Eline Gerritsen

@elineg.bsky.social

356 Followers 542 Following

Postdoc in philosophy at university of Hamburg. Metaethics, normativity, social norms. Also books, ballet and baking. elinegerritsen.com

A large rock with the letters WC and an arrow painted on it. Behind it stands a large stone monument with an image of a winged hourglass, around which a snake bites its own tail.
Screenshot from duolingo: a flame with under it '1777 day streak'
A picture of a sea covered in ice and snow, a dark grey sky above.
Ad for two pans with text: mit rauer Oberfläche für ein besonderes Barterlebnis.
"Het is heel slim gemaakt", zegt NPO 3FM-dj en kenner van de Aziatische cultuur Mai Verbij. "Bij de jongere generatie was K-pop al enorm populair en in de film zitten nummers die enorm catchy zijn en choreografieën die kinderen kunnen nadansen".
A chocolate stroopwafel (Dutch cookie) on top of a mug with the print 'Truth conquers all'
Abstract: It is increasingly common in metanormative debates to distinguish between two kinds of normativity: formal normativity, which all norms have, and authoritative normativity, which is a significant force not all norms have. Yet, we lack a clear and neutral understanding of the concept of authoritative normativity. In this paper, I highlight and dispel common misconceptions that stand in the way of a careful debate. In particular, I argue that current discussions of authoritative normativity are shaped by the pervasive but unwarranted non-naturalist idea that authority must be an irreducibly normative and intrinsic property. This makes authoritative normativity seem more mysterious than it needs to be, fuelling normative scepticism. With demanding preconceptions out of the way, there is conceptual room for explaining the authority of norms with natural facts about agents or their commitments. I conclude that we must not dismiss metaphysically naturalist metanormative theories as mere theories of formal normativity.
The front of The Routledge Handbook of Practical Reason
The current controversy about so-called free speech on university campuses shows that the discussion of the philosophical basis of etiquette is not an amusing little diversion, but a complex problem whose solution is of great practical significance for our modern society. Those who acknowledge that the law properly permits offensive speech, feel helpless to restrain it without compromising the Constitution. And yet unrestrained speech sabotages the special trust of the university, which is not to protect free speech, but to foster free inquiry. Etiquette provides the needed restraints. Just as courtroom etiquette forbids forms of speech and behavior that the law itself protects in other contexts, the classroom etiquette must restrain offensive speech, while protecting the civil expression of offensive ideas. Both courtroom and
3/5, made it for the wife and she stayed with me
Left: text 'how you look in selfies', with a handsome painting of a man falsely believed to be Kant. Right: 'How you look in group pictures', with an unflattering painting of Kant