In this paper I present a new argument for prospectivism: the view that, for a consequentialist, rightness depends on what is prospectively best rather than what would actually be best. Prospective bestness depends on the agent’s epistemic position, though exactly how that works is not straightforward. I clarify various possible versions of prospectivism, which differ in how far they go in relativizing to the agent’s limitations. My argument for prospectivism is an argument for moderately objective prospectivism, according to which the (...) right thing to do is what would make sense given reasonable beliefs, reasonable probability estimates and a reasonable understanding of value. My argument is an argument for this form of prospectivism over objectivism. Arguments about prospectivism and objectivism usually use an example with the following form: an agent has a choice between options, one she knows would be acceptable, while the other could either be catastrophic or very good. Objectivists argue that the right thing to do is what would in fact be best (though the agent cannot know which option that is) while prospectivists argue that the agent’s ignorance is relevant, and the right thing to do is to compromise. The question is how we should understand the underlying argument. It is not about action guidance. Moderately objective prospectivism is not action guiding, because an actual agent may not have access to reasonable beliefs, probability estimates and so on. Another common argument is that the objective notion is the primary one. I show that there are no good grounds for this claim. My argument uses the distinction between rightness and goodness to show that a consequentialist theory, that bases rightness on goodness, should take into account how much goodness is at stake. Crucially, potential losses as well as gains are relevant. So long as goodness, rather than rightness, is in the driving seat, we should not be ‘bestness fetishists’. As the name suggest, this would be an irrational privileging of the best option. This argument does not apply to pure deontology: a pure deontology does not use the notion of goodness at all, and so there is nothing to compromise with. If the agent does not know what is right, there is nothing further to say. I end by arguing against a recent strategy that aims to show that although objectivism is true (the right option is the best one), we should sometimes do what is wrong (i.e. what is prospectively best). I argue that in so far as this is correct it is simply prospectivism with awkward terminology. (shrink)

Moral realists often assume that folk intuitions are predominantly realist, and they argue that this places the burden of proof on antirealists. More broadly, appeals to intuition in metaethics typically assume that folk judgments are generally consistent across individuals, such that they are at least predominantly something, if not realist. A substantial body of empirical work on moral objectivism has investigated these assumptions, but findings remain inconclusive due to methodological limitations. Objectivist judgments classify individuals into broad categories of realism (...) and antirealism, but they do not address more specific conflicts in the metaethical literature between different types of realism and antirealism, such as between nonnaturalism and divine command theory, or between noncognitivism and error theory. Further, the data currently show that the folk are objectivists about some moral claims but not others, raising questions that have not been addressed in previous studies about how much of the moral domain is judged to be objective, and about how endorsements of different types of realism and antirealism are distributed among different types of moral claims. Here, I present a new survey that addresses these limitations. The results challenge both of the empirical assumptions identified above, with important implications for metaethical methodology. (shrink)

Many moral philosophers have assumed that ordinary folk embrace moral objectivism. But, if so, why do folk embrace objectivism? One possibility is the pervasive connection between religion and morality in ordinary life. Some theorists contend that God is viewed as a divine guarantor of right and wrong, rendering morality universal and absolute. But is belief in God per se sufficient for moral objectivism? In this paper, we present original research exploring the connections between metaethics and particular conceptions (...) of God among religious participants. Study 1 shows that, when controlling for religiosity, age, and belief in God’s loving characteristics, it is belief in God’s punishing characteristics (specifically, the existence of Hell) that uniquely predicts rejection of moral relativism. Study 2 shows that followers of Abrahamic faiths are more likely to endorse moral objectivism when thinking of the Divine, regardless of loving or punishing characteristics. And Study 3 shows that priming for moral objectivism makes theists more likely to endorse God’s punishing characteristics. A general picture is suggested by these data. For Abrahamic theists, God’s particular characteristics are not germane to the question of whether his moral commandments are real and objective. And while theists strongly endorse God’s loving characteristics, focusing on the objective nature of morality can highlight God’s punishing nature, reminding theists that objective morality requires a divine guarantor of justice to enforce it. (shrink)

In this paper, I evaluate Rahel Jaeggi's theory of progress as outlined in her recent book Fortschritt und Regression. The central question of this paper will be whether Jaeggi's theory of progress in terms of an “accumulating problemsolving process” can answer the critique of progress put forward by Amy Allen in The End of Progress. I argue that Jaeggi's approach can sidestep the problems put forward by Allen. Jaeggi's formal theory of progress allows her to disconnect the concept of progress (...) as a fact from the idea of progress in the future because she does not have to make claims about the normative superiority of one form of life over another. In this paper, I will put forward a different challenge to Jaeggi's theory. Jaeggi must explain how we are to determine what counts as a successful procedure for solving second-order problems. I argue that in doing so she runs into a dilemma: she must either commit to a form of objectivism or accept a progressive reading of history. (shrink)

According to studies on ordinary people's moral judgements, many believe in objective morality and values. This evidence that ordinary people adhere to moral absolutism is bolstered by research that focuses on the relationship between religion and traditional moral objectivity, correlating faith in God to moral objectivism. Existing research on folk moral objectivism among theists raises the question of whether believing in the existence of God leads to belief in objective moral standards. An even more challenging question is whether (...) belief in God is justified based on belief in objective moral standards. In this paper, I will look at existing studies on religion and folk moral objectivism, as well as Robert Adams' divine command theory and Alvin Planting’s reformed epistemology, to show that moral objectivism can provide grounds for theists to believe in God. The authors discovered a significant difference in the moral objectivism group's perceptions of a punishing God. Participants who adhered to Abrahamic religions experienced a more significant effect. To summarize, being primed to think of objective morality causes people to perceive God as more punishing. According to the research, theists' belief in a supernatural being whose commands distinguish between right and wrong motivates objective moral judgements. This makes sense because Abrahamic religions have an objective perspective of morality. (shrink)

In this study we explore the encounters emerging from the restructured categorizations of subjectivity in the context of an open system that constantly confronts the structures that create it. On the one hand, science formulates valid propositions through the ratio that ensures and confirms the acquisition of knowledge, but on the other hand, the truth of its propositions is related to those mental processes which seek the truth of deeper values than those discovered on the surface of reality. The question (...) arisen in this case is by what criteria we are able to go back to removing those antinomies (objectivism/perspectivism) in order to develop the interdisciplinary terms between the humanitarian field of science and sciences in a spirit of unification. In this way, we approach the potential of scientific reformulation in terms of the above interpretive perspectives in order to project the overcoming of divisions under the principles of diversity and critical thinking both in the field of philosophy and science as well. (shrink)

One classic objection to Objectivism about ought is that it recommends unconscionably risky actions in so-called Three-Option-Cases, the most famous of which is Jackson's case featuring a doctor called Jill. Some philosophers deny this orthodoxy and claim that Objectivism can yet account for our intuitions in such cases. In this paper, I critically evaluate such attempts and draw some more general lessons about Objectivism's ability to deal with risk and recklessness. I argue that an adequate form of (...) Objectivism must make room for a distinctly moral relevance of recklessness. To assess Objectivism's chances of doing so, I make an important distinction between two ways in which risks can matter morally. As I argue, the kind of relevance which is required for extensionally adequate verdicts in all Three-Option-Cases is inevitably incompatible with all plausible forms of Objectivism. (shrink)

For the millions of readers who love Ayn Rand's novels and who seek to understand her revolutionary philosophy of Objectivism, there has not been available a simple and concise introduction to her thought. Objectivism in One Lesson is that book.

The idea of gender is one of this century’s fiercest intellectual battlegrounds. In this paper, I seek to narrow down my focus towards one major debate surrounding gender: the debate between gender objectivism and gender constructivism. My contention is this: gender objectivism is a more reasonable view than gender constructivism. Moreover, gender constructivism has unjust and dangerous implications, especially towards biological women, a result to which gender objectivism is generally immune. I begin by noting how transgenderism as (...) a product of gender constructivism leads to absurd consequences, is viciously circular and lacks conceptual clarity in defining what a woman is. Then, I assessed the real-life consequences of transgenderism in three areas: women’s spheres for recognition such as women’s beauty pageants, women’s spaces, and women’s sports. I argue that evaluating the cogency or lack thereof of transgenderism while also seeing its harmful and dangerous consequences to women provide us with good reasons to prefer gender objectivism over gender constructivism. (shrink)

In his critique of egoism as a doctrine of ends, G. E. Moore famously challenges the idea that something can be someone. Donald Regan has recently revived and developed the Moorean challenge, making explicit its implications for the very idea of individual welfare. If the Moorean is right, there is no distinct, normative property good for, and so no plausible objectivism about ethics could be welfarist. In this essay, I undertake to address the Moorean challenge, clarifying our theoretical alternatives (...) so that we may better decide what to admit into our moral ontology and better assess what may be at stake in whether objectivists treat good or good for (or neither) as fundamental. I compare the Moorean and welfarist pictures of value, providing an account of the form and function of good for. According to this account expresses a distinct relational value that has its source in the value of persons. Good for value is thus a form of extrinsic value that provides agent-neutral reasons for action, and it plays a pervasive normative role in regulating child rearing, guiding individual life choices, and shaping social policy formation. (shrink)

Moral psychologists have recently turned their attention to the study of folk metaethical beliefs. We report the results of a cross-cultural study using Chinese, Polish and Ecuadorian participants that seeks to advance this line of investigation. Individuals in all three demographic groups were observed to attribute objectivity to ethical statements in very similar patterns. Differences in participants’ strength of opinion about an issue, the level of societal agreement or disagreement about an issue, and participants’ age were found to significantly affect (...) their inclination to view the truth of an ethical statement as a matter of objective fact. Implications for theorizing about folk morality are discussed. (shrink)

There is a kind of objectivism in epistemology that involves the acceptance of objective epistemic norms. It is generally regarded as harmless. There is another kind of objectivism in epistemology that involves the acceptance of an objectivist account of justification, one that takes the justification of a belief to turn on its accuracy. It is generally regarded as hopeless. It is a strange and unfortunate sociological fact that these attitudes are so prevalent. Objectivism about norms and justification (...) stand or fall together. Justification is simply a matter of conforming to norms. In this essay, I shall make the case for objectivism about justification. (shrink)

Drawing freely and expertly from Continental and analytic traditions, Richard Bernstein examines a number of debates and controversies exemplified in the works of Gadamer, Habermas, Rorty, and Arendt. He argues that a "new conversation" is emerging about human rationality—a new understanding that emphasizes its practical character and has important ramifications both for thought and action.

This chapter is an opinionated survey of three main views about meaning in life: objectivism, on which a component of a person’s life can contribute meaning to it even if she in no way cares about the component; pure subjectivism, on which the person’s caring about the component in some suitable way is all it takes for the component to contribute meaning to her life; and hybridism, on which whether a component of someone’s life contributes meaning to it depends (...) both on her caring about the component in some suitable way and the objective value of the component. The authors discuss various central challenges that these three views respectively face. Among other things, they provide reasons to think that the challenges for pure subjectivism are less serious than they are ordinarily taken to be, and less serious than those that confront objectivism and hybridism. (shrink)

Tabatabai’s theory about the meaning of life can be referred to as active objectivism, where a man plays an important role in achieving the meaningful life, rather than merely discovering the divine view about his existence. If the man chooses the divine purpose from a “real life” perspective as his meaning of life, God’s purpose and man’s purpose will converge in order to shape a meaningful life and the ultimate achievement of Pure Life. However, if he chooses the unreal (...) counterpart, he will be trapped in an unreal life which is referred to as the “pseudo-meaningful life.” It is necessary that human beings discover the divine purpose with the help of conceptual intellect, define the essentials of achieving the purpose with his practical intellect and ultimately, choose the essentials with his own free will. To achieving compliance of a man’s purpose with the divine goal requires faith and good deeds. (shrink)

Objectivism and projectivism are standardly taken to be incompatible theories of color. Here we argue that this incompatibility is only apparent: objectivism and projectivism, properly articulated so as to deal with basic objections, are in fundamental agreement about the ontology of color and the phenomenology of color perception.

What ought you believe? According to a traditional view, it depends on your evidence: you ought to believe (only) what your evidence supports. Recently, however, some have claimed that what you ought to believe depends not on your evidence but simply on what is true: you ought to believe (only) the truth. In this paper, we present and defend two arguments against this latter view. We also explore some of the parallels between this debate in epistemology, and the debate in (...) ethics about whether how you ought to act depends on your epistemic position, or on all the facts. (shrink)

In this paper I analyse the role of naturalism and objectivism in everyday life according to Husserl and Merleau-Ponty. Whereas Husserl attributes the naturalistic attitude mainly to science, he defines the objectivist attitude as a naiveté which equally applies to the natural attitude of everyday life. I analyse the relationship between the natural attitude and lived experience and show Husserl's hesitation regarding the task of phenomenology in describing the lived experience of everyday life, since he considers this experience to (...) be too objectivistic. I use Merleau-Ponty's work to argue that objectivism is an essential characteristic of lived experience and that phenomenology should therefore find ways to integrate it into its descriptions while simultaneously suggesting ways to overcome its rigidity in order to renew perception. I finally propose that the project of the naturalisation of phenomenology could be one of the ways to connect lived experience to the objectivism of everyday life. (shrink)

Realism about affirmations of a given type is the view that these affirmations are to be understood as assertions that attempt to describe a largely independent reality, and that they are correct if and only if they manage to do so (regardless of whether they can be known to be correct). Objectivisim about affirmations of a given type is the view that they are subject to adequate, non-arbitrary standards of correctness, and that there are a significant number of non-trivial affirmations (...) of this type that can be known to be correct. On this understanding, realism, objectivism, and their denials can be combined in four possible ways: realism with objectivism, realism with antiobjectivism, antirealism with objectivism, and antirealism with antiobjectivism. This paper clarifies the distinction between realism and objectivism, illustrates it applications in various fields of philosophy, and draws attention to its value. (shrink)

In Color for Philosophers C. L. Hardin argues that chromatic objectivism?a view which identifies colour with some or other property of objects?must be false. The upshot of Hardin's argument is this: there is, in fact, no principled correlation between physical properties and perceived colours. Since that correlation is a minimal condition for objectivism, objectivism is false. Mohan Matthen, who accepts Hardin's conclusion for what can be called "simple objectivism," takes it that an adaptationist theory of biological (...) function applied to colour is able to surmount the problems Hardin describes. It is Matthen's view that I am primarily concerned with in this paper. I will argue that it entails an overly simple view of adaptive value?as, perhaps, do all objectivist views. (shrink)

The present study investigates the tension between objectivism and perspectivism in light of the conceptual and philosophical implications of quantum theory. The guiding dictum of objectivism posits that science reveals the underlying structure of reality independently of human cognitive activity, that is, in terms of mind-independent, discourse-independent properties and relations occurring at any spatiotemporal location. It is shown that objectivism’s stance fits with the applicability of the bivalence principle as the semantic foundation of scientific discourse. It becomes (...) then apparent that the non-Boolean logical structure of quantum theory systematically disrupts the objectivist framework. Along this vein, we provide succinct argumentation demonstrating quantum theory’s affinity to perspectivist reasoning. It is contended that the ubiquitous phenomenon of quantum contextuality, as established by Kochen-Specker’s celebrated theorem, strongly suggests that measurement values of quantum observables can, in general, be regarded as pertaining to an object under investigation only within a local probing frame or perspective from which the object-system is considered. The last remark is reinforced when considered within the endo-theoretic perspectivist framework of quantum mechanics. The essential philosophical meaning of the latter implies the view that the quantum world can be consistently comprehended through a multilevel structure of overlapping Boolean probing frames, realized as locally variable perspectives on a quantum system, being capable of forming jointly a coherent picture of the whole in a nontrivial way. Finally, in the appendix, the endo-theoretic perspectivist framework of quantum theory is critically compared to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, particularly in its recent development involving the postulate of “cross-perspective links”, revealing thereby the profoundly different picture of the quantum world’s architecture between the two proposals. (shrink)

We report the results of two studies that examine folk metaethical judgments about the objectivity of morality. We found that participants attributed almost as much objectivity to ethical statements as they did to statements of physical fact and significantly more objectivity to ethical statements than to statements about preferences or tastes. In both studies, younger participants attributed less objectivity to ethical statements than older participants. Females were observed to attribute slightly less objectivity to ethical statements than males, and we found (...) important interactions between attributions of objectivity and other factors, such as how strong participants’ moral opinions were and how much disagreement about the issue they perceived to exist within society. We believe our results have significant implications for debates about the nature of folk morality and about the nature of morality in general. (shrink)

Subjectivism about reasons is the view that a person has a reason to perform act A if she has some motivation to do A, or would have motivation to do A in certain circumstances. In On What Matters, Derek Parfit presents a series of arguments against subjectivism about reasons. In Parfit’s view, if subjectivism were true, nothing would actually matter. Parfit contends that there are only two positions regarding reasons: objectivism and subjectivism. I will argue for an inclusive position (...) on reasons that is neither subjectivist nor objectivist. On this view of reasons, there are some reasons that are grounded in the motivations of individuals, and there are also reasons that are not grounded in such motivations. On the view I put forward, I contend, against Parfit, that even if there were no objective reasons, it would still be the case that some things matter. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Is what we’re morally permitted to do grounded in our subjective situation? Subjectivists maintain that it is. Objectivists deny this. I shall offer two arguments for Objectivism about moral permissibility.

Objectivism about evidential support is the thesis that facts about the degree to which a body of evidence supports a hypothesis are objective rather than depending on subjective factors like one’s own language or epistemic values. Objectivism about evidential support is key to defending a synchronic, time-slice-centric conception of epistemic rationality, on which what you ought to believe at a time depends only on what evidence you have at that time, and not on how you were at previous (...) times. Here, I defend a version of objectivism about evidential support on which facts about evidential support are grounded in facts about explanatoriness. (shrink)

One of the principal challenges facing contemporary social philosophy is how to find foundations that are normatively robust yet congruent with its self-understanding. Social philosophy is a critical project within modernity, an interpretative horizon that stresses the influences of history and context on knowledge and experience. However, if it is to engage in intercultural dialogue and normatively robust social critique,social philosophy requires non-arbitrary,universal normative standards.The task of normative foundations can thus be formulated in terms of negotiating the tension between 'contextualism' (...) and 'objectivism'. Six contemporary responses to this challenge are examined.Their respective limitations call for renewed reflection on justificatory strategies, in particular for a conception of 'objectivity' based in a normative theory of social learning processes. (shrink)

Based on a series of lectures given in 1983 given by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, this book analyzes the philosophy of the author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and outlines how to apply these principles to everyday life. Original. 20,000 first printing.

There is a debate in normative ethics about whether or not our moral obligations depend solely on either our evidence concerning, or our beliefs about, the world. Subjectivists maintain that they do and objectivists maintain that they do not. I shall offer some arguments in support of objectivism and respond to the strongest argument for subjectivism. I shall also briefly consider the significance of my discussion to the debate over whether one’s future voluntary actions are relevant to one’s current (...) moral obligations. (shrink)

This chapter explores whether a version of causalism about reasons for action can be saved by giving up Davidsonian psychologism and endorsing objectivism, so that the reasons for which we act are the normative reasons that cause our corresponding actions. We address two problems for ‘objecto-causalism’, actions for merely apparent normative reasons and actions performed in response to future normative reasons—in neither of these cases can the reason for which the agent acts cause her action. To resolve these problems, (...) we move from objecto-causalism to ‘objecto-capacitism’, which appeals to agential competences manifest-ed in acting for a reason. We briefly apply this view of reasons for action to historical action explanations. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The purpose of the present article is to provide a comparative introduction to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism by exploring her most significant intellectual interactions with some of the leading figures of the libertarian movement. While revolving around Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick, it nevertheless pays attention to Rand’s and Objectivism’s relationship, affinities, and differences with additional authors belonging to this tradition.

Recent developments in social science methods have made most of the objectivism-subjectivism arguments in the philosophy of social science obsolete. Developments in experimental methods have made possible a behavioristic treatment of everything cherished as important in human action by the subjectivists; developments in computer and mathematical models have made possible a type of theory which carries out the program of the subjectivists but is not vulnerable to the arguments of the objectivists. What remains of the philosophical argument are two (...) types of theory (for example, game theory and learning theory) which are both useful, both scientific, and frequently equivalent. Choice between them by scientists can be made on empirical grounds rather than on the grounds developed in the philosophical controversy. (shrink)

We are witnessing the emergence of what can be called "post-epistemological philosophy," in which the concern with problems of knowledge passes over into a concern for social, political, and moral problems. Bernstein's Beyond Objectivism and Relativism is not only the latest representative of this point of view; it can also be regarded as the movement's first history and apologia. Indeed, the purpose of the book is simultaneously to provide an account of the intellectual genesis of post-epistemological philosophy and to (...) give a philosophical justification of its central views. (shrink)

The difference between carnap's and de finetti's conceptions of probability does not consist of a couple of requirements, As carnap asserted in a letter to de finetti. The paper is intended to give a theoretical justification for this denial. In order to do this, The author stresses the difference between (tolerant) objectivism and (radical) subjectivism. The difference is discussed in statistical terms. The discussion is faced with respect to predictive inferences, A type of statistical inference that both carnap and (...) de finetti advocate in many occasions. (shrink)

Bernstein's recent book examines the extensive debate on the nature of human rationality. He suggests that this debate is beginning to converge — from the varying perspectives of philosophy of science, hermeneutics, sociology, anthropology, and moral and political philosophy — on a new conception of rationality. This new conception breaks with the standard opposition between objectivism and relativism, the terms in which the debate has previously been conducted. His reading of the debate attempts to show that some of the (...) participants do not properly belong in either category. A coherent alternative to the standard dichotomy emerges from their contributions and this development may point us to a transcendence of the Cartesian legacy and its search for certainty. (shrink)

Gadamer and Habermas both argue that some earlier theorists of interpretation in the human sciences, despite recognizing the meaningful character of social reality, still succumb to objectivism because they fail to conceive the relation of interpreters to their subjects in terms of cross-cultural normative “dialogue.” In particular, Gadamer and Habermas claim that the most prominent nineteenth-century philosopher of the human sciences, Wilhelm Dilthey, fell prey to a misleading Cartesian outlook which sought to ground the objectivity of interpretation on complete (...) transcendence of the interpreter’s present cultural and historical situation. This article challenges Gadamer’s and Habermas’s claim by arguing that new research on nineteenth-century hermeneutic thought reveals Dilthey to be much more aware of the reflexive, present-centered nature of historical research than they maintain and further that their own “dialogical” model of interpretation suffers from notable obscurities which Dilthey’s work itself helps expose. (shrink)

This paper constitutes one extended argument, which touches on various topics of Critical Rationalism as it was initiated by Karl Popper and further developed in his aftermath. The result of the argument will be that critical rationalism either offers no solution to the problem of induction at all, or that it amounts, in the last resort, to a kind of Critical Rationalist Inductivism as it were, a version of what I call Good Old Induction. One may think of David Miller (...) as a contemporary representative of what I consider as the ‘no solution’ version of critical rationalism, while Alan Musgrave stands for the version of ‘critical rationalist induction’. Popper’s own writings admit of either interpretation. (shrink)

Philosophers have long debated whether morality is objective. But how do lay people think about this matter? Folk Moral Objectivism: Volume 1, A Philosophical Perspective discusses the philosophical aspects of this question in an accessible, integrated and coherent way. The first part argues that many empirical studies have been unsuccessful in fully or exclusively measuring beliefs about moral objectivity. Still, there are a few lessons that can be drawn from them. Most importantly, lay people are not objectivists.

Are the following propositions true of the colors: No object can be more than one determinable or determinate color all over at the same time (Incompatibility); the colors of objects are mind-independent (Objectivism); and most human observers usually perceive the colors of objects veridically in typical conditions (Veridicality)? One reason to think not is that the empirical literature appears to support the proposition that there is mass perceptual disagreement about the colors of objects amongst human observers in typical conditions (...) (P-Disagreement). In this article, we defend Incompatibility, Objectivism, and Veridicality by calling into question whether the empirical literature really supports P-Disagreement. (shrink)

After defending the pluralistic approach to the interpretation of probability statements, I argue that the correctness of objective probability statements is not to be explained in terms of objective probabilities attached to propositions. Such an explanation will enable us to uphold an intuitively appealing connection between probability and action only in indeterministic contexts, whereas the objectivity of probability statements doesn’t depend on the truth of indeterminism. I show how objective probability statements can be interpreted without ascribing objective probabilities to propositions. (...) Finally, I draw a cautionary conclusion about the prospects for providing a probabilistic analysis of causation. (shrink)

Most objectivist and dispositionalist theories of color have tried to resolve the challenge raised by color variations by drawing a distinction between real and apparent colors. This paper considers such a strategy to be fundamentally erroneous. The high degree of variability of colors constitutes a crucial feature of colors and color perception; it cannot be avoided without leaving aside the real nature of color. The objectivist theory of color defended in this paper holds that objects have locally many different objective (...) colors. Most color variations are then real and result from the extreme richness of color properties. (shrink)

The views of linguistic analysts and objectivists are explored with regard to the question of interactionism. It is argued that the admission of a logical difference between explanation by cause and explanation by motive cannot disqualify causal explanations of human action, cannot be construed as challenging the competence of science, and cannot count against interactionism. It is also argued that objectivist programs for eliminating mentalistic concepts either implicitly admit interactionism or cannot distinguish relevantly between interactionism and parallelism.

Abstract: This paper pursues our system through the de-objectivation of (parallel to mathematics) physics and its object. -/- Résumé : ce document poursuit notre système par une dé-objectivation (parallèle aux mathématiques) de la physique et de son objet.