06.21.11
Fallacies of neuroscience as foundation for ethics
For people familiar with Churchland’s work over the past four decades, her desire to bring the brain into the discussion will come as no surprise: She has long made the case that philosophers must take account of neuroscience in their investigations.
etc..
Why neuroscience? The implicit ‘rationality’ of the ethical (with a larger framework perhaps than the rational), as in the view of Kant, requires no discussion of the brain.
Why is neuroscience given the top billing here all of a sudden? It makes no sense.
Stephen said,
June 21, 2011 at 8:59 pm
I think neuroscience will fall for panpsychism and vitalism, and at that level we find philosophy again. The fact, that she believes reason and emotion cannot be separated, already points to vitalism because it is emotion that escapes through the gap offered by Kant`s 3rd antinomy, its emotion that is found two-sided. We fail when we treat emotion as one-sided, when emotions are finding themselves shared with others.
Kant, ethics, neuroscience said,
June 22, 2011 at 11:51 am
[...] http://darwiniana.com/2011/06/21/fallacies-of-neuroscience-as-foundation-for-ethics/ [...]
Rethinking Moral Philosophy | dianoeidos said,
June 29, 2011 at 12:52 pm
[...] http://darwiniana.com/2011/06/21/fallacies-of-neuroscience-as-foundation-for-ethics/ [...]
nemo said,
June 29, 2011 at 12:59 pm
More from Luke: we can reply tomorrow here
nemo said,
July 1, 2011 at 11:14 am
I am puzzled as to what has happened to Luke Rondinaro: he sounds brainwashed. He used to be a very open thinker, interested in my views on history and evolution. But someone or something has gotten onto him, and now his determined to toe the line on all these issues.