Psychological Rationalism questions the grounds for positing an extensive disparity between homo sapiens and homo philosophicus. It argues instead for the Similarity Thesis, according to which we are sufficiently similar to homo philosophicus for our self-knowledge to be explicable in rationalist terms. Interpretationists like Davidson and Dennett argue that a person’s propositional attitudes must be mostly rational. In response, it is argued that the interpretationist argument for the Similarity Thesis exaggerates the constitutive role of the ideal of rationality in interpretation. We can and do make sense of believers and their beliefs other than on the basis of considerations of rationality. Only absolute irrationality is ruled out by interpretationism. A different rationalist strategy is to question empirical arguments against the Similarity Thesis. It is shown that rationalist objections to empirical arguments against the Similarity Thesis have little merit.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.