Neo-‐Carnapian Quietism
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Flagging Philosophical Minefields at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) – Reformed Scholasticism Reconsidered1
Flagging philosophical minefields at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) – reformed Scholasticism reconsidered1 B.J. van der Walt School of Philosophy Potchefstroom Campus North-West University POTCHEFSTROOM E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Flagging philosophical minefields at the Synod of Dort (1618- 1619) – reformed Scholasticism reconsidered This article investigates the phenomenon of reformed Scholasticism (of about 1550-1700), as it occurred at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) and its Canons. More specifically, it fo- cuses on the central problem at the Synod, viz. the relationship between God and human beings, as expressed in the ideas contained in the Canon regarding divine election and repro- bation. As illustration the positions of two leading figures in the clash between the Calvinists and the Remonstrants, namely that of Gomarus (1563-1641) and Arminius (1560-1609), are philosophically analysed. In spite of the fact that neither view- point was eventually accepted by the Synod, their theologies clearly reflect the dominant scholastic philosophy of the time. This analysis is carried out in the context of the problem- historical method of historiography developed by D.H. Th. Vollenhoven (1892-1978), one of the fathers of Christian philosophy. 1 This is a revised text from a paper delivered at the Vollenhoven Colloquium on 15 August 2011 at the Free University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, prior to the International Symposium commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Association for Christian Philosophy. Koers 76(3) 2011:505-538 505 Flagging philosophical minefields … Synod of Dort … Scholasticism reconsidered This contribution provides (in a series of other research publi- cations, cf. -
Marxist Philosophy and the Problem of Value
Soviet Studies in Philosophy ISSN: 0038-5883 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mrsp19 Marxist Philosophy and the Problem of Value O. G. Drobnitskii To cite this article: O. G. Drobnitskii (1967) Marxist Philosophy and the Problem of Value, Soviet Studies in Philosophy, 5:4, 14-24 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/RSP1061-1967050414 Published online: 20 Dec 2014. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1 View related articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mrsp19 Download by: [North Carolina State University], [Professor Marina Bykova] Date: 09 February 2017, At: 14:43 Theory of Value Voprosy filosofii, 1966, No. 7 0, G. Drobnitskii MARXIST PHILOSOPHY AND THE PROBLEM OF -*’VXLUr;* * In recent years, the question has been posed fact that things and phenomena in the world con- of the attitude of Marxist philosophy to what is stituting man’s environment have been endowed termed the problem of value. The point is not with such characteristics as worth, good and only that bourgeois axiology, which has been de- evil, beauty and ugliness, justice and injustice. veloping for three-quarters of a century, has to Doubtless, the phenomena of social consciousness be critically analyzed. Central to the question act in some aspect as “spiritual values,” i.e., is whether a Marxist axiology is possible. In they partake of the character of valuation norms. that connection the following is instructive. Finally, all these phenomena may be combined Authors who, with envious consistency, ignore under the single common notion of value. -
Oppositions and Paradoxes in Mathematics and Philosophy
OPPOSITIONS AND PARADOXES IN MATHEMATICS AND PHILOSOPHY John L. Bell Abstract. In this paper a number of oppositions which have haunted mathematics and philosophy are described and analyzed. These include the Continuous and the Discrete, the One and the Many, the Finite and the Infinite, the Whole and the Part, and the Constant and the Variable. Underlying the evolution of mathematics and philosophy has been the attempt to reconcile a number of interlocking oppositions, oppositions which have on occasion crystallized into paradox and which continue to haunt mathematics to this day. These include the Continuous and the Discrete, the One and the Many, the Finite and the Infinite, the Whole and the Part, and the Constant and the Variable. Let me begin with the first of these oppositions—that between continuity and discreteness. Continuous entities possess the property of being indefinitely divisible without alteration of their essential nature. So, for instance, the water in a bucket may be continually halved and yet remain wateri. Discrete entities, on the other hand, typically cannot be divided without effecting a change in their nature: half a wheel is plainly no longer a wheel. Thus we have two contrasting properties: on the one hand, the property of being indivisible, separate or discrete, and, on the other, the property of being indefinitely divisible and continuous although not actually divided into parts. 2 Now one and the same object can, in a sense, possess both of these properties. For example, if the wheel is regarded simply as a piece of matter, it remains so on being divided in half. -
Kant on Empiricism and Rationalism
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY QUARTERLY Volume 30, Number 1, January 2013 KANT ON EMPIRICISM AND RATIONALISM Alberto Vanzo his paper aims to correct some widely held misconceptions concern- T ing Kant’s role in the formation of a widespread narrative of early modern philosophy.1 According to this narrative, which dominated the English-speaking world throughout the twentieth century,2 the early modern period was characterized by the development of two rival schools: René Descartes’s, Baruch Spinoza’s, and G. W. Leibniz’s rationalism; and John Locke’s, George Berkeley’s, and David Hume’s empiricism. Empiricists and rationalists disagreed on whether all concepts are de- rived from experience and whether humans can have any substantive a priori knowledge, a priori knowledge of the physical world, or a priori metaphysical knowledge.3 The early modern period came to a close, so the narrative claims, once Immanuel Kant, who was neither an empiri- cist nor a rationalist, combined the insights of both movements in his new Critical philosophy. In so doing, Kant inaugurated the new eras of German idealism and late modern philosophy. Since the publication of influential studies by Louis Loeb and David Fate Norton,4 the standard narrative of early modern philosophy has come increasingly under attack. Critics hold that histories of early modern philosophy based on the rationalism-empiricism distinction (RED) have three biases—three biases for which, as we shall see, Kant is often blamed. The Epistemological Bias. Since disputes regarding a priori knowledge belong to epistemology, the RED is usually regarded as an epistemologi- cal distinction.5 Accordingly, histories of early modern philosophy based on the RED tend to assume that the core of early modern philosophy lies in the conflict between the “competing and mutually exclusive epis- temologies” of “rationalism and empiricism.”6 They typically interpret most of the central doctrines, developments, and disputes of the period in the light of philosophers’ commitment to empiricist or rationalist epistemologies. -
Maurinian Truths
Tobias HanssonTobias Wahlberg | Robin Stenwall (Eds.) Johan Brännmark Darragh Byrne Einar Duenger Bohn Matti Eklund Tobias Hansson Wahlberg Rögnvaldur D. Ingthorsson Festschrift Ingvar Johansson Martin L. Jönsson This book is in honour of Professor Maurinian Truths Anna-Sofia Maurin on her 50th Johannes Persson birthday. It consists of eighteen essays Björn Petersson on metaphysical issues written by Swedish and international scholars. Nils-Eric Sahlin Peter Simons Ylwa Sjölin Wirling Alexander Skiles Jeroen Smid Robin Stenwall Fredrik Stjernberg Naomi Thompson Kelly Trogdon Maurinian Truths Lena Wahlberg Tobias Hansson Wahlberg | Robin Stenwall (Eds.) 9 789188 899538 Maurinian Truths – Essays in Honour of Anna-Sofia Maurin on her 50th Birthday Tobias Hansson Wahlberg | Robin Stenwall (Eds.) 3 Painting by Jean-Louis Maurin Photo by Jesper Heimerson © the Authors Department of Philosophy Lund University ISBN 978-91-88899-53-8 (print) ISBN 978-91-88899-54-5 (digital) Printed in Sweden by Media-Tryck, Lund University Lund 2019 4 Towards a Nominalist Understanding of Institutions Johan Brännmark A very common understanding of institutions is that they are rules of some kind. For instance, an institutional economist like North (1990: 3) suggests that ‘[i]nstitutions are the rules of the game in a society’ and a social ontologist such as Gilbert (2018: 30) character- izes an institution as ‘a system of rules that is a blueprint for human behavior.’ In political theory, Rawls (1999: 47-48) takes the stance that an institution is ‘a public system of rules which defines offices and positions with their right and duties, powers and immunities, and the like.’ What this means is that if I hold a particular status, such as the right to perform a specific action, the fact that I, as a concrete and particular individual, hold this status is explained in terms of a certain rule being established in my community or society. -
Russell's Paradox in Appendix B of the Principles of Mathematics
HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF LOGIC, 22 (2001), 13± 28 Russell’s Paradox in Appendix B of the Principles of Mathematics: Was Frege’s response adequate? Ke v i n C. Kl e m e n t Department of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA Received March 2000 In their correspondence in 1902 and 1903, after discussing the Russell paradox, Russell and Frege discussed the paradox of propositions considered informally in Appendix B of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics. It seems that the proposition, p, stating the logical product of the class w, namely, the class of all propositions stating the logical product of a class they are not in, is in w if and only if it is not. Frege believed that this paradox was avoided within his philosophy due to his distinction between sense (Sinn) and reference (Bedeutung). However, I show that while the paradox as Russell formulates it is ill-formed with Frege’s extant logical system, if Frege’s system is expanded to contain the commitments of his philosophy of language, an analogue of this paradox is formulable. This and other concerns in Fregean intensional logic are discussed, and it is discovered that Frege’s logical system, even without its naive class theory embodied in its infamous Basic Law V, leads to inconsistencies when the theory of sense and reference is axiomatized therein. 1. Introduction Russell’s letter to Frege from June of 1902 in which he related his discovery of the Russell paradox was a monumental event in the history of logic. However, in the ensuing correspondence between Russell and Frege, the Russell paradox was not the only antinomy discussed. -
Unattainability of the True World: Putnamian and Kripkensteinian Interpretation of Nietzsche’S E History of an Error
Unattainability of the True World: Putnamian and Kripkensteinian Interpretation of Nietzsche’s e History of an Error Henrik Sova Department of Philosophy, University of Tartu In this article I am interpreting Friedrich Nietzsche’s piece of writing “How the “True World” nally became a fable—e History of an Error” in the context of óþth- century analytical philosophy of language. In particular, I am going to argue that the main theme in this text—the issue of abolishing “the true world”—can be in- terpreted as (Õ) Hilary Putnam’s model-theoretic arguments against external real- ism and (ó) Saul Kripke’s Wittgensteinian (or Kripkensteinian) arguments against truth-conditional meaning theories. Interpreting this Nietzsche’s text with the help of these arguments gives rise to two options determining Nietzsche’s own posi- tion. e perspective of Putnam’s argument seems to push Nietzsche to the quietist camp—the view that signicant metaphysical debate between external realism and its opposite is impossible or inexpressible. On the other hand, the Kripkensteinian perspective gives us reasons to interpret Nietzsche as an adherer of the pragmatic account of semantics, which explains meaning through the use of language. Keywords: Nietzsche, Putnam’s argument, Kripkenstein, reference indeterminacy, quietism Õ. Introduction Starting in the late ÕÉóþs, logical positivism launched a specic—and per- haps in some ways quite unique—attack against traditional metaphysics. Of course, the intrinsic feeling or yet unformed idea that might have triggered the initial thought—that there is something inherently wrong with the way philosophy has been done so far, that it has been far less than satisfying in answering the traditional “big” philosophical questions—that itself is a very Corresponding author’s address: Henrik Sova, Department of Philosophy, Institute of Phi- losophy and Semiotics, University of Tartu, Ülikooli Õ, ¢þþÉþ Tartu, Estonia. -
Sepielli Pragmatism
PRAGMATISM AND METAETHICS Andrew Sepielli University of Toronto Among analytic philosophers, pragmatism tends to elicit two reactions that might seem to stand in tension with one other. The first reaction is confusion about what pragmatism is, exactly. The second is steadfast rejection of it. It's easier to reconcile these disparate responses when we consider that pragmatism tends to show up under two different guises. The first is as a woolly gestalt, expressed through support for experiment, democracy, fallibilism, and solidarity, and condemnation of authoritarianism, representationalism, Cartesianism, and dogmatic metaphysics. The second is as the simple doctrine that truth is what's good in any way whatsoever to believe. In its first guise, pragmatism tends to provoke confusion; in its second, rejection. As a result, pragmatism occupies at best a precarious position within the mainstream of analytic philosophy. Its influence on contemporary metaethics has been especially weak. My target reader for this article, then, is someone who is familiar with the basic problem- spaces in contemporary metaethics and the moves commonly made within those spaces, but who is not already sympathetic to pragmatism. I want to help such a reader to make sense of pragmatism in some of its many guises, to appreciate both its subtlety and its power as a philosophical stance, and to understand its bearing on some of the main debates within metaethics. !1 of !26 What Is Pragmatism? Let me begin by offering a characterization of pragmatism that will cover as many of those commonly called "pragmatists" as possible without being so capacious as to be useless. -
Definition and Construction Preprint 28.09
MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science 2006 PREPRINT 317 Gideon Freudenthal Definition and Construction Salomon Maimon’s Philosophy of Geometry Definition and Construction Salomon Maimon's Philosophy of Geometry Gideon Freudenthal 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................3 1.1. A Failed Proof and a Philosophical Conversion .................................................8 1.2. The Value of Mathematics ..................................................................................13 2. The Straight Line.................................................................................................15 2.1. Synthetic Judgments a priori Kantian and Aristotelean Style.............................15 2.2. Maimon's Proof that the Straight Line is also the shortest between Two Points ............................................................................................23 2.3. Kant's Critique and Maimon's Answer................................................................30 2.4. Definition, Construction, Proof in Euclid and Kant............................................33 2.5. The Construction of the Straight Line.................................................................37 2.6. The Turn to Empircial Skepticism (and Rational Dogmatism)...........................39 2.7. Synthetic a priori and proprium ..........................................................................46 2.8. Maimon's -
A KANTIAN REPLY to BOLZANO's CRITIQUE of KANT's ANALYTIC-SYNTHETIC DISTINCTION Nicholas F. STANG University of Miami Introdu
Grazer Philosophische Studien 85 (2012), 33–61. A KANTIAN REPLY TO BOLZANO’S CRITIQUE OF KANT’S ANALYTIC-SYNTHETIC DISTINCTION Nicholas F. STANG University of Miami Summary One of Bolzano’s objections to Kant’s way of drawing the analytic-synthetic distinction is that it only applies to judgments within a narrow range of syn- tactic forms, namely, universal affi rmative judgments. According to Bolzano, Kant cannot account for judgments of other syntactic forms that, intuitively, are analytic. A recent paper by Ian Proops also attributes to Kant the view that analytic judgments beyond a limited range of syntactic forms are impossible. I argue that, correctly understood, Kant’s conception of analyticity allows for analytic judgments of a wider range of syntactic forms. Introduction Although he praised Kant’s (re)discovery of the analytic-synthetic distinc- tion as having great signifi cance in the history of philosophy,1 Bolzano was sharply critical of how Kant drew that distinction. His criticisms include: (1) Th e distinction, as drawn by Kant, is unclear. (NAK, 34) 1. In Neuer Anti-Kant Příhonský writes: “Wir bemerken, daß, obgleich wir die Eintheilung der Urtheile in analytische und synthetische für eine der glücklichsten und einfl ußreichsten Entdeckungen halten, die je auf dem Gebiete der philosophischen Forschung sind gemacht worden, es uns doch scheinen wolle, als wenn sie von Kant nicht mit dem nöthigen Grade von Deutlichkeit aufgefaßt worden sei” (NAK, 34; cf. NAK, xxii). I say rediscovery because Bolzano recognizes that the distinction is inchoately present in Aristotle and Locke, and is made by Crusius in much the same way as Kant (WL, 87). -
Scholasticism Old and New : an Introduction to Scholastic
f^frrninnamvfuv^ii^ 3 1924 102 136 409 DATE DUE 1 i The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924102136409 SCHOLASTICISM OLD AND NEW Vetera Novis Augere. SCHOLASTICISM OLD AND NEW AN INTRODUCTION TO SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY MEDIEVAL AND MODEKN BY M. DE WULF DOCTOR OF LAWS, l.ciCTOR OF PHILOSOPHy AND LETTERS, PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUVAIN TRANSLATED BY P. COFFEY, D.Ph. PROFESSOR UF PllILOSOPilV, MAISOOTH COLLtOB, IRELAND Jublin M H. GILL & SON, Lm LONGMANS, GREEN & 00. 39 PATBKNOSTEK EOW BOMBAV AND CALCUTTA. 1910 Printed and Bound in Ireland, ^3f ; PEEFATOEY NOTE. My object in translating Professor De Wulf's Introduction a la Philosophie Neo-scolastique has been fourfold : firstly, to give tlie advocates and supporters of " modern " systems of philosopby, as opposed " to scholasticism" —whether in its medieval or in its modern form—an opportunity of obtaining better and more authentic information about the latter system than books in English are usually found to contain ; secondly, to help students of scholastic philosophy to take in the main principles of schol- asticism in one connected view, and to equip them with a more accurate historical and critical appre- ciation of the system than they are ever hkely to derive from an unaided study of stereotyped manuals thirdly, to give aU Enghsh readers interested in philosophy of whatsoever kind an insight into the meaning, the spirit and the progress of the move- ment which has been developing during the last quarter of a century for the revival of scholastic philosophy ; fourthly, to prepare the way for trans- lations or adaptations of the Louvain Cours de philosophie, and to draw attention to the vahie of the work already done and hkely to be done in the well-known Belgian centre of the new scholasticism. -
Hegel's Concept of Recognition As the Solution to Kant's Third Antinomy
Chapter 12 Hegel’s Concept of Recognition as the Solution to Kant’s Third Antinomy Arthur Kok 1 Introduction In his Lectures on the history of philosophy, when discussing Kant’s third antin- omy, Hegel reproaches Kant for having “too much tenderness for the things”.1 In this contribution, I endeavor to explain what Hegel means by this criticism, and why it makes sense. Hegel values very much about Kant’s doctrine of the antinomies that it exposes the fundamental contradictions of reason. He calls this “the interest- ing side” of the antinomies.2 What is ‘interesting’ about them is that we cannot conceive of the absolute (uncaused) spontaneous origin of things, i.e. tran- scendental freedom, right away. The thesis that every causal chain of events presupposes a cause that is itself not caused contains the contradiction that an absolute spontaneity cannot take place according to rules, and hence can- not be understood in terms of causality.3 The antithesis, which rejects absolute spontaneity, makes this explicit, but it results in contradiction too: it is undeni- able that every causal chain posits an uncaused origin. The complete problem of the third antinomy thus is that we are forced to accept the assumption of transcendental freedom, but by doing so we postulate a contradiction. Kant argues that his transcendental idealism can resolve this contradic- tion. We shall see that Hegel does not accept Kant’s solution. I argue, however, that Hegel’s refutation of transcendental idealism does not mean that he does not take seriously the distinction between appearances and the Thing-in-itself.