On pre-conventions as ‘normative facts’
In his essay “Pre-Conventions: A Fragment of the Background”, Bruno Celano seems to endorse three claims about what he calls ‘pre-conventions’: (a) that such ‘entities’ exist; (b) that they are neither rules nor de facto regularities; and (c) that their ‘character’ is at once factual and normative:...
Kaydedildi:
| Yayımlandı: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/revus, |
|---|---|
| Yazar: | |
| Materyal Türü: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Baskı/Yayın Bilgisi: |
Revus
2017
|
| Konular: | |
| Online Erişim: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Özet: | In his essay “Pre-Conventions: A Fragment of the Background”, Bruno Celano seems to endorse three claims about what he calls ‘pre-conventions’: (a) that such ‘entities’ exist; (b) that they are neither rules nor de facto regularities; and (c) that their ‘character’ is at once factual and normative: that pre-conventions are “literally, ‘normative facts’.” I suggest that (a) and (b) are not particularly striking claims, and that Celano’s case for (c) is unpersuasive. |
|---|