Search

Assuming that there is a "neuroscientific turn" in moral philosophy, I will be discussing in this paper how neurophilosophy could shed light on the normative problems raised by a naturalistic project of ethical and social research, particularly related to the question of the articulation between the biological evolution of human species and the social and historical evolution of society and social groups. Taking a critical approach to naturalism and normative theories, I argue that there is a neurophenomenological deficit in naturalism (particularly in the versions of naturalism that follow the program of a naturalized epistemology) and in the normative theories (particularly in the critical theory) and I put forward a version of social constructivism that combines the neuroscientific and neurophilosophical models of Antonio Damasio and Jesse Prinz.

Assuming that there is a "neuroscientific turn" in moral philosophy, I will be discussing in this paper how neurophilosophy could shed light on the normative problems raised by a naturalistic project of ethical and social research, particularly related to the question of the articulation between the biological evolution of human species and the social and historical evolution of society and social groups. Taking a critical approach to naturalism and normative theories, I argue that there is a neurophenomenological deficit in naturalism (particularly in the versions of naturalism that follow the program of a naturalized epistemology) and in the normative theories (particularly in the critical theory) and I put forward a version of social constructivism that combines the neuroscientific and neurophilosophical models of Antonio Damasio and Jesse Prinz.

In order to characterize the nature of Hume’s philosophy, my aim in this paper is to emphasize some of the ideas of Hume and compare the skeptical interpretation with the naturalistic interpretation. In order to point out the main reasons behind these two interpretations that attempt to apprehend the nature of Hume's philosophy, I seek initially to explain some principles of the Humean theory, especially his analysis of the causal inferences. Finally, I argue that Hume’s skepticism and naturalism are not incompatible. On the contrary, both theses aspects must be understood as two sides of the same philosophy.