Interesting observations by Hallvard Lillehammer (Cambridge) in this otherwise laudatory review of Robert Audi's latest book on practical reason:
Philosophers are sometimes accused of arguing pointlessly about words. Often this accusation is unfair. Reasonable armchair inquiry is possible, whether in pursuit of non-obvious a priori truth, the conceptual foundations of theory, or the core commitments of pre-theoretical common sense. Other times the accusation is fair. Pre-theoretical common sense is not necessarily indicative of the truth. What is licensed by common sense can change in light of a posteriori inquiry and reflection. Philosophical inquiry aimed only at commitments embodied in pre-theoretical common sense is potentially detached from the pursuit of truth in those areas of thought where the truth can sensibly be thought to extend beyond the content of contemporary common sense. It is partly this restriction of interest that provides ammunition for those who accuse philosophers of having no interest in the real nature of the phenomena they describe, instead proclaiming it a virtue to peddle in platitudes.
The theory of practical reasoning and rational agency is arguably one area where this accusation remains to be answered. In this area, philosophers have been equipped with many of the same conceptual tools since the time of Aristotle. More than two millennia later the debate continues. Is weakness of will possible? Does practical reasoning have the form of a logical syllogism? If so, does it conclude in an action? Is rational action a result of inference? In a short footnote in his book Audi writes that, '. . . there are empirical questions about what occurs . . . in various cases when a person reasons, and there is apparently no sharp distinction between these and conceptual questions about what constitutes reasoning. My aim has been to formulate a conception of reasoning . . . without encroaching on matters left open by the concept of reasoning' (235). Given what the exclusive focus on conceptual issues appears capable of offering on this topic, it is hard to understand why.
Comments and reactions are welcome; no anonymous postings, as usual.
