an in-between move

Cool kids read The Bellman.


Don't read this blog!

I mean, thanks for dropping by my little corner of the blogospheric backwaters, but the blog you should be reading is The Bellman. The stuff I post there is much, much less likely to be imbued with dormitive powers.


[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

Literally an "in-between move". A move in a tactical sequence is called a zwischenzug* when it does not relate directly to the tactical motif in operation. |source|

image copyright TWIC

From this position, black played a zwischenzug: 19…d5
(Linares 2002, 1-0)


about your blogger

David Rowland studies philosophy at the University of Illinois - Urbana / Champaign, where he's an active member of the Graduate Employees Organization. He used to play a lot of chess, but wasn't all that good. He has a blog. And email.



Progress, scholarship
A tentative answer
The occidental wisdom of Henry Rollins
The Grasshopper's dream
An important question
The Ass's Shadow
What the Hell happened to my template?
The 'G' stands for Walter
Calling all news media
"A Lexicon of College Slang"*


error log

January 2004  
February 2004  
March 2004  
April 2004  
May 2004  
June 2004  
July 2004  
August 2004  
September 2004  
October 2004  
November 2004  
December 2004  
January 2005  
February 2005  
March 2005  
April 2005  
May 2005  
June 2005  
July 2005  
August 2005  
September 2005  
October 2005  
November 2005  
December 2005  


$zwichenzug$ sell-out zone





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.

Union Label

Direct Action
Gets the Goods!


some folks I know

Mark Dilley
a daily dose of architecture
Safety Neal
January Girl
mimi jingcha
Hop, Skip, Jump
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian


some blogs I read

strip mining for whimsy
It's Matt's World
School of Blog
Fall of the State
Dru Blood
Echidne of the Snakes
Colossal Waste of Bandwidth
Running from the Thought Police
Bionic Octopus


some philosoblogs

Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Working Life
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
Eric Lee


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Matthew Yglesias
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
The Volokh Conspiracy


some other links

Rule 33
This Week in Chess
War Nerd
National Priorities Project
Bible Gateway
Internet Archive
A Weekly Dose of Architecture
Orsinal: Morning Sunshine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Safety Sign Builder
Get Your War On


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
Tiffany's argument for strong internalism
Internalism v. Externalism
What do internalists believe anyway?
Rationalism and internalism
The experimental method in philosophy
Advertising to children
On moral skepticism
A linguistic argument
More on Williams
Williams on reasons
General and particular
Normativity and morality
Political intuitions
What it is, what it was, and what it shall be
Objectivity and morality
Thinking revolution
Abortion and coercion
Moore on torture
On the phenomenology of deliberation
Even more Deliberation Day
more Deliberation Day
Deliberation Day run-down
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge, cont.
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge
Every shepherd is an abomination
Droppin' H-bombs
ad hominem

Tuesday, September 13, 2005


A quick Korsgaard post

The centerpiece of Korsgaard's second Locke Lecture is something she calls 'the argument against particularistic willing.' The argument is most explicitly given in 2.5.2, but material bearing on it is found throughout the lecture. Which is, by the way, a good thing because many of the arguments of 2.5.2, taken on their own, have the appearance of circularity.

I hasten to add that I don't really think that Korsgaard is arguing in a circle, or at least not in the superficial way that it sometimes appears. Rather, I think that the text is a lecture and that certain of the rhetorical techniques appropriate to a lecture format encourage formulations that appear circular when not interpreted in the context of the whole. I also think that the argument of 2.5.2 is meant to be a reformulation of an argument found in the replies of Sources (I think Korsgaard says this explicitly somewhere), with the result that some of the turns taken in the Locke Lectures only make sense in the context of criticism leveled at Sources.

Anyway, for what it's worth, my best shot at the general argument against particularistic wiling is something this:
  1. To will at all is to regard oneself as a causality.
  2. But our concept of causation is the concept of a law which operates without exception.
  3. Particularistic willing would be to regard oneself as a causality, but as one which does not operate with regularity.
  4. Hence, the very idea of particularistic willing is inconsistent.

I don't find this to be a convincing argument at all. Let me say, very briefly, why not.

To begin with, I'm not inclined to agree that the concept of causation is the concept of a law which operates without exception. In Sources it was pretty clear that this notion of causation was linked to the operation of natural law. While keeping in mind that there are some differences with the presentation of the Locke Lecture and the status of natural law is a contentious question in the philosophy of science (and one I'm not all that familiar with), it strikes me that the notion of causation appealed to here is overly simplistic.

It is perhaps too early in human history to say whether we will ultimately discover the fact of the matter as to whether our universe is deterministic or indeterministic (though the case for indeterminism looks pretty good). What is clear, though, is that we wouldn't consider events brought about through indeterministic processes to be uncaused. But if that is so, then it makes no sense to say that our concept of causation must be the concept of a law which operates without exception.

There is, of course, an out (and perhaps the reason that natural law is not so explicitly appealed to in the Locke Lectures is to preserve this out). Korsgaard can say that she is not talking about the notion of causality as it is used in science, but rather about a notion of causality that is psychologically necessary for us. At first blush, though, this is an odd thing to say. After all, it certainly seems to be the case that people take themselves to be capable of acting inconsistently. And if that's so, then how can it be psychologically necessary that insofar as they regard themselves as a cause they regard themselves as instantiating a law which operates without exception?

Yes, yes, I know. So that by action they will constitute themselves as agents. But I don't think Korsgaard can appeal to that here without begging the question, since the argument against particularistic willing is apparently meant to be a step toward the conclusion that we constitute ourselves as agents by acting on universal maxims.

+ - + - + main + - + - +