Ricerc@Sapienza

Mizrahi’s argument against Stanford’s challenge to scientific realism is analyzed. Mizrahi’s argument is worth of attention for at least two reasons: (1) unlike other criticisms that have been made to Stanford’s view so far, Mizrahi’s argument does not question any specific claim of Stanford’s argument, rather it puts into question the very coherence of Stanford’s position, because it argues that since Stanford’s argument rests on the problem of the unconceived alternatives, Stanford’s argument is self-defeating.

What is moral philosophy (good) for, and how should we understand and practice it accordingly? In attempting an answer to this vexed metaphilosophical questions about the very nature and point of ethical thinking, the multi-layered position advanced by Dewey in his 1932 Ethics represents a rich source for reflection – pragmatist and otherwise.