Local pragmatics: reply to Mandy Simons

In response to Mandy Simons’ defence of a classical Gricean approach to pragmatic enrichment in terms of conversational implicature, I emphasize the following contrast. Conversational implicatures are generated by a global inference which uses as a premise the fact that the speaker has said that p, but only the triggering inference is global in cases of pragmatic enrichment. What generates the correct interpretation is a process of reconstrual, which locally maps the literal meaning of a constituent to a modulated meaning and composes that meaning with that of the other constituents. That process is constrained by Gricean considerations (in the broad sense) but that is true of all pragmatic aspects of interpretation, whether pre-propositional or post-propositional. Just as indexical resolution, though pragmatic and constrained by Gricean considerations, does not fit the two-stage model through which Grice accounts for conversational implicatures, so pragmatic modulation can’t be accounted for in terms of that model despite the fact that, like conversational implicatures and unlike indexical resolution, modulation is pragmatically rather than semantically triggered.     

New work for a theory of ground*

There has been much recent interest in a distinctively metaphysical kind of determinative explanation: ground. This paper concerns various skeptical challenges to ground’s relevance to metaphysics, such as that it is an empty posit, that the work it is supposed to do is appropriated by other notions, and that it is inapt for specific issues it should serve. I argue against these challenges. My strategy is both critical and constructive. Critical because I argue that versions of these challenges raised by Elizabeth Barnes, Kathrin Koslicki, Mari Mikkola, and Jessica Wilson are not persuasive. Constructive because we may nevertheless learn from them new work for ground.     

The clinician in the university: Reflections on a South African psychoanalytically oriented doctoral programme

There is increasing interest, both internationally and in South Africa, in strengthening the relationship between psychoanalytic practice and research. This paper reports on a psychoanalytically oriented doctoral programme offered at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa. The programme is described in relation to the broader context of the historical relationship of psychoanalysis to the university as well as to the specific context of the history of psychoanalysis in South Africa. Key challenges of the programme, specifically concerning research tensions and methodological and theoretical tolerance, are subsequently explored. The way in which these challenges manifested within a group context illustrates their potential for conflict as well as productive debate. The paper reflects on how this specific programme illuminates and extends some of the broader debates in the field of psychoanalysis.     

The so‐called death drive,an indispensable force for any subjective life

The psychoanalytic movement has difficulty in overcoming the malaise bequeathed by what Freud wanted to call the ‘death drive’. This term remains doubly problematic: first because the indispensable antagonist of Eros‐binding cannot be reduced to a particular drive; and secondly because this Anteros plays a vital role in subjectivization. The Freudian idea of the ‘death drive’ has in addition the drawback of confusing dissociative thrust (unbinding) with the aggressive component of libidinal cathexis. Now it is precisely the lack of articulation between them that leads to deconstructing it. For it is constantly observed that in the psychic register aggression is much more fixing than unbinding. The essential role of Anteros/unbinding in the process of subjectivization can be illustrated through several key operations in subjective development: sublimatory activity and its renunciation of pleasure‐discharge, the work of mourning opposed to melancholic fixation, the intricating‐unbinding parental function, and finally the psychoanalytic treatment and its work of analysis. This means we should cease to anathematize the dynamic component of unbinding as ‘of death’ and seek to explain the concept of subjectivization better.     

Bureaucracy and creativity: do they make companionable bedfellows?

This essay will look at the benefits and weaknesses of the increasingly bureaucratic nature of training structures and processes in the training of Jungian psychotherapists and analysts. The author will draw on her experiences during two different periods of time as Director of Training at the Society of Analytical Psychology in London with observations on and discussion about some of the changes that have evolved. By way of contrast, she will offer some comparisons with developments in the training of Jungian analysts in countries with little or no legacy of an analytic culture. Here, there is a need to professionalize training in Jungian analysis but the attendant growth of bureaucracy can easily come to echo the politics of non‐democratic regimes.     

Who Knows? Knowledge Activation,Belief in Certainty of Knowledge,Maximization Tendencies and Need for Cognition in Answerability Judgments

In this study, investigating answerability judgments, 123 participants judged whether each of 46 general knowledge questions could currently be answered by themselves, by someone else, or by no one. There were 26 consensus questions (high expected consensus about their answerability) and 20 non-consensus questions. Before each question, half of the participants rated the extent of their knowledge related to the question. Results showed that answering consensus questions compared with non-consensus led to a lower proportion of “No one knows” answers. Moreover, in the knowledge rating condition compared with the control condition, participants choose “No one knows” proportionally less. Participants’ ratings of belief in certainty of knowledge were associated with more “Someone else knows” for the non-consensus questions. Moreover, tendency to maximization led to a higher proportion of “Someone else knows” options for the non-consensus questions. Finally, high need for cognition was associated with fewer choices of “Someone else knows.”     

When things are not the same: A review of research into relations of difference

Responding to stimuli as same and different can be considered a critical component of a variety of language and academic repertoires. Whereas responding to “sameness” and generalized identity matching (i.e., coordination) have been studied extensively, there appears to be a significant gap in behavior analytic research and educational programs with regard to nonmatching relations or relations of difference. We review research on difference relations from a variety of domains, including comparative psychology, as well as experimental, and translational behavior analysis. We examine a range of studies, including research on the perception of difference and oddity responding, as well as investigations on establishing relational frames of distinction. We present suggestions for future research and describe potential methods for teaching skills related to relations of difference.     

Impact of gendered ingroup/outgroup ostracism on women’s academic performances

This study investigated the impact of ostracism (vs. inclusion) for women in a same-sex vs. opposite-sex group on their cognitive performances. Female participants played Cyberball with other women or men and were either included or excluded. Participants then had to engage in the performance tasks. Results showed that women’s performance was decreased by ostracism in a math task (but not a verbal task) yet only in the same-sex condition. Furthermore, this result was obtained only among participants who did the numeric task first. No effect was observed in the verbal task. Two replications of the initial study were conducted using the math task. The result of the first study has been replicated one time. A meta-analysis revealed a small effect of ostracism on performance in the ingroup condition, whereas the effect seems to be non-existent in the outgroup condition. Results are discussed and future perspectives are proposed.     

Thinking About a Word—Love,for Example

What is it we do when we philosophize about a word? How are we to act as we ask the philosophical question par excellence, “What is … ?” These questions are addressed here with particular focus on Troy Jollimore's Love's Vision and contemporary theories of love. Jollimore's rationalist account of love, based on a specific understanding of “reasons for love,” illustrates a particular philosophical mistake: When we think about a word, we are prone to believe that even though “the sense of the word” that we investigate may be up for grabs, the other words we use when we do these investigations are not. Jollimore's exploration of love is guided by specific conceptions of “reasons” and “rationality” that remain unquestioned. The article argues that we may have to rethink a great number of words as we embark on the task of uncovering the sense of one word.     

Moral Philosophers as Ethical Engineers: Limits of Moral Philosophy and a Pragmatist Alternative

Ever since Kant, moral philosophers have been more or less animated by the mission of discovering inescapable law‐like rules that would provide a binding justification for morality. Recently, however, many have started to question (a) whether this is possible and (b) what, after all, this project could achieve. An alternative vision of the task of moral philosophy starts from the pragmatist idea that philosophizing begins and ends in human experiencing. It leads to a view where morality is seen as a “social technology” that aims to make living together possible, and strengthens people's capability to live a good life within a society. The role of moral philosophy is, accordingly, to develop our moral tools further. Moral philosophers become ethical engineers who use their expertise in ethical topics to criticize existing “moral technology” and construct new concepts, tools, and theories that better answer the current challenges for living a good life.