This study of the dialogue "Iulius" aims to put an end to the centuries-long controversy on the work's paternity; to open a new phase of reflection on how it got into print; and to promote a revised image of Erasmus, removing the slur of complacency and dullness that has become attached to him. The volume also contains Conflictus and De civlitate.

L'A. donne une interprétation radicalement nouvelle des «Beiträge zur Philosophie» de Heidegger en en faisant une «contribution» à une christologie. Il fait reposer son interprétation sur l'utilisation du terme ancien «seyn» et non «sein» qui, chez Fichte, désigne Dieu, tandis que «Daseyn» désigne Jésus-Christ. Dès lors se trouve reposée la question de l'ontothéologie selon Heidegger.

Sous le terme « politique » il faut inclure l’imbroglio de Heidegger avec le National-Socialisme au début des années 1930, une analyse de son discours de rectorat, et sa démission comme recteur. On tente ici de rendre compte de cette implication. En outre, sous « politique » il y a lieu d’entendre les propres tentatives de Heidegger, sommaires et en grande partie sans succès, de forger une philosophie de la politique, dont quelques-unes sont examinées et critiquées de manière détaillée. Il (...) y a aussi une section touchant l’« antisémitisme » de Heidegger, tel qu’illustré spécialement dans les Cahiers Noirs, lesquels ont donné lieu à une controverse considérable dernièrement. On tente de replacer cela dans son contexte historique et culturel. S’y ajoutent également les nombreuses remarques, allant du curieux au bizarre, qui apparaissent dans les Cahiers Noirs concernant les événements sociaux et politiques du temps entre 1931 et 1948. L’article conclut sur ce que l’auteur voit comme les plus importants thèmes à découvrir dans ces volumes, qui font écho aux thèmes qu’on trouve dans les Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) ainsi que dans les traités non publiés de la troisième partie de la Gesamtausgabe. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that a moderate form of epistemic relativism that is inspired by the work of Thomas Kuhn fails. First of all, it is shown that there is evidence to the effect that Kuhn already in his 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' proposes moderate relativism. Second, it is argued that moderate relativism is confronted with a severe dilemma that follows from Kuhn’s own argument for his relativistic conclusion. By focusing on the work of moderate relativists like Bernd (...) Schofer and Gerald Doppelt this dilemma as well as the ultimate failure of Kuhn’s moderate relativism are exhibited. (shrink)

Distributive egalitarians believe that distributive justice is to be explained by the idea of distributive equality (DE) and that DE is of intrinsic value. The socio-relational critique argues that distributive egalitarianism does not account for the “true” value of equality, which rather lies in the idea of “equality as a substantive social value” (ESV). This paper examines the socio-relational critique and argues that it fails because – contrary to what the critique presupposes –, first, ESV is not conceptually distinct from (...) DE, and second, the idea of ESV cannot serve as a “foundation” or “root” of distributive egalitarianism. (shrink)

Ein Blick auf das weite Feld philosophiedidaktischer Veröffentlichungen zeigt einerseits, auf welch großen Fundus früherer Theoriebildung zurückgegriffen werden kann, anderseits aber auch, welch weiterhin große Desiderate sich insbesondere aus dem Umstand ergeben, dass die Gruppe der philosophischen Unterrichtsfächer erst in der jüngeren Vergangenheit in die Jahrgangsstufen auch außerhalb der Sekundarstufen Einzug gehalten haben.

Monism or plurality as a theoretical foundation of psychology? Traditionally, the sciences have been divided into the natural sciences on the one hand and the humanities on the other. Natural sciences consider objective, i. e. thirdperson entities, whereas the humanities concern subjective intentional processes that depend on first-person interpretation. This leads to a dualistic dichotomy of nomothetic versus idiographic approaches. Now what about psychology, the science of (first-person) experience and (third-person) behavior? The development of this discipline has put forward dualistic (...) and monistic, mental and physiological theories in rapid succession, which is perpetuated in today’s (dualistic and pluralistic) cognitive-behavioral psychology on the one hand and the (monistic) neuroscience reductions on the other. Some reductionists, particularly in clinical psychology, even favor the monistic approach of social constructivism. Thus, the discussion in the discipline of psychology has remained at a clearly pluralistic, possibly pre-paradigmatic, stage. We argue that no reductive solution is in sight - so that psychology should openly acknowledge its dual aspects of mind and body. This dual-aspect approach should be supported by a structural science foundation. The structural-mathematical science of complexity and synergetics can offer concepts and laws that are valid in both the physical and mental domains - analogous pattern formation schemes govern both physical-behavioral and mental-intentional processes. (shrink)

We present a module based criterion, i.e. a sufficient condition based on the absolute value of the matrix coefficients, for the convergence of Gauss–Seidel method (GSM) for a square system of linear algebraic equations, the Generalized Line Criterion (GLC). We prove GLC to be the “most general” module based criterion and derive, as GLC corollaries, some previously know and also some new criteria for GSM convergence. Although far more general than the previously known results, the proof of GLC is (...) simpler. The results used here are related to recent research in stability of dynamical systems and control of manufacturing systems. (shrink)

This book is built upon the premiss that there is more than a heuristic connection between Heidegger's thought and his accounts of the Pre-Socratics. Accordingly, by studying what Heidegger has said about them and why he has said it, Seidel offers explanations of some key Heideggerian themes, such as history, being, truth, and language. Seidel brings to this task a sound and thorough reading of both the Pre-Socratics and Heidegger and succeeds in illuminating some of Heidegger's basic concepts.—W. (...) G. E. (shrink)

One controversy about the existence of so called evolutionary forces such as natural selection and random genetic drift concerns the sense in which such “forces” can be said to interact. In this paper I explain how natural selection and random drift can interact. In particular, I show how population-level probabilities can be derived from individual-level probabilities, and explain the sense in which natural selection and drift are embodied in these population-level probabilities. I argue that whatever causal character the individual-level probabilities (...) have is then shared by the population-level probabilities, and that natural selection and random drift then have that same causal character. Moreover, natural selection and drift can then be viewed as two aspects of probability distributions over frequencies in populations of organisms. My characterization of population-level probabilities is largely neutral about what interpretation of probability is required, allowing my approach to support various positions on biological probabilities, including those which give biological probabilities one or another sort of causal character. ‡This paper has benefited from feedback on and discussions of this and earlier work. I want to thank André Ariew, Matt Barker, Lindley Darden, Patrick Forber, Nancy Hall, Mohan Matthen, Samir Okasha, Jeremy Pober, Robert Richardson, Alex Rosenberg, Eric Seidel, Denis Walsh, and Bill Wimsatt. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, HB 414A, 900 13th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294-1260; e-mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

Are our beliefs justified only relatively to a specific culture or society? Is it possible to give reasons for the superiority of our scientific, epistemic methods? Markus Seidel sets out to answer these questions in his critique of epistemic relativism. Focusing on the work of the most prominent, explicitly relativist position in the sociology of scientific knowledge – so-called 'Edinburgh relativism' or the 'Strong Programme' –, he scrutinizes the key arguments for epistemic relativism from a philosophical perspective: underdetermination and (...) norm-circularity. His main negative result is that these arguments fall short of establishing epistemic relativism. -/- Despite arguing for epistemic absolutism, Seidel aims to provide an account of non-relative justification that nevertheless integrates the basic, correct intuition of the epistemic relativist. His main positive result is that the epistemic absolutist can very well accept the idea that people using different standards of justification can be equally justified in holding their beliefs: Rational disagreement, he maintains, is perfectly possible. -/- The book provides a detailed critique of relativism in the sociology of scientific knowledge and beyond. With its constructive part it aims at making conciliatory steps in a highly embittered discussion between sociology and philosophy of science. (shrink)

Thomas S. Kuhns Buch,,Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen" zählt zweifelsohne zu einem der einflussreichsten Werke innerhalb der Wissenschaftstheorie des vergangenen Jahrhunderts. Mit seinen wissenschaftshistorisch gestützten Überlegungen zu revolutionären Paradigmenwechseln fordert er ein naives Bild des kumulativen Fortschritts der Wissenschaften heraus. Das Buch ist damit einer der Ausgangspunkte der sogenannten,historischen Wende' in der Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Und noch heute provoziert die Verwendung der Begriffe,,Paradigma",,,Normalwissenschaft",,,Krisenforschung",,,Anomalie" oder,,Inkommensurabilität" teils erbitterte Debatten in der Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Neben der außerordentlichen Relevanz, die Kuhns Buch für akademische Debatten in der Philosophie und (...) der Wissenschaftstheorie hatte, ist darüber hinaus aber auch die ungemeine Popularität des Buches bemerkenswert: Fast 1,5 Million Exemplare der englischen Ausgabe wurden verkauft,,The Times Literary Supplement' zählt das Buch zu den 100 einflussreichsten Büchern nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, der ehemalige Vize-Präsident und Friedensnobelpreisträger Al Gore nennt das Buch als eines seiner Lieblingsbücher und in vielen Einführungsvorlesungen zu methodischen Grundlagen von Spezialdisziplinen wird das Buch erwähnt. Der Band versammelt Beiträge der national und international führenden Experten zu Kuhns Klassiker und ermöglicht so die kapitelweise Erschließung des Originaltextes. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that many arguments from expert opinion are strong arguments. Therefore, in many cases it is rational to rely on experts since in many cases the fact that an expert says that p makes it highly likely that p is true. I will defend this claim by providing 5 arguments that illuminate and elaborate on 5 crucial claims about expertise. In this way, I aim to undermine recent attempts to establish a rampant scepticism about arguments from (...) expert opinion. (shrink)

Theoretical models and correlational research suggest that anger and disgust play different roles in moral judgment. Anger is theorized to underlie reactions to crimes against persons, such as battery and unfairness, and disgust is theorized to underlie reactions to crimes against nature, such as sexual transgressions and cannibalism. To date, however, it has not been shown that induction of these two emotions has divergent effects. In this experiment we show divergent effects of anger and disgust. We use sounds to elicit (...) anger and disgust, and participants are then asked to consider moral vignettes. As compared to disgust and control condition, anger increases severity of judgments about crimes against persons, and disgust increases severity of judgments about crimes against nature, but not conversely. (shrink)

According to the Gradualist Dutilitarian Project, the moral theory that we have most reason to adopt in order to make progress in moral philosophy emanates from a conjunction of two claims: (1) Dutilitarianism, the claim that what makes an action right or wrong depends on both consequences and deontological concerns; and (2) Gradualism, the view that moral rightness and wrongness come in degrees. Peterson’s argument for the Gradualist Dutilitarian Project is based on the Conditional Rescue Claim, which states that if (...) you believe in Dutilitarianism, then you ought to believe in Gradualism — because Gradualism is necessary to make Dutilitarianism internally coherent when faced with a challenging result developed within an Arrowian framework. I will argue that the argument for the Conditional Rescue Claim fails. By carefully distinguishing between two ways of individuating theories, as well as between theories and classes of theories, the apparent incompatibility between the Arrowian result and the guiding idea of Dutilitarianism (as being a compromise) disappears. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 693 between the world of our sense perception and the world of objects "in and for themselves," had suggested that the failure to appreciate this distinction was a "Grundvorurteil" common to all controversies, and, finally, had argued for the need to distinguish between the self revealed in "inner sense" and the self as it is in itself, unknowable to us. In his extremely valuable article, "Funzioni logiche (...) e categorie in Kant," Silvestro Marcucci retlects on a complex of issues surrounding Kant's claim to have discovered some sort of correspondence between the components and structure of a "table" of logical functions and those of a set of"pure concepts" or "categories" for the objective determination of objects through the contents of human sensibility. Of central concern to Marcucci is the error of supposing that what is in question is either a mere parallel between functions of judgment and categories or some sort of real identity between them. What is in question, according to Marcucci, are three "uses" but only two "levels" (piani): the foundational level is that of an operative.judgmental "functionality" by which the categories and the pure forms of general logic are produced. He argues that Kant is appealing here neither to pure logical form nor to logical "functions" that are in some way identical with the categories of understanding, but rather to functions of judgment more fundamental than either. The final two essays deal with two of Kant's immediate heirs, Reinhold and Fichte. In "The Sun of Enlightenment" Nathan Rotenstreich argues that Reinhold's notion of Enlightenment had an important social aspect, which is concerned with the distribution of enlightenment and is distinguished from his systematic view. Claudio Cesa, in "Die Vieldeutigkeit des Begriffes 'Trieb' von J. G. Fichte" traces the development of this important concept from Reinhold's concept "Kraft," which was itself neither sensible nor intellectual but changed depending upon its objects: sensibility, understanding, or reason. Cesa goes on to outline how Fichte developed a more positive notion including the conception of inner purposiveness expressing itself in humans as a form for realizing the I. JANE KNELI.ER Colorado State University RICHARD AQUILA University of Tennessee George J. Seidel. Fichte's "Wissenschaftslehre" of z 794: A Commentary on Part I. Purdue University Series in the History of Philosophy. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1993. Pp. ix + 126. Cloth, $25.00. Paper, $12.95. The recent revival of interest in Fichte is now well entrenched in North America and has begun to yield a fairly diverse harvest: new translations, articles, monographs, and, predictably, conferences and a scholarly society. With this volume, however, we have the first entry in the "commentary" category. Given its notorious obscurity and disarray, Fichte's corpus--particularly his Jena corpus, which has remained the main focus of attention--would seem to be an apt subject for the genre. The work to which Seidel has 694 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 33:4 OCTOBER ~995 devoted his attention--the Foundations of the Entire "Wissenschaft~lehre"--particularly invites this sort of undertaking; it is a text which, by Fichte's own account, was intended to be accompanied by elaborations, illustrations and explanations. Seidel focuses on what is certainly the most interesting and important part of the text, the first three sections (about 3~ pages in all) which together make up "Part I" of this version of the Wissenschaftslehre. It is here that Fichte tries to articulate the basic principles that will govern his entire philosophical investigation. He uses as the lever for his enquiry two fundamental logical dicta--the principles of identity and contradiction--claiming to uncover three fundamental principles which underlie them: the principles of selfpositing, counter-positing and limitation. The body of the Wissenschaflslehreitself is an elaborate dialectical attempt to work out the implications of these basic features of human subjectivity--in particular to use them to give a deduction of the fundamental categories of human experience. There are a number of different approaches that a commentary might take to this dense piece of text. At one extreme stands the example provided by Findlay, whose commentary on Hegel's Phenomenology takes the form of a detailed paraphrase... (shrink)

The paper explores the defence by the early sociologist of science Ludwik Fleck against the charge of relativism. It is shown that there are crucial and hitherto unnoticed similarities between Fleck’s strategy and the attempt by his contemporary Karl Mannheim to distinguish between an incoherent relativism and a consistent relationism. Both authors seek to revise epistemology fundamentally by reinterpreting the concept of objectivity in two ways: as inner- and inter-style objectivity. The argument for the latter concept shows the genuine political (...) background and intent of Fleck’s sociology of science and its ambition to relieve the cultural struggles of his time. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK REVIEWS 295 A study of Heidegger faces serious difficulties, for Heidegger is a difficult philosopher to comprehend. It is all too easy to fall into an oracular mode of presentation and to become obscure in that needless way of which one suspects Heidegger himself on many occasions. Seidel avoids these dangers admirably. His is a clear and careful, reasoned and unassuming account of Heidegger's views concerning the (...) pre-socratics and the historical fate of Being. His book should be a help to the scholar of Heidegger's thought and a stimulating, though perplexing, introduction to his philosophy. If it fails in the ways I have mentioned, it succeeds in many more ways than I have had the space to mention. It is a positive contribution to the literature concerning Iteidegger. STEPI-IEI~"A. ERICKSOR" Pomona College FiIosofia dell'arte. By Nicola Petruzzellis. Terza edizione riveduta ed accresciuta. (Napoli, Libreira Scientifica Editrice, 1964. I6~ pp. 642.) E' una terza edizione ma in cui l'ampiezza delle aggiunte ~ tale da far sl che non si possa parlare di un rifacimento soltanto perch~ i criter~ fondamentali dell'indagine tentata dall'autore (ed integrata dal felice volume su L'estetica dell'idealismo) sono rimasti gli stessi. Ma quello che prima era soltanto un motivo tematico s'~ sviluppato in una vogorosa e posscnte sinfonia, specie se ci si riferisce al panorama dell'estetica contemporanea, che, con ampiezza di vedute e spregiudicata freschezza d'informazione---integrando e continuando le note storie dell'estetica e della critica dello Zimmermann, dello Schlaser, del Bosanquet, del Croce e del Wellek--il Petruzzellis traccia all'inizio del libro "I1 panorama dell'estetica contemporanea, col quale si apre il volume---avverte--non vuol essere un'esposizione manualistica, e tanto meno un repertorio bibliografico pifl o meno completo, ma uno strumento d'indagine.... e vuo|e altresl fornire all'attento lettore le ragioni storiche e critiche deUe posizioni conclusive alle quali siamo pervenuti e dei consensi e dissensi in esse impliciti" (p. 6). II quadro ~ davvero completo, non solo in riferiment~ all'Italia, ch~ l'autore felicemente riassume e criticamente definisce, rendendo giustizia alle legittime esigenze di ognuno, le ricerche estetiche de Croce e Gentile, di Carlini e di Guzzo, di Stefanini e di Aliotta, di Rensi e di Baratono, di Carbonara e di Della Volpe. Il Petruzzellis 6 e~uriente anche circa le analisi sottili (che si ricoUegano all'esttismo ed al moralismo di SSren Kirkegaard) condotte intorno all'arte da Martin Heidegger e da Karl Jaspers, da Gabriel Marcel e da Jean Paul Sartre, mentre acutamente illustra quelle--ispirate ad un esistenzialismo positivo--di Nicola Abbagnano. Meno note le concezioni estetiche di Nicolai Hartmann e quelle fenomenologiche del Banff, del Morpurgo Tagliabue e del Dufrenne, sicch~ si deve dar atto al Petruzzellis della benemerenza d'averle minutamente illustrate, cosl come ha fatto con il problematicismo estetico di Ugo Spirito e del suo discepolo Armando Plebe. Sottilissima ~ poi l'analisi dei riflessi sulla filosofia dell'arte di correnti speculative ehe oggi (forse ~ effetto di moda) occupano, dal neoempirismo al marxismo, il palcoscenico culturale. Ms se tall correnti si agitano e si dimenano con notevole fracas~o in altri campi, penetrano solo furtivamente nel giardino delle Muse. Percib c'~ voluta tutta la paziente intelligenza del Petruzzellis per presentarci le riflessioni sull'arte (assai poco divulgatc specie in Italia) di John Dewey, di I. A. Richards, di Charles Morris, di B. C. Heyl, di Ernest Cassirer, di Susanne K. Langer e di GySrgy Luke. Quest'ultimo, in veritY, a differenza dei precedenti (mi riferisco sempre al solo lato estetico), ~ alquanto famoso, peraltro in effetti mal noto, ch~ la sua fortuna, dovuta prevalentemente a contingenti motivi politici, fa sl ch'egli sia pi~ citato che effettivamente letto. Un posto particolare in questo gran quadro il Petruzzellis assegna poi alle indagini semantiche di Guido Calogero e soprattuito a quelle penetranti ed acutissime di Antonino 296 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY Pagliaro, mentre sviscera con intelletto d'amore il contributo estetico arrecato da grandi contemporanei ispiratisi alla Scolastica quali Maritain, Petit e Gilson. Quest'adesione alle loro vibrazioni spirituali ci svela il profondo motivo animatore di questa: Filosofia d;ell'arte che scritta "nel momento pi... (shrink)

Einer verbreiteten Auffassung zufolge schenkte Mill der utilitaristischen Tradition mit der Unterscheidung zwischen höheren und niederen Vergnügen („pleasures“) eine begriffliche Innovation und stützte seinen Utilitarismus ganz wesentlich auf die daraus erwachsene Axiologie, den sogenannten ‚qualitativen Hedonismus‘. Dieser sei jedoch inkonsistent, intellektualistisch und – wegen des lexikalischen Vorrangs höherer Vergnügen – letztlich absurd. Dieses philosophiegeschichtliche Vorurteil ist in mehreren Hinsichten verzerrt. Es ignoriert den ideengeschichtlichen Rahmen, missversteht den Gehalt des ‚qualitativen Hedonismus‘ und überschätzt dessen systematische Rolle in Mills Werk.

Consequentialism is a focal point of discussion and a driving force behind important developments in moral philosophy. Recently, the debate has shifted in focus and in style. By seeking to consequentialize rival moral theories, in particular those with agent-relative characteristics, and by framing accounts in terms of reasons rather than in terms of value, an emerging new wave consequentialism has presented - at much higher levels of abstraction - theories which proved extremely flexible and powerful in meeting long-standing and influential (...) objections. This volume of new essays on new wave consequentialism initiates and stimulates novel lines of discussions among proponents and their critics. The contributions explore new directions in new wave consequentialism and present refined conceptual frameworks (in Part I), raise challenging fundamental problems for these frameworks and the new wave's theoretical basis (in Part II), and give a balanced assessment of the new wave's limits and achievements in specific contexts of commonsense moral practice (in Part III). (shrink)

In two recent papers in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Howard Sankey has argued that there is an intimate relationship between Pyrrhonian skepticism and recent approaches to epistemic relativism.Though the general argument and idea of Sankey’s papers is very much appreciated, it is argued that the epistemic relativist’s recourse to the skeptical strategy outlined by the Pyrrhonian is not a good one. This diagnosis gives rise to an objection against the epistemic relativist who argues on the basis of (...) the skeptical strategy that differs from Sankey’s naturalistic response. Furthermore, it can be shown that what is really at stake between epistemic relativism and epistemic absolutism is the question of which criteria there are for variation of epistemic norms and epistemic systems. (shrink)

Whereas there is much discussion about Thomas Kuhn’s notion of methodological incommensurability and many have seen his ideas as an attempt to allow for rational disagreement in science, so far no serious analysis of how exactly Kuhn aims to account for rational disagreement has been proposed. This paper provides the first in-depth analysis of Kuhn’s account of rational disagreement in science—an account that can be seen as the most prominent attempt to allow for rational disagreement in science. Three things will (...) be shown: First, we find not one, but two accounts of rational disagreements in science in Kuhn’s writings: one stemming from methodological incommensurability and one stemming from Kuhn-underdetermination, which are not only fundamentally different—the first purports to explain how disagreeing scientists can nevertheless be rational, while the second attempts to show how rational scientists can nevertheless disagree—but appear to be incompatible with each other. Second, I will assess both accounts. Kuhn’s account from methodological incommensurability is not convincing since it cannot explain rational disagreement in science. Whereas, on the other hand, Kuhn’s account from Kuhn-underdetermination allows for rational disagreement, his argument why we should accept it is not convincing. Third, I present a tentative sketch of an alternative to Kuhn’s account that emphasizes the fallibility of epistemic justification in order to show that Kuhn’s argument founders. In sum, the paper shows that focusing not on the muchly debated consequences of methodological incommensurability, but on Kuhn’s treatment of rational disagreement gives new insight into the adequate interpretation of his thought as well as the cogency of his ideas. (shrink)

In a paper published in this journal Martin Hinton aims to show that the struggle between Moti Mizrahi and me about whether arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments rests on misunderstandings (Hinton 2015). Let me emphasize that I generally appreciate Hinton’s intention to settle the dispute between Mizrahi and myself in this way. 1 Furthermore, I also agree with Hinton’s conclusion that if Mizrahi is interpreted in the way Hinton does, then Mizrahi’s “claim becomes far less controversial, but also (...) rather uninteresting” (Hinton 2015, 551)—to refer to the title of my former paper: just spilling out the water wouldn’t be worth a paper in Informal Logic. 2 Let me therefore focus in this reply on the points where Hinton directly attacks my treatment of Mizrahi and also what Hinton takes to be my account of expertise. I will discuss the following criticism of Hinton: (1) that, at points, my attack on Mizrahi is unfair due to my misunderstanding of his intentions, (2) that the notion of expertise I use is self-contradictory/inconsistent, (3) that the argument for my view is circular, (4) that one of my examples—the example from soccer—is mistaken. In rebutting this criticism, I aim to clarify the background of my former paper in this journal. (shrink)

What is it for a person to be autonomous? Starting with a philosophical puzzle about personal autonomy and by way of critically discussing contemporary accounts, this monograph argues that AUTONOMY is a thick normative concept – the concept of a certain kind of practical authority. It then develops a conception of autonomy which solves the puzzle and offers an adequate understanding of what it means to determine oneself.

This article focuses on the role considerations about the history of science play in philosophical debates about disagreement in science. First the article shortly reflects on the relationship between history and philosophy of science. Second, the article focuses on figuring out the impact of Kuhn’s and Feyerabend’s much discussed claims about incommensurability on the question of disagreement. It is shown that incommensurability introduces a plethora of potential issues of disagreement in science. The article closes by some remarks about using examples (...) from the history of science in the debate about scientific realism: the same cases of disagreement in the history of science can be interpreted in a realist or anti-realist way. (shrink)

The paper focuses on one central aspect of Karl Mannheim’s sociology of knowledge: his exemption of the contents of mathematics and the natural sciences from sociological investigations. After emphasizing the importance of Mannheim’s contribution and his exemption-thesis to the history and development of the field and the problem of relativism, I survey several interpretations of the thesis – especially those put forward by proponents of the so-called ‘Strong Programme’. I argue that these interpretations do not get the philosophical background and (...) impetus of Mannheim’s contribution right. By distinguishing between naturalistic and anti-naturalistic strands in Mannheim’s work I propose a new reading on which Mannheim did not exempt the contents of the areas in question principally or because of a lack of nerve and will. It is argued that Mannheim’s exemption-thesis rather is a consequence of his own sketchy sociological investigations of ‘the paradigm of the natural sciences’. (shrink)

This essay had its beginnings in my desire to reexamine the Arnolfini portrait from the perspective of Giovanna Cenami, the demure young woman who stands beside the cloaked and hated man on the fifteenth-century panel in London. Even though she shares the formal prominence with the man in Jan van Eyck’s unprecedented composition, she has been paid scant attention in the literature on the painting. I anticipated, as I began my work that inspection of the female subject of the panel (...) would, of necessity, amend the authoritative count of the Arnolfini portrait that Panofsky first published in 1934. That narrative, which focused on the event portrayed, had been recited to me by my teachers as an example of interpretive truth; I had committed it to memory as a model of our discipline’s search for meaning. I never dreamed back then that it might be “wrong.” Yet, the material I encountered as I pursued my inquiry into Giovanna’s life contradicted Panofsky’s assumptions on several key points; amendment alone would not do. It seemed necessary for me to challenge the venerable interpretation others were starting to question,4 even though two generations of students, including my own, had learned from it all they thought there was to know about “Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait.” 4. See, for example, Peter H. Schabacker, “De Matrimonio ad Morganaticam Conracto: Jan van Eyck’s ‘Arnolfini’ Portrait Reconsidered,” Art Quarterly 35 : 375-98, hereafter abbreviated “DM”; Lucy Freeman Sandler, “The Handclasp in the Arnolfini Wedding: A Manuscript Precedent,” Art Bulletin 66 : 488-91, hereafter abbreviated “H”; and Jan Baptist Bedaux, “The Reality of Symbols: The Question of Disguised Symbolism in Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfini Portrait,” Simiolus 16 : 5-28, hereafter abbreviated “RS.” Linda Seidel, associate professor in the department of art at the University of Chicago, is the author of Songs of Glory , a study of twelfth-century French architectural sculpture. She is currently completing a work on medieval doorway design as an art of entry and pursuing a collaborative project with Michael Camille and Robert Nelson, Medieval Art and Its Audiences. (shrink)

Wille und Willensfreiheit sind ein heißes Thema, in der Gehirnforschung ebenso wie in der Philosophie. Wenn der Wille eine Folge biologischer Gehirnfunktionen ist und naturwissenschaftlich beschrieben werden kann, wie muss dann die Frage der ethischen Verantwortung des Einzelnen beantwortet werden? Für Wolfgang Seidel gehören biologisch bedingte Veränderungen auch des Gehirns zu den konkreten Erfahrungen aus der medizinischen Forschung und Praxis - wie auch die Erfahrung, dass nicht alle physiologischen Auswirkungen auf den einzelnen Menschen mit den Mitteln naturwissenschaftlichen Vorgehens kausal (...) absehbar sind. Sein Buch ist eine Kritik an dem alleinigen Erklärungsanspruch eines naturwissenschaftlichen Determinismus, der alles Denken und Verhalten in allen Details kausal aus der Gehirnforschung ableiten will. Seidels spannender alltagsphilosophischer Essay lädt zum entspannten Nachdenken über die Gehirnmechanismen und bewusste Entscheidungsfreiheit ein - wobei wir nebenbei erleben können, dass es letztlich keinen Unterschied macht, ob unser alltägliches Erleben des eigenen Wollens eine Illusion oder freier Wille ist - und dass unser Gehirn auch ethisch gut funktioniert. (shrink)

Inhuman Thoughts is a philosophical exploration of the possibility of increasing the physiological and psychological capacities of humans to the point that they are no longer biologically, psychologically, or socially human. The movement is from the human through the trans-human, to the post-human. Seidel argues that such an evolution would be of positive value on the whole.

In a reply to Howard Sankey I have maintained that the epistemic relativist cannot use the strategy of the sceptic since the relativist is at pains not to draw the sceptical solution. Sankey has objected to my argument by distinguishing between weak and strong justification: according to Sankey, the relativist using the sceptic’s strategy aims to provide an argument against the latter form of justification but still maintains that we can have the former.In this counter-response I argue that if this (...) is really the relativist’s strategy then she cannot provide any argument against the absolutist at all. The reason is that she simply fails to address the key question in the debate about relative/absolute justification: are there any absolutely correct epistemic standards? The epistemic relativist using the sceptic’s strategy is thus trapped between the Scylla of undermining her right to maintain that there is relative justification and the Charybdis of providing no argument against absolutism at all. (shrink)