation as it applies to sweatshop labor. It concludes with a list of challenges that critics of sweatshops must meet to productively advance the debate.

Nov 13th 2011 GMT

DIRECT SUBMISSION
Simon Caney (2011). Humanity, Associations and Global Justice: A Defence of Humanity-Centred Cosmopolitan Egalitarianism. The Monist 94 (4):506-534. (Direct link)
This paper defends an egalitarian conception of global justice against two kinds of criticism. Many who defend egalitarian principles of justice do so on the basis that all humans are part of a common 'association' of some kind. In this paper I defend the humanity-centred approach which holds that persons should be included within the scope of distributive justice simply because they are fellow human beings. The paper has four substantive sections - the first addresses Andrea Sangiovanni's reciprocity-based argument for the claim that egalitarian principles apply only within the state. The second responds to Michael Blake's coercion-based argument for the thesis that egalitarian principles apply only within the state. A third section draws attention to a general problem with associational accounts of distributive justice. Finally, I seek to show how a humanity-centred cosmopolitanism can accommodate the insights associated with an associational approach.

Kim Q. Hall (2011). “Not Much to Praise in Such Seeking and Finding”: Evolutionary Psychology, the Biological Turn in the Humanities, and the Epistemology of Ignorance. Hypatia 26 (4):n/a-n/a. (Direct link)
This paper critiques the rise of scientific approaches to central questions in the humanities, specifically questions about human nature, ethics, identity, and experience. In particular, I look at how an increasing number of philosophers are turning to evolutionary psychology and neuroscience as sources of answers to philosophical problems. This approach constitutes what I term a biological turn in the humanities. I argue that the biological turn, especially its reliance on evolutionary psychology, is best understood as an epistemology of ignorance that contributes to a climate of hostility and intolerance regarding feminist insights about gender, identity, and the body.

Nov 12th 2011 GMT

Timo Airaksinen (2011). Great Books, Bad Arguments: Republic, Leviathan and The Communist Manifesto. Hobbes Studies 24 (2):192-195. (Direct link)

Richard L. Lippke (forthcoming). Susan Easton: Prisoners' Rights: Principles and Practice. Criminal Law and Philosophy:-. (Direct link)
Susan Easton: Prisoners’ Rights: Principles and Practice Content Type Journal Article Category Book Review Pages 1-3 DOI 10.1007/s11572-011-9132-y Authors Richard L. Lippke, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA Journal Criminal Law and Philosophy Online ISSN 1871-9805 Print ISSN 1871-9791.

Nov 11th 2011 GMT

DIRECT SUBMISSION
Benjamin McMyler (2011). Testimony, Trust, and Authority. Oxford University Press. (Direct link | £34.00 new £38.92 used Amazon page)
In Testimony, Trust, and Authority, Benjamin McMyler argues that philosophers have failed to appreciate the nature and significance of our epistemic dependence ...

Danielle Costa Leite Borges (2011). European Health Systems and the Internal Market: Reshaping Ideology? Health Care Analysis 19 (4):365-387. (Direct link)
Departing from theories of distributive justice and their relation with the distribution of health care within society, especially egalitarianism and libertarianism, this paper aims at demonstrating that the approach taken by the European Court of Justice regarding the application of the Internal Market principles (or the market freedoms) to the field of health care services has introduced new values which are more concerned with a libertarian view of health care. Moreover, the paper also addresses the question of how these new values introduced by the Court may affect common principles of European health systems, such as equity and accessibility.

Nov 10th 2011 GMT

Peter Vallentyne (2011). Enforcement Rights Against Non-Culpable Non-Just Intrusion. Ratio 24 (4):422-442. (Direct link)
I articulate and defend a principle governing enforcement rights in response to a non-culpable non-just rights-intrusion (e.g., wrongful bodily attack by someone who falsely, but with full epistemic justification, believes that he is acting permissibly). The account requires that the use of force reduce the harm from such intrusions and is sensitive to the extent to which the intruder is agent-responsible for imposing intrusion-harm.

Youngjae Lee (forthcoming). Punishing Disloyalty? Treason, Espionage, and the Transgression of Political Boundaries. Law and Philosophy:-. (Direct link)
This Article examines the idea of betraying or being disloyal to one’s own country as a matter of criminal law. First, the Article defines crimes of disloyalty as involving failures to prioritize one’s own country’s interests through participating in efforts to directly undermine core institutional resources the country requires to protect itself or otherwise advance its interests by force. Second, this Article canvasses various potential arguments for the existence of a duty not to be disloyal to one’s own country and argues that they fail. Finally, this Article argues that we should interpret the wrong of disloyalty crimes as involving not betrayal or infidelity, but transgression of political boundaries. That is, the relevant wrong here is rooted in the ideas of separation of powers and assignments of roles between citizens and the state, and we should thus conceive crimes of disloyalty as crimes of usurpation and evaluate the moral rights and wrongs of such crimes accordingly.

Jay Newhard (forthcoming). The Argument From Skepticism for Contextualism. Philosophia:-. (Direct link)
Epistemic contextualism was originally motivated and supported by the response it provides to skeptical paradox. Although there has been much discussion of the contextualist response to skeptical paradox, not much attention has been paid to the argument from skepticism for contextualism. Contextualists argue that contextualism accounts for the plausibility and apparent inconsistency of a set of paradoxical claims better than any classical invariantist theory. In this paper I focus on and carefully examine the argument from skepticism for contextualism. I argue not only that the prima facie advantage of contextualism is specious, but also that contextualism is in fact at a competitive disadvantage with respect to two classical invariantist views. I also argue that contextualism takes an arbitrary and unsatisfying strategy in its response to skepticism. That contextualism is alone in taking this arbitrary strategy marks a second competitive disadvantage for it. In addition, I argue that the contextualist response to skeptical paradox regenerates a skeptical paradox which contextualism is powerless to solve. Consequently, the argument from skepticism for contextualism fails. Furthermore, this feature of the contextualist response to skeptical paradox completely undermines the motivation and support for contextualism deriving from its treatment of skeptical paradox. I conclude that the argument from skepticism for contextualism fails, and that the contextualist response to skeptical paradox fails to motivate contextualism, pending the success of another argument for the contextualist thesis.

Nov 9th 2011 GMT

Gaile Pohlhaus (2011). Relational Knowing and Epistemic Injustice: Toward a Theory of Willful Hermeneutical Ignorance. Hypatia 26 (4):n/a-n/a. (Direct link)
I distinguish between two senses in which feminists have argued that the knower is social: 1. situated or socially positioned and 2. interdependent. I argue that these two aspects of the knower work in cooperation with each other in a way that can produce willful hermeneutical ignorance, a type of epistemic injustice absent from Miranda Fricker's Epistemic Injustice. Analyzing the limitations of Fricker's analysis of the trial of Tom Robinson in Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird with attention to the way in which situatedness and interdependence work in tandem, I develop an understanding of willful hermeneutical ignorance, which occurs when dominantly situated knowers refuse to acknowledge epistemic tools developed from the experienced world of those situated marginally. Such refusals allow dominantly situated knowers to misunderstand, misinterpret, and/or ignore whole parts of the world.

_________________
Percy Acuña Vigil
Urbano Perú
Volver arriba
Ver perfil de usuario Enviar mensaje privado Enviar email Visitar sitio web del autor
Mostrar mensajes de anteriores:   
Publicar nuevo tema   Responder al tema    Foros de discusión -> Novedades, Eventos culturales, Normas Legales Todas las horas son GMT - 5 Horas
Página 1 de 1

 
Cambiar a:  
Puede publicar nuevos temas en este foro
No puede responder a temas en este foro
No puede editar sus mensajes en este foro
No puede borrar sus mensajes en este foro
No puede votar en encuestas en este foro
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum