Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Both Isenberg's view and the objection to it are consider... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Both Isenberg's view and the objection to it are considerably less interesting to those who reject the practical vs. theoretical reasoning distinction.

    AestheticsTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Those who reject the practical vs. theoretical reasoning distinction hold that all reasoning is means/ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On the means/ends view, whether a bit of reasoning is good or bad cannot be determined without first determining what the reasoner's end is.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Unified reasoning theories (e.g., Kant's architectonic, Broome's formal rationality) still distinguish reasoning types by subject matter, not just by ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Isenberg's claim concerns the subject matter of critical reasoning about art, which remains a live issue independent of the practical/theoretical distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, collapsing the practical/theoretical distinction does not dissolve the interest of Isenberg's view but relocates the debate to questions of domain-specific rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Theorists like Foot and Anscombe maintain that practical reason has distinctive normative structure irreducible to means/ends calculation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If practical reason retains distinctive features even without the theoretical/practical split, Isenberg's view remains substantively contested on its own terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    AestheticsTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    If practical reason retains distinctive features even without the theoretical/pr...Isenberg's claim concerns the subject matter of critical reasoning about art, wh...On the means/ends view, whether a bit of reasoning is good or bad cannot be dete...Theorists like Foot and Anscombe maintain that practical reason has distinctive ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Therefore, collapsing the practical/theoretical distinction does not dissolve th...Those who reject the practical vs. theoretical reasoning distinction hold that a...Unified reasoning theories (e.g., Kant's architectonic, Broome's formal rational...

    Similar

    Those who reject the practical vs. theoretical reasoning distinction h...84%It is not obvious that practical rationality should take precedence ov...77%These are structurally different kinds of reason, and Leibniz does not...76%Williams' argument requires that the concept of a practical reason is ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: theater
    View source passageHide passage
    But suppose there is a difference between assessments of the value of works of art and assessments of whatever it is we might do with respect to works of art. Could it not be that either of those, as aims of reasoning, might be legitimate? Those who reject the “practical vs. theoretical reasoning” distinction on the grounds that all reasoning is means/ends, and who thus hold that whether a bit of reasoning is good or bad cannot be determined without first determining what the reasoner’s end is,
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit