Jana Baum
University of Leipzig
In his paper The Search for Logically Alien Thought (1992) Conant argues that the idea of a logical alien – a being that thinks in a way that is fundamentally different and, in that sense, in disagreement with the way we do – is unintelligible. The insight is that whenever we encounter disagreement, no matter with whom, when or where, it is never an encounter with an absolutely opposed logical alien, but always an encounter with ourselves – with beings with whom we share a common ground. Consequently, this common ground, as a shared capacity and logic, is the potential to overcome every disagreement. Thus, the common ground is somehow both the possibility of disagreement and the possibility of resolving it. How is this to be understood? How to understand disagreement within thinking?
Given Conant’s framework for elaborating on the idea of disagreement, this paper aims to shed light on a central concept for understanding disagreement: error. There are two opposing ways of understanding the concept of error. On the one hand, error can be understood as an empirical concept. Accordingly, we gain the concept of error in encountering actual conflict in life. This is a position represented by Stephen Engstrom (2009). On the other hand, error can be understood as an a priori concept. Accordingly, we always already know about the possibility of error without encountering actual disagreement. This position is represented by Andrea Kern (2011).
The aim of this paper is to mediate between Engstrom’s and Kern’s opposing concepts of error. Conant’s insights allow us to question whether Engstrom’s account of error can make intelligible how we recognize disagreement empirically for the first time without knowing about its possibility a priori. Wouldn’t a disagreeing judgment look just like a logical alien? One might wonder. In contrast, this paper argues that Kern does not face this challenge, and can therefore account for both aspects of disagreement within thinking: It makes intelligible how we recognize actual disagreement – because it is already anchored as a possibility in our shared capacity – and at the same time it makes clear that disagreement can always be overcome due to the common ground.
Chair: Giulia Sicuro
Time: 14:00 – 14:30
Location: SR 1.003
SOPhiA 2026 