Recently the account of free will proposed by Harry Frankfurt has come under attack. It has been argued that Frankfurt’s notion of wholeheartedness is in conflict with prevalent intuitions about free will and should be abandoned. I will argue that empirical data from choice blindness experiments can vindicate Frankfurt’s notion of wholeheartedness. The choice blindness phenomenon exposes that individuals fail to track their own decisions and readily take ownership of, and confabulate reasons for, decisions they did not make. Traditionally this has been taken to be problem for the notion of free will. I argue that Frankfurt’s account does not face this problem. Instead, choice blindness can be fruitfully applied to it, and vice versa. Frankfurt’s notion of wholeheartedness, I suggest, delineates the range of the choice blindness effect. This makes wholeheartedness a useful meta-theoretical concept for choice blindness research. I conclude that, pace the recent criticism, wholeheartedness is a useful notion and should not be abandoned., Nedávno byl napaden útok na svobodnou vůli, který navrhl Harry Frankfurt. To bylo argumentoval, že Frankfurt je představa o bezstarostnosti je v konfliktu s převládajícími intuicemi o svobodné vůli a should být opuštěný. Tvrdím, že empirická data z vybraných experimentů slepoty mohou obhájit frankfurtský pojem celistvosti. Fenomén slepé selekce odhaluje, že jednotlivci nedokážou sledovat svá vlastní rozhodnutí a snadno se chopit odpovědnosti za rozhodnutí, která neučinili. Tradičně to bylo považováno za problém pro pojetí svobodné vůle. Tvrdím, že frankfurtský účet tento problém neřeší. Namísto toho může být na něj vhodně aplikována slepota a naopak. Navrhuji, aby frankfurtský pojem celistvosti vymezil rozsah efektu slepoty. To činí z celého srdce užitečný meta teoretický koncept pro výběr výzkumu slepoty. Uzavírám to,tempo nedávné kritiky, bezúhonnost je užitečná představa a neměla by být opuštěna., and Asger Kirkeby-Hinrup
My aim in this paper is to illuminate the question of how vicarious feeling is possible, by advancing our understanding of vicarious emotions. I address this problem by classifying the reactive attitude into two categories: the vicarious, and the self-reactive. I argue that guilt is constitutively tied to personal responsibility and that the appropriateness of vicarious feeling of group harm derives from a reflection on the appropriateness of our own reactive attitude, that is, vicarious reactive attitude, e.g., indignation or outrage.
In theories of cognition, 4E approaches to cognition are seen to refrain from employing robust representations in contrast to Predictive Process, where such posits are utilized extensively. Despite this notable dissimilarity with regard to pos-its they employ in explaining certain cognitive phenomena, it has been repeatedly argued that they are in fact compatible. As one may expect, these arguments mostly end up contending either that Predictive Process is actually nonrepresentational or that 4E approaches are representational. In this paper, I will argue that such arguments are inadequate for the indicated purpose for several reasons: the variety of representational posits in Predictive Process, the diverse attitudes of practitioners of 4E approaches toward representations and the unconstrained use of the term “representation” in cognitive science. Hence, here I will try to demonstrate that any single argument, if it depends on representational 4E approaches or nonrepresentational Predictive Process, falls short of encompassing this heterogeneity in pertinent debates. Then, I will analyze similar arguments provided by Jacob Hohwy and Michael Kirchhoff to illustrate how destructive this seemingly ordinary criticism is.
The first part of the paper deals with the key question of the Searle-Derrida debate, namely, with the question of conceptual ''exactness'' and applicability of concepts to facts. I argue that Derrida makes a strict distinction between the exactness in the realm of concepts and the exactness in the realm of facts. Supposing that it is not correct to argue against him - as Searle does - that concepts cannot be exact because there are no strict boundaries between facts. The second part of the paper deals with a distinction used by John Searle: The distinction between linguistic meaning and speaker’s meaning. According to Searle linguistic meaning is constituted outside a particular context of use whereas speaker’s meaning is embedded in a particular situation. I argue this distinction is problematic as far as any meaning is constituted in a particular utterance and in a particular context of use., První část práce se zabývá klíčovou otázkou debaty Searle-Derrida, konkrétně otázkou konceptuální ,,přesnosti'' a aplikovatelnosti konceptů na fakta. Tvrdím, že Derrida rozlišuje mezi přesností v oblasti pojmů a přesností v oblasti faktů. Předpokládejme, že není správné argumentovat proti němu - jak to dělá Searle -, že pojmy nemohou být přesné, protože mezi fakty neexistují striktní hranice. Druhá část práce se zabývá rozlišením, které používá John Searle: Rozlišení mezi jazykovým významem a významem mluvčího. Podle Searle je lingvistický význam vytvořen mimo konkrétní kontext použití, zatímco význam mluvčího je zakotven v určité situaci., and Tomáš Koblížek