So, it’s time for the puzzle. First, a quick recap.
1. Ways-Millianism (Part One)
I explained how Millianism responds to Frege Puzzles using ways of believing.
2. Ways-Millianism (Part Two)
I explained how this strategy can be extended (and has already been extended) to respond to a variety of philosophical problems and puzzles.
Now for the puzzle…
The strategy in Part One and Part Two all have the following unifying feature. The diagnosis of the problem involves pointing out that we are confused in some way because we run the argument using two different ways of thinking about one and the same thing. Those different ways are embedded in the same propositional attitude verb. This is how we get confused, says the Millian.
Basically, I’m worried that this strategy if it can be adopted in Part One and Part Two, can be extended to undermine any counterexample to any conceptual analysis in philosophy!
Here’s the idea. The following is the basic structure for any conceptual analysis and counterexample.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Basic Structure for ANY CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS and COUNTEREXAMPLE
Schema for Analysis of Alpha in terms of Beta
X is an alpha iff X is a beta
Counterexample
I tell you a story where it is intuitive that something, call it Bob, is an alpha but not a beta.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Extreme Ways Millian Extension
The Ways Millian extension of the strategy from part one and part two would go like this…
“In your thought experiment you’re thinking about one and the same thing using to different ways or modes of presentation. We can see this more clearly when you flesh out what your real evidence for non-identity is. Your real evidence is…
(A) It is intuitive that Bob is an alpha
(B) It is not intuitive that Bob is a beta
But look, you’re just embedding your uses of ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ inside the propositional attitude verb intuitive-that. There’s your mistake,” says the Extreme Ways-Millian.
The Options
1. Give up on Ways-Millianism.
2. Draw some distinction between permissible and impermissible uses of the strategy.
3. Accept Way-Millianism and the extension of the stragey – i.e., bye-bye conceptual analysis.
My money is on (2), and I think I have a way to draw the line. I’m currently hashing that out, though. I might post it a little later.
If anyone has any thoughts, comments are open.
Leave a Reply