One more set of thoughts before I (hopefully) turn to other things. In Huw Price’s recent(ish) work he distinguishes between e- and i-representation. I-representation is ‘internal’ representation, and as far as I can tell it roughly corresponds to the formal concept of representation that Brandom develops in Making It Explicit – that is to say, […]| Negative Catallactics
In the last few posts I’ve given a broad brush articulation of the basic philosophical / metatheoretical framework I want to adopt, explore, endorse. In this post I just want to add one more piece to that framework. In Brandom’s framework, the two core normative statuses are “commitment” and “entitlement”. I want to swap out […]| Negative Catallactics
Ok. I take it that the basic Brandomian inferentialist account has something like the following structure. [I am sure I am going to get a lot wrong here; I’m after the broad brush picture, which doesn’t excuse sloppiness, but maybe excuses sloppiness a bit.] The substance – the content – of a statement is to […]| Negative Catallactics
I’m going to try to be as brief as I can here, since so much of this post is just summary / recapitulation. I want to do three things in this post: first, give a tinker toy summary of one str…| Negative Catallactics
Ok – yet another bite at articulating the ways in which I now differ from Brandom. I think these go into several boxes. ~~ The first is a rejection of the Kantian concept of autonomy. …| Negative Catallactics
