María José Frápolli and Kurt Wischin interview Prof. Robert B. Brandom (Disputatio 2019)

From Conceptual Content in Big Apes and AI to the Classical Principle of Explosion An Interview with Robert B. Brandom: An Interview with Robert B. Brandom
In this Interview, Professor Robert B. Brandom answered ten detailed questions about his philosophy of Rational Pragmatism and Semantic Expressivism, grouped into four topics. 1. Metaphysics and Anthropology, 2. Pragmatics and Semantics, 3. Epistemic Expressivism, and 4. Philosophy of Logic. With his thoughtful and precise answers, Professor Brandom offers many additional insights into his rigorously constructed account of the relationship “between what we say and think, and what we are saying and thinking about” around the human practice of asking for and giving reasons. A final, additional question pointed at a principal motivation for putting together the present issue: how to reconcile Wittgenstein’s assertion that philosophy must not proffer any theories with the very explicit system of explanations Brandom has constructed. This same issue is addressed to some extent already in Professor Brandom’s new article contained in this issue. Still, his answer, asserting that he does not proffer a theory but only makes explicit what is already there, might be seen as an unambiguous statement of the continuous presence of a contested Wittgensteinian principle in Brandom’s work.
María José Frápolli and Kurt Wischin interview
Professor Robert B. Brandom
July 2018
Interview in Disputatio: disputatio.eu/vols/vol-8-no-9...
Special Issue: Linguistic and Rational Pragmatism: The Philosophies of Wittgenstein and Brandom, edited by Kurt Wischin: disputatio.eu/vols/vol-8-no-9/

[@MrStingray1985]

This is fantastic. Thank you very much!

[@disputatiophilosophicalres8590]

Glad you liked it!

[@AlessandroZir]

thanks for making this available; interesting discussion;

[@BillyMcBride]

Hi, I enjoy the interview with Professor Brandom. I think that computers will be respected more and more as humanlike to some degree. But, that they participate in our communities will be an ongoing process. The enthusiasm for learning processes will be greater in the future. And, the distinctions we make between our network and neural networks will be looked at figuratively and poetically before they will be philosophically. I love pragmatism because of the times we live where Professor Brandom redescribes the philosophies of tradition with interesting stories. And, a practice of action, by speech and by social participation will be due to the improvement of that interesting vocabulary which is going on by redescription. But, to command alone (assertion) is not sometimes action until things can be done with success. A line that is drawn between terms will be a good distinction. And, the expressiveness of those terms, I think, relies on a role of surprise. But, that surprise by which terms are determined by expressiveness is what I believe makes explicit our interest for using them. The concept of roles will be understood by explanations. And, the commitment we make to explain with reasons our roles and the roles we see in our vocabularies both will be distinguished by us to endorse what we share between us, what facts we sometimes gather, and our meanings and interpretations of those. But, to think of facts as assertions in one way will be synthesized in the way we are claiming to have understood our roles. The holism offered by complex issues, by Wilfrid Sellars and others, will be essential to concepts, a “subjunctive robustness” of laws. And, the essential counterfactuals of Sellars will be important to understand their robustness. But, the inference will have its range and defeasibility. Normative terms will be rejected by those whose paths do not cross ours at times. And, norms will be holistic radically over time. But, the practical ways we understand each other will be telling if we appeal to our commitments with the terms we use. Navigation between us for understanding and making inferences from each other will be for practical judgments. Propositions will not be the only way we navigate. But, normative beliefs and knowledge will be undertaken by our commitments we make to our claiming. Knowledge and belief will be presumed when we distinguish between what we are entitled to and what we are not. And, our related terms will be less confusing when our words are in practice even if the meanings are not practiced mutually. But, to talk about our beliefs will be more interesting when we tell stories of how our past commitments are different from our current ones. The resources we have to ascribe our beliefs will be what we need to make a difference in the way compatibility and incompatibility follow. And, content of our explicit practices will be made. But, our explicit attitudes will bring confidence in our making of claims. Thank you again for this interview with Professor Brandom and for your thoughtful intelligent questions.

[@Ali-qk1bo]

Thaank you for this. The questions were very challenging and well-thought.