summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffhomepage
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>2020-09-17 11:25:22 -0700
committerSean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>2020-09-17 11:25:22 -0700
commitd735be6b7794cb0f76dd3bfa9fa5816bccf76ce8 (patch)
tree675e02647c8e8b014a93f1902560f0d2c86ef1ef
parente639e70db4001ec024d917a76850407b3dc81391 (diff)
downloadwiki-d735be6b7794cb0f76dd3bfa9fa5816bccf76ce8.tar.gz
add dissertation abstract
-rw-r--r--philos/research.mdwn31
1 files changed, 31 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/philos/research.mdwn b/philos/research.mdwn
index bb6a331..4085f53 100644
--- a/philos/research.mdwn
+++ b/philos/research.mdwn
@@ -41,3 +41,34 @@ Abstract:
> making this argument I rely on the claim that there is a strong, particular
> sense in which other people are unknowable to us, a claim which is developed
> in the fiction of Haruki Murakami.
+
+# Ph.D. dissertation/thesis: *Purely Dynamic Eudaimonism*
+
+In progress.
+
+Abstract:
+
+> /Purely dynamic eudaimonism/ (PDE) is a novel view according to which the
+> final end of practical reasoning is virtuous activity. This should be
+> distinguished from the view that its final end is the agent's possession of
+> virtue, as well as views according to which its final end is the obtaining
+> of some other state of affairs, or engaging in some other activity or
+> activities. The commonly-raised egoism and intellectualism objections to
+> eudaimonism have motivated eudaimonists such as Rosalind Hursthouse (1999)
+> to appeal to eudaimonia in only carefully circumscribed ways. PDE escapes
+> these objections, and so PDE enables deploying the concept of eudaimonia
+> without reservation to more satisfactorily explain how possession of one
+> virtue seems to imply possession of others, how virtue enables the virtuous
+> to respond well to very different situations, and how the aspiration to
+> develop virtue is a rational response to the challenges that arise in any
+> adult life. Against non-eudaimonist philosophies of happiness, such as Susan
+> Wolf's, PDE better accounts for how ethical improvement makes lives good; it
+> also explains how the process of integrating our practical concerns itself
+> contributes to making lives good. I defend PDE in three stages. First, I
+> provide a taxonomy of conceptions of happiness, giving precise accounts of
+> the characteristic features shared by all and only eudaimonist conceptions
+> of happiness (including a minimalist theory of virtue), while also
+> explaining how eudaimonisms can differ from one another. I then argue
+> against representative views drawn from each category of the taxonomy, other
+> than PDE’s category. Finally, I provide positive arguments for PDE by
+> expanding upon the minimal virtue theory common to all forms of eudaimonism.