Three Conceptions of Judgment in Early Modern Philosophy
What is the difference between simply thinking about something and judging or believing that something is the case? One finds at least three different answers to this question in the early modern period. First, Descartes claims that judging involves an act of will by which one assents to the ideas put forth by the understanding. Second, Hume claims that the difference consists in the way believing feels, that is, in the phenomenal character of the experience of believing. Third, a number of early modern philosophers, including Locke and Antoine Arnauld, claim that judging or believing involves forming a complete propositional thought, one that is true or false. Surprisingly, they explain what it is to think a complete propositional thought with a truth-value in terms of judging. Unfortunately, each of these answers seems obviously wrong to many contemporary philosophers. My project is to examine the motivations and arguments for each of these early modern views and to critically assess them in light of these motivations and arguments.
Financer
Duration of project
Start date: 06/2013
End date: 12/2016