Harman’s argument that logic has no special normative role in reasoning

 

The belief that logic should have a normative role is one that has received considerable challenges from a number of influential individuals. Among the most prominent of these is Gilbert Harman, who suggests that the idea that logic has a normative role is one that is essentially based on confusion. This is especially the case considering that the challenge that Harman makes is one that is rooted on the belief that individuals are capable of advancing situations where they are unable to effectively determine their stance and believe that they are correct despite the fact that they might actually have come to the wrong conclusions. Harman proposes that there is a need to consider that individuals tend to operate in a way that when it comes to considering the normative role of logic, they essentially bring together two very different aspects. These aspects tend to be quite apart and this promotes a situation where there is need to make sure that there is the development of a scenario that promotes the expansion of knowledge concerning logic. The two aspects that Harman concentrates on, namely logic and its connection to the theory of reasoning, are based on the formulation of the theory of deductive logic, and that of the theory of reasoning, both of which will be discussed in this paper.

One of the most significant arguments that can be made concerning Harman’s stance is that he essentially professes the idea that there is a difference between the logical notion of implication and the way that it can be inferred methodically. This is to such an extent that when implication and inference are viewed as separate notions, it brings about a situation where there is need to consider the naivety of these notions (Harman, 1984). This is especially considering that there are instances where individuals, rather than considering the differences between these aspects of logic, end up in situations where there is little that can be done to bring about an accurate an understanding of ideas. There are instances where inferences tend to be promoted as logic and this creates a scenario where logic ends up being looked at in a confused manner. If valid implications are not the primary norms that can be sued in the case of inference, it leads to a failure in the provision of rational norms that can be used for the development of inferences. Instead, there is an attempt to make sure that there is the revision of those canons that make up logic. Therefore, it is necessary to make sure that there are attempts aimed at bringing about the advancement of means through which there can be the separation of logical notions such as implication and inferences.

The values of this separation cannot be underestimated and it has to be conducted in a way that puts into consideration the need to show the considerable aspects such as the nature of logic or the role that it can play when it is considered normatively. Harman essentially advances the idea that it is necessary for individuals to explain the various aspects of logic, because merely stating something as being logical does not necessarily means that it should be believed (Harman, 2009). Moreover, there is need to consider that just because an idea is logical does not mean that logic is an essential aspect of reasoning and that there are instances where reasoning can take place without the need for reason. There is the advancement of the need to ensure the idea that reasoning is a more important aspect of human interaction than logic because it is through the former that the latter comes about. Thus, logic is not as relevant to reasoning as is usually assumed because under such circumstances, it becomes necessary to make sure that there is the promotion of the idea that logic is an essential aspect of the reasoning process. However, because reasoning is an entirely independent process, logic can be considered to be a means through which individuals seek to make sense of the world around them.

Additionally, a theory of reasoning is one that can be seen as a normative narrative concerning the way that individuals often undertake to make sure that there is the formulation, revision, and maintenance of their beliefs. This is especially the case when it comes to the development of an understanding of the way that individuals end up deciding which of their actions are right or wrong. Furthermore, the aim of this theory is to make sure that there is the formulation of general guidelines concerning the mental actions that they need to perform in order to bring about the best results under certain circumstances, and which beliefs that they can be able to adopt or leave behind, depending of the situation in which they find themselves. This theory is therefore one that essentially promotes the development of an understanding of the dynamic events and processes, which can be considered to be able to constitute reason from a psychological level. Harman contrasts this situation with one where the individual is faced with the idea that logic has to do with those non-psychological aspects which have an impact on the way that they make decisions concerning what to believe. A consequence of this situation is that logical rules might not be influential in the way that beliefs or any other form of reasoning come about. Instead, reasoning comes about on its own accord, meaning that individuals have to make sure that there is the advancement of the disassociation between logic and reasoning. The establishment of this way of thinking can help in bringing about a greater understanding of the workings of the mind because there will be a proper separation between the aspects of logic and reasoning that end up leading to a lot of confusion. The confusion comes about because logic and reasoning are often interchanged despite these aspects of the mind being completely different from one another.

Once this confusion has been removed from the way that individuals think, it becomes possible to make sure that there is the recognition of the inability of the distance between logic and reasoning to be bridged (MacFarlane, 2004). This way of Harman’s reasoning might be challenged through the way that he sets up the case that he makes use of to justify his proposal. An argument can be made that there is actually no confusion between the theory of reasoning and the identification of deductive logic. Instead, logic essentially has an important normative role to play when it comes to reasoning, and any consideration of confusion between these aspects is essentially quite narrow. A result is that the proponents of the manner through which belief revision take place may feel that Harman’s argument is based on a failure to consider that there are actually more sophisticated logical tools that can be used to bring about a connection between logic and reasoning. These logical tools can actually put into consideration the fact that individuals tend to have beliefs which are essential to their way of thinking. The different mental states of individuals shows that logic has a powerful normative role in reasoning and this is because individuals tend to have different ways of thinking. Thus, what one individual might consider to be logical might not be the case with another. However, despite these differences, logic still remains a prominent aspect of reasoning because it ensures that there is the advancement of ideas that individuals make use of to better understand the world around them and adapt to it. Harman’s argument is one that promotes a situation where logic and reasoning are not connected, but this fails to consider that logic plays a very important role in the mental states of individuals. Thus, when individuals operate within a scenario where they go out of the norm, they are considered to be reasoning illogically, and there are questions concerning their mental state.

There are also instances where there is an attempt to capture the various characters of reasoning where beliefs are not only accumulated, but are also susceptible to revision. Harman’s stance under such a circumstance is that these formalisms essentially rely heavily on assumptions that are mistaken concerning the normative role that logic has to play (Steinberger, 2017). In addition, he promotes the idea that there are instances where their assumptions might fall short in other ways; a sign that he considers logic and reason not to belong together, but are rather separate entities which have to be treated as such because they cannot be bridged. Thus, even when one does not agree with Harman, he raises a very pertinent point because the formal models that are made use of in the formation and revision of beliefs tend to forestall the need to ensure that there is a consideration of the normativity of logic through its being provided a philosophical account. The enforcement of the normative role of logic tends to rely too heavily on assumptions that are not grounded on solid reasoning. Instead, these assumptions end up leading to a situation where there is a reduction in the capability of individuals to come to terms with the differences between logic and the role that it plays in reasoning. The normative role of logic is one that can be better understood under circumstances where there is the reduction of assumptions concerning it, but rather the development of a situation where there is the creation of a situation where it becomes possible to look at it without the veneer of presuppositions that have come to surround it. The achievement of this goal could go a long way towards proving Harman’s stance that the normative role of logic is based on assumptions that cannot be verified and have to be considered to be a part from reasoning.

It is essential to note that in some other aspects, some philosophers can end up questioning the manner through which Harman develops his concept of the theory of reasoning. This is because Harman is of the belief that the goal of epistemology is to ensure that it has a close relationship with his concept of the theory of logical thinking            . Under such circumstances, it becomes essential to make sure that there si the creation of a situation where there is a view of justification that is viewed from the first person point of view. The general conservatism, in this case, is one that offers a principle that can be made use of to ensure that a person is given advice that he can accept. This assumption promotes the idea that there is the need to put into consideration the needs of the individual, and the way that they think in order to come up with an idea concerning their use of logic. It is a direct challenge to Harman’s way of thinking because he works on the assumption that logic and reasoning are not connected and have to be viewed differently. Individuals think very differently from one another and because of this, they make use of a diversity of logics which can be considered essential in the advancement of their reasoning capacity. That Harman promotes the idea of general conservatism in his argument for the theory of reasoning can be challenged because it involves a failure to consider the connection between independent and interrelated thoughts that individuals tend to have. Individuals are not only influenced by the way that they reason at a personal level, they are also influenced by their own societies, and this in such a way that they end up displaying a capacity of thought and the use of logic that is independent of the assumptions that Harman suggests.

The approach made by Harman is one that, despite the epistemic advice, is primarily aimed at making sure that there is a highlighting of the necessary and sufficient conditions that can help in providing a level of epistemic justification. Harman’s skepticism is essentially based on some concepts of logic and the methodology that is used using the epistemological approach, which can be put to question. A result of this situation is that Harman ends up creating arguments concerning the manner through which the concept of logic can be applied from the epistemological point of view. He makes an analysis of the way that individuals in society tend to develop very different understandings concerning the way that logic works. He is a proponent of the concept of intentionalism, and this is based on his belief that there is not phenomenal difference between experiential states without there being a difference that is intentional. Because of these circumstances, it becomes essential to make sure that Harman’s concept is understood individually and this is in such a way that they are viewed through their representational or intentional character. The perceptual experience is one that should not be considered to be individuated through its qualitative character, but should be considered through the way that it is sustained through the experience that has occurred. It therefore becomes necessary to make sure that there is the advancement of the idea that the experiential state is one that is representational in character and this is in such a way that ensures that there is a better understanding of the way that the experiences of individuals end up affecting the way that they think. The transparency of the experience is what brings about its perceptual character because the latter is not individuated. The result is that meditation does not seem to show the true nature of experiences, and only shows their external characteristics.

Harman’s assumptions concerning the nature of deductive logic and epistemology can be supported through its further development. This process is one that seeks to promote a situation where there is an attempt to show the manner through which there is a regulatory relationship between these two concepts. The conclusion made by Harman that the theories of logic and deductive reasoning are different means that there is a regulatory link between them and this is in such a way that promotes a connection between them. Therefore, it is essential to promote the idea that theoretical reasoning is aimed at making sure that there is the an accurate description of the world. This is because there is the development of an accurate representation of the world in a manner that makes use of as much knowledge as possible. There is also a conscious attempt to make sure that there is an avoidance of the use of falsehoods in reasoning out the world. These circumstances make it essential to make sure that there is the creation of a logical connection between the various states that make up the theory of reasoning.

The knowledge of the logical relationships between these states ensures that there is the promotion of theoretical thinking. This is especially the case when it comes to the logical concepts of coherence, which ends up seeming to be relevant. If an individual really believes in something, the truth of that faith ends up changing to its logical consequences. If that faith is not true, there the logical conclusion of such a situation is that it cannot be true. Moreover, in a situation where the set of proposals that an individual believes in are contradictory, these proposals end up not presenting an accurate explanation of the world, because at least one of those beliefs has to be wrong. Harman’s skepticism is one that questions the role that logic can play in in argumentation. It shows that the principles of logic tend to be related to a manner of thought that does not follow the same principles as that of other sciences.

In conclusion, since Harman makes an identification of the diverse problems that occur in the naïve view of the world according to the classic logic which provides an infallible norm for reasoning. The connection that has been made traditionally between logic and reason is quite pertinent because it ensures that there is a better understanding between the assumptions that have been made and their realities. Under such circumstances, any attempt to make a formulation of a principle that connects the logical principles with the rules that govern reasoning ends up being considered pointless because it becomes necessary to create solutions to problems as preventing inconsistencies. Therefore, the pertinence of Harman’s argument that logic has no special normative role in reasoning is one that has to be considered essential for the advancement of a better understanding of the concept of logic.

Germany Reborn by Herman Goering (review)

 

The book Germany Reborn by Hermann Goering is one that seeks to provide an insight into the workings of Nazi Germany. Its main target is the foreign audience, especially those that seem to be critical of the way that the new German government is handling matters in the country. It is important to note that this book is pertinent and it can be a partially useful source because it provides an insight into the manner through which the Nazi Party has essentially transformed the German society into one that is more desirable than during the Weimar Republic.

One of the major features of this book is that it addresses the rise of the Nazi Party and its coming to power in Germany. Goering goes into detail concerning the reasons behind the formation of the party and the manner through which Adolf Hitler was able to rise swiftly within its ranks to become its leader (Goering, 1934). It further undertakes to make sure that there is the promotion of a scenario where there is a discussion of the manner through which the party came to power, for which, despite its being unconventional and perhaps even through the threat of violence, Goering is unapologetic.

Moreover, Goering considers the massive economic and social progress that has been made since the beginning of Nazi rule. He notes that in the months since the coming to power of the Nazi Party, unemployment has not only been halved, but there has also been the effective planning of infrastructure projects that will soon be taking place. Furthermore, there has been the development of a situation where the punishing premium rates by insurance companies have been reduced and the cost of land has been stabilized through the intervention of government.

Goering also addresses the role of the police in the book. He takes credit for the creation of the secret police or the Gestapo, considering it a powerful tool to not only prevent dissent against the state, but also any subversive activities that might be undertaken by anarchists and communists. This shows the manner through which Goering, and the Nazi Party, look upon communists as a direct threat to society that needs to be destroyed. He is also an individual that equates Jews to communists and seems to suggest that the latter is a Jewish conspiracy to undermine European society.

Goering also takes on an anti-Jewish stance and promotes the idea that they are subversive to German society. He therefore suggests that the removal of their influence over German society is a critical need in order to prevent its corruption. He states that there has been a blossoming of German cultural life since the subversive influences of the Jews have been removed from society; essentially looking at the process as purification.

In conclusion, Germany Reborn is a source that should be looked upon with partial skepticism. This is because it is essentially an attempt to ensure that Nazi propaganda is spread not only in Germany, but also in other European countries. Finally, it can also be considered to be a reflection of the vision for a German society that the Nazi Party has as well as the genuine beliefs of an individual that is the second most powerful person in the country at the time.

The Last Knight by Norman Cantor

 

The Last Knight by Norman Cantor is one that seeks to show the life that was led by John of Gaunt. This is an individual who, despite never having worn the crown of England, played an important part in its history. His influence was based mainly on the considerable wealth that he controlled based on his marriage to Blanche of Lancaster. His lifestyle can be compared to that of modern billionaires, and this is a critical aspect of the book, because Cantor seeks to show that John was an individual that not only had considerable wealth, but was also an individual that had a lifestyle to fit his status in society (Cantor 12). Like a considerable number of his contemporaries, and in a similar way to the billionaires of the modern world, John is an individual who did not show any interest in bringing about change in society, because the established economic and social system favored him greatly. This paper seeks to show that the lifestyle of the aristocrats in the Middle Ages was similar to that of billionaires in the modern world.

John of Gaunt was the wealthiest individual in the whole of England during his time, controlling a lot of land in the country. Most of this wealth came from his wife, Blanche of Lancaster, the daughter of the first Duke of Lancaster. This, in addition to his status as a prince, ensured that John had both the wealth and status to go with it and he used both of these to further his ambitions on the continent. The rents that he collected from his landholdings made it possible for his to have a lifestyle that far surpassed his contemporaries, because he also had control over a considerable number of peasants who worked the land. John, like the billionaires of the modern world, was extremely close to power, and this was by virtue of his being both the son and an uncle to a king. A result of this situation was that he ended up in a situation where he was able to influence the events taking place in England, especially during the minority of his nephew, Richard II, often acting as a moderating influence in the turbulent political system (Cantor 195). John had three marriages, and the first two were strategically placed in such a way that ensured that placed him in alliances with powerful and wealthy families. This is similar to modern billionaires, who tend to marry among themselves or to powerful individuals in society as a means of maintaining their wealth and status. John of Gaunt also controlled a substantial part of the wealth, which was based on land ownership, in England, and this can be compared to the way that modern billionaires control a majority of the wealth in the world today.

It is also essential to consider that John of Gaunt is depicted as an individual that is willing to make use of his considerable wealth for personal gain. He failed to enhance the lives of the peasants who lived in his lands and were a major source of his income. Instead, he undertook the task of pursuing his personal ambitions on the continent, as seen in his seeking to gain the Castilian crown through his wife, Constance, the daughter of Peter of Castile, following the latter’s death. Cantor presents an image of John that is considerably complicated, because it shows that he was an individual that was extremely chivalrous, yet also had tendencies towards arrogance, and the promotion of social stratification through the lack of consideration for the poor. This is a lifestyle and character that is reminiscent with modern billionaires; who often seek to make sure that they undertake a diversity of extravagant activities, and lack consideration for the poor around them. Even though the billionaires in the modern world have the ability to change society for the better, they do not undertake the action, and this can be considered to be a means through which they can be able to maintain the status quo, where they remain at the top of the social hierarchy (Cantor 199). Like John of Gaunt, the billionaires in the modern world tend to promote the continued oppression of the poor through the provision of low wages, while at the same time employing thousands of people. The aristocracy of the Middle Ages, exemplified by John, can be considered the precursors of the billionaires of the modern world, because they had similar lifestyles and attitudes.

Norman Cantor successfully shows that there is not much difference between the aristocrats of the Middle Ages and modern billionaires. He shows the despite being the richest people of their time and earning considerable revenues, they did not care about the poor in their society. Instead, they sought to promote the status quo, in such a way that there is little difference between the poor in the Middle Ages and the modern world, with the latter being in a worse off situation than their counterparts.

The Philosophical Aspects of the Lion King Film

 

The Lion King is a film that has been extremely influential on many individuals, especially among young people. However, it is often easy for individuals to dismiss the significance of this film, because at first glance, it seems to only be a journey by a young cub towards the attainment of justice not only for his father, but also his family and people as well. A deeper look reveals a number of worldviews and philosophies, which play a critical role in making sure that there is a greater understanding of the world. One of the most significant factors concerning the Lion King is that it essentially shows the various philosophies, especially religious and ethical ones, which are prevalent around the world. The Lion King is closely related to philosophical values based on ethics, religion, and nature, which will be discussed in this paper.

The Lion King is closely tied to religious philosophy, and this is especially the case when it comes to the way that it handles the issue of destiny. Most religions in the world often seek to address human destiny, and this is one of the reasons why it is critical to make sure that there is the advancement of various doctrines to describe it. This film contains a number of Christian religious philosophies which are addressed in a number of ways throughout its course. However, while Christianity is quite dominant, it also shows a number of worldviews that contain other religious overtones, which play a critical role in bringing about a greater understanding of the situation at hand. For example, Scar, the brother of Mufasa, and Simba’s uncle, is the main antagonist of the film, whose personality is presented as an evil force which has to be overcome. Mufasa, on the other hand, is the representation of the ultimate goodness, and his presence in parts of the film, especially after his death, represents hope for Simba. After Mufasa is tricked to his death through Scar’s machinations, the latter essentially convinces Simba that he murdered his father, making the cub flee, and leaving Scar as the ruler of the animal kingdom (Reinhartz 14). However, Scar’s rule is one that is not only evil, but also destructive, to such an extent that the entire kingdom ends up suffering. A consequence is that Simba ends up returning to take his rightful place as ruler and all is restored to its former glory. The example above is one that can be considered to be based on religious philosophy, so that Mufasa represents God, Simba represents his son or an incarnation of him, and Scar is the representative of evil, or even the devil.

Another prominent element in this film is the idea of the afterlife. The latter case is also one based on religious philosophy, which involves a process where there is the promotion of a situation where there is need to bring about an understanding of what happens when an individual dies. This is a lesson that is expounded upon by Mufasa, when teaching Simba about the circle of life. He teaches Simba that although lions eat the antelope, when lions in turn die, they end up turning into grass, which in turn feeds the antelope. In this way, Mufasa’s lesson essentially notes that nothing in nature goes to waste, and there is need for each of the creatures within it to take on their role responsibly so that the circle is not interfered with. While Mufasa does not tell his son where the soul goes when an individual dies, later in the film, Mufasa appears to Simba in the form of a storm cloud, encouraging him to take on his rightful place as ruler of the animal kingdom. Therefore, the idea that the soul goes somewhere following death is an important aspect of religious philosophy, and it is addressed, albeit briefly in the film, through Mufasa’s later appearance. It promotes the idea that the souls of the dead are constantly watching over those that they have left behind (Fadner 4). Moreover, it allows for the development of a better understanding of the way through which religions understand the meaning of death, and how they seek to give hope to their adherents that there is an afterlife.

Ethical philosophy also plays an important role in this film. This is especially the case considering that the various characters within it display varying ethical values, which are representations of the realities in the world. For example, Mufasa is an example of a highly ethical leader, who only seeks to ensure the best for his people (Lu 3). He is portrayed as a wise leader, as seen through the lesson that he gives Simba concerning the circle of life, and the reason to make sure that there is the establishment of a balance within the animal kingdom. His rule essentially serves as an example and a beacon of hope for Simba, who seeks to emulate him. However, there are instances in the film where unethical leadership can also be seen, as in the case of Scar, who is an individual that seems to be more focused on amassing power and satisfying his greed than in the welfare of his people. Scar, along with his hyena allies, because of their ineffective rule, ends up devastating the animal kingdom, to such an extent that it leads to a situation where the natural balance is interfered with. The excessive hunting to satisfy the needs of the Scar and his allies ends up leading to a disaster, which also makes the people come to the realization that they need another ruler like Mufasa in order for the kingdom to survive. The return of Simba, and his challenge to Scar’s rule can be considered an important event because it not only leads to the return of just rule, but also one of a leader that is ethical in his approach to leading his kingdom.

In conclusion, Lion King is a film that has a considerable number of philosophical stances. Most of these are related to religious philosophy and the manner through which it has an everyday effect on the lives of individuals. The characters in the film are reflections of human character, and these span the entire spectrum of personalities. All of these are related to the way that humans live, and the film promotes the philosophies that aim at describing these characteristics and their ethical consequences.

Rousseau's Advocacy of the General Will

 

The general will is considered to be the will that is held by an entire society in a bid to ensure that its common interests are protected. It is a central tenet in the political philosophy of Rousseau, and an essential concept when it comes to the idea of what a republican should be in the contemporary world. Rousseau seeks to ensure that there is a distinction between the general will and that of disparate groups, and argues that freedom and authority are not contradictory, and are instead complementary because they involve the protection of individuals within the state. Furthermore, he suggests that legitimate laws tend to be those that are developed based on the general will of the public; meaning that laws are created because the people will it rather than their rulers. Therefore, when it comes to obeying the law, it is essential that all citizens of the republic do so because they are essentially seeking to make sure that they advance a situation where they obey themselves as members of their respective political communities. Rousseau argues that the general will is an essential aspect of a republican political community because it ensures that individuals are better able to exercise their freedoms without the interference of government because the people are the essential basis of the said government.

The general will is not just an ideal, but is instead essentially the power that is held by citizen in their capacity the political community of the state. Rousseau’s take on the general will is one that considers it based on the political aspects rather than the universal ones that was previously the case. The general will is based on the need by individuals within the state to make sure that they are able to make decisions based on their sense of justice; essentially voting based on their conscience. It is under such circumstances that individuals are able to become conscious of their personal interests as part of the political community, which ensures that they are able to tap into their individual conscience and come up with ways through which they can serve the public good. The interests of individuals are therefore translated to those of the republic as a whole, which promotes a situation where as citizens serve the state, they are essentially serving themselves as well. Under such circumstances, Rousseau argues that the general will is right, although he is also critical of those individuals who put feelings at a lower level than reason. Therefore, the political will is one that seeks to express the will of the people while at the same time showing their feelings of affection or attachment to their own political communities.

In his conception of the general will, Rousseau seems to promote the idea that all individuals are capable of seeking the common good. Under such circumstances, they end up being morally bound to ensure that they achieve a unanimous decision that is good for their entire political community. Therefore, in the ideal republic, the members of the political community often seek to make sure that they develop laws that express the general will. Even in those situations where they might be wrong, it is implied that the development of laws still seeks to achieve justice, and under such circumstances, rather than following the interests of individuals or certain groups, it ends up following the general will of the people. When an individual goes against the laws that have been created by the general will, he or she is going against both the instituted government, and their higher interests as part of the political community. Thus, when an individual is forced to follow the law, it is a means of “forcing him to be free”. The general will is a means through which the freedom of individuals in society is guaranteed and maintained at all times for the good of all the individuals within it.

Despite the considerable debate that has been sparked by Rousseau’s advocacy of the general will, it is pertinent to note that his main concern is the preservation of autonomy and civil liberty that is enjoyed by individuals. Based on his definition of the general will, the government is created based on the general will and it does not have free reign over the people because they are eventually the ultimate authority within the republic. Thus, the government is only legitimate under circumstances where it is made subordinate to the will of the people, meaning that a government that does not follow the general will is not legitimate. The government has to be subordinated to the law because the latter is an expression of the general will of the people. A failure by government to abide by the law means that it has made itself a separate political body and is no longer a part of the political community that is based on the general will of the people.