The idea that we must move beyond anthropocentrism to overcome interspecies injustice and environmental collapse is widespread within the environmental humanities. Yet, the concept of anthropocentrism remains ambiguous, and so do some of the arguments raised against it. What exactly should we move beyond and why? The article attempts to answer these questions and clarify the merits and limitations of both anthropocentric and post-anthropocentric views within ethics and ontology. This article proposes that although some implausible and morally problematic forms of (...) anthropocentrism should be denounced, there are other ways in which we must remain anthropocentric. The article disambiguates the concept of anthropocentrism and assesses the key arguments against it, before it goes on to outline a minimal form of anthropocentrism that we call ostensive humanism. Ostensive humanism is compatible with many post-anthropocentric ideas but suggests that the ethical and political project aimed at ending interspecies injustice and the climate crisis inevitably points to human beings as its moral addressees. (shrink)

In this paper I investigate Merleau-Ponty's phenomenological theory of intersubjectivity. It turns out that any such theory requires a conceptualisation of the relation between the bodily subject and the objective reality that takes historicity seriously.

My epilogue to the Danish translation of Markus Gabriel's "Warum of die Welt nicht gibt".

My translation into Danish of Markus Gabriel's "Warum es die Welt nicht gibt".

Must you respect basic logical laws (BLL) – such as the law of non-contradiction – in order to think? Frege wrote that one must “acknowledge” BLL in order not to “abandon judgement altogether”. Some have argued that Frege therefore thought of logic as somehow ‘constitutive’ of thinking. However, some interpreters contend, due to his strong commitment to logic’s normative status, that Frege held the opposite view, namely the non-constitutivist view that (systematic) ‘illogical’ thinking is possible and that one need not (...) accept or follow BLL in order to think as such, although one must do so in order to think correctly. The aim of this paper is to investigate the interpretative landscape regarding Frege’s view on logic’s constitutive role for thinking and suggest, against the non-constitutivist readings, that he indeed was committed to some version of the constitutivity thesis, but that this commitment is not, as some constitutivist interpretations suggest, inconsistent with the idea that logic is normative for thinking. I will, instead, propose to read his view in a soft and agent-relative sense, according to which it is a necessary condition for the possibility of thinking that the agent in question is sensitive to and acknowledges BLL. (shrink)