This paper reevaluates Walton’s and Radford’s claims about fiction-directed emotions by proposing to interpret their arguments through a motivational theory of emotion, rather than the cognitive framework typically employed. I first demonstrate that no cognitive theory justifies their conclusions. I then argue that a motivational account can alternatively support either Radford’s or Walton’s position, depending on whether we accept that emotions toward fiction involve action tendencies, as ordinary emotions do. If they do, the motivational theory justifies Radford’s claim about the irrationality of fiction-directed emotions. If, by contrast, we deny that emotions for fiction involve readiness for action, the motivational account favors Walton’s view of quasi-emotions. After developing this line of argument, I revisit textual evidence from Radford’s and Walton’s works that aligns with my interpretation.

Despite the centrality of the achievement thesis within standpoint epistemology, thereare gaps in the literature on the epistemic significance of consciousness-raising and itsrole in providing access to knowledge that was previously inaccessible. To addressthese gaps, I argue that consciousness-raising is a transformative experience, one thatmakes us a different person. If, as the standpoint epistemologist suggests, what weknow is sensitive to facts about who we are, then to change what we know we mustchange who we are.

Neopragmatism is what local expressivism becomes when it is fully generalized and globalized. One of its attractions is its promise to demystify long-standing metaphysical puzzles by shifting the focus from ontology to language. Among current neopragmatists, there is an important divide. Members of one group hold that we cannot explain language without making use of normative notions such as reasons or entitlements. Members of the other group deny this. In this paper, I defend the naturalistic version of neopragmatism from arguments coming from proponents of the normative version.

Conciliationism holds that it is rational to modify one’s beliefs in the face of disagreement. But extant conciliatory norms yield incorrect results in cases involving excessive confidence—cases in which one’s interlocutors are sure, or almost sure, that their opinions are correct. After explaining the problem of excessive confidence, I show that a Bayesian approach to Conciliationism handles the problem elegantly and effectively. Further, it has desirable—indeed essential—features, including the ability to (i) contend with multiple interlocutors, (ii) deal with gradations in competence, (iii) incorporate ubiquitous interdependence, and (iv) account for critical contextual features of cases of disagreement.

According to most contemporary treatments, our faculty of reason is itself devoid of a motive force. We defend the contrary Kantian position which claims that our faculty of rationality, our Will, comes with a motive force of its own. Our argument takes outset in the experience of reflective freedom as this has been discussed by Frankfurt, Watson, Velleman, and Sartre. We argue that each of their theories is unable to account for central features of our experience of reflective freedom. We show that only if we ascribe a substantive motive to our faculty of rationality can we overcome these problems.

Expositions of the fine-tuning argument (FTA) typically aim only to show that cosmic fine-tuning is evidence for theism over specific versions of naturalism. But, construed as an argument for theism, that modest contention threatens the FTA with insignificance, as there may be other hypotheses that better explain fine-tuning than either theism or one’s preferred formulation of naturalism. Adopting a Bayesian framework, I assess four such possibilities: the simulation hypothesis, teleological cosmopsychism, axiarchism, and teleological laws. I conclude that theism is superior to all four.