The aim of this work is to argue for the idea that processes and process-based entities are to be modelled as relational structures. Relational structures are genuine structures, namely entities not committed to the existence of basic objects. My argument moves from the analysis of Whitehead’s original insight about process-based entities that, despite some residual of substance metaphysics, has the merit of grounding the intrinsic dynamism of reality on the holistic and relational characters of process-based entities. The current model of (...) process ontology requires genuine emergence and this, in turn, requires organizations, i.e., emergence in organizations. Another view about processes rely on a structural specification of processes. I suggest that the two views can be made compatible by the help of a specific sort of structures, namely relational structures. The appeal to the mathematical theory of genuine structures, category theory, reveals the formal plausibility of this convergence. According to this formal approach, genuine structures are essentially dynamic entities for they are relational, namely, as well as organizations, they are not existentially committed to particulars. (shrink)

Nominalism in formal ontology is still the thesis that the only acceptable domain of quantification is the first-order domain of particulars. Nominalists may assert that second-order well-formed formulas can be fully and completely interpreted within the first-order domain, thereby avoiding any ontological commitment to second-order entities, by means of an appropriate semantics called “substitutional”. In this paper I argue that the success of this strategy depends on the ability of Nominalists to maintain that identity, and equivalence relations more in general, (...) is first-order and invariant. Firstly, I explain why Nominalists are formally bound to this first-order concept of identity. Secondly, I show that the resources needed to justify identity, a certain conception of identity invariance, are out of the Nominalist’s reach. (shrink)

The present paper argues that substantialist metaphysics are in tension with the physicalist idea that the universe is causally closed. The argument is a rather specific one and proceeds through three steps. The first step consists in arguing that monistic substance metaphysics allow for the existence of entities that cannot belong to the intended first order domain. This result sensitively depends on the nature of substances as invariant entities. The second step concludes that, if further domains are to be admitted, (...) then they are inhabited by “higher” or (systematically) “non-standard” entities and that, in both cases if not made somehow innocuous, such entities may take part on the metaphysical construction of the world through their own distinctive properties and causal powers. However, this latter claim is in contradiction with causal closure. But closure is the principle that mainly characterizes physicalist approaches in metaphysics and as such physicalist metaphysics cannot get rid of it. Who attempted making exotic properties and causal powers innocuous usually appealed to the Supervenience Argument. Unfortunately, as the third step proves, this argument is invalid. Finally, the paper looks forward and toward alternative models for physicalist metaphysics, like process-based models. (shrink)

The paper discusses some formal difficulties concerning the theory of universals of Trope-Only ontologies, from which the formal theory of predication advanced by Trope-Only theorists seems to be irremediably affected. It is impossible to lay out a successful defense of a Trope-Only theory without Russellian types, but such types are ontologically inconsistent with tropes’ nominalism. Historically, Tropists’ first way to avoid the problem is appealing to the supervenience claim, which however fails on its terms and, thus, fails as a ground (...) for a solution to the higher-order or ‘type’ problem. A later solution involves the invariance of primitive equivalence relations in order to make universals ontologically innocuous. However, I argue that this latter solution fails to meet the requirements imposed on an ontologically unbiased nominalist attitude. So, this paper discusses how Trope-Only theories alter standard formal moves in Nominalism, and also is interested in clarifying further the formal assumptions for these problems. (shrink)

The aim of the present paper is twofold. First, we are interested in assessing the validity of one version of Kim’s argument against genuine higher level causation. Second, we discuss Wilson’s proposal to consider a weaker notion of emergence as genuinely metaphysical and compatible with Non-Reductive Physicalism. Our conclusion is that both proposals fail: the first in preempting genuine (strong) emergent causation, whereas the second in ensuring a genuinely metaphysical status to weak emergence. After all, Wilson’s proposal strongly depends on (...) the success of Kim’s, not only because it takes it as valid but, also, because in pursuing its own weaker model it shares the presuppositions that led Kim’s to failure. At the end of the day, Wilson’s conception of genuine weak emergence either breaks causal closure or is merely stipulative, namely confined at the descriptive level. (shrink)

The main aim of this work is to evaluate whether Boolos’ semantics for second-order languages is model-theoretically equivalent to standard model-theoretic semantics. Such an equivalence result is, actually, directly proved in the “Appendix”. I argue that Boolos’ intent in developing such a semantics is not to avoid set-theoretic notions in favor of pluralities. It is, rather, to prevent that predicates, in the sense of functions, refer to classes of classes. Boolos’ formal semantics differs from a semantics of pluralities for Boolos’ (...) plural reading of second-order quantifiers, for the notion of plurality is much more general, not only of that set, but also of class. In fact, by showing that a plurality is equivalent to sub-sets of a power set, the notion of plurality comes to suffer a loss of generality. Despite of this equivalence result, I maintain that Boolos’ formal semantics does not committ second-order languages to second-order entities, contrary to standard semantics. Further, such an equivalence result provides a rationale for many criticisms to Boolos’ formal semantics, in particular those by Resnik and Parsons against its alleged ontological innocence and on its Platonistic presupposition. The key set-theoretic notion involved in the equivalence proof is that of many-valued function. But, first, I will provide a clarification of the philosophical context and theoretical grounds of the genesis of Boolos’ formal semantics. (shrink)

The present paper argues that substantialist metaphysics are in tension with the physicalist idea that the universe is causally closed. The argument is a rather specific one and proceeds through three steps. The first step consists in arguing that monistic substance metaphysics allow for the existence of entities that cannot belong to the intended first order domain. This result sensitively depends on the nature of substances as invariant entities. The second step concludes that, if further domains are to be admitted, (...) then they are inhabited by “higher” or (systematically) “nonstandard” entities and that, in both cases if not made somehow innocuous, such entities may take part on the metaphysical construction of the world through their own distinctive properties and causal powers. However, this latter claim is in contradiction with causal closure. But closure is the principle that mainly characterizes physicalist approaches in metaphysics and as such physicalist metaphysics cannot get rid of it. Who attempted making exotic properties and causal powers innocuous usually appealed to the Supervenience Argument. Unfortunately, as the third step proves, this argument is invalid. Finally, the paper looks forward and toward alternative models for physicalist metaphysics, like processbased models. Keywords: Metaphysics of Quantities, Abstraction Principles, Locationism. (shrink)

«All’interno di un genere umano ancora proteiforme e in divenire, sempre più persone percepiscono che cosa si stia preparando; la loro percezione cresce di giorno in giorno, e la conoscenza della crisi richiama in loro la sola controforza che può riuscire a elevare essi stessi a “signori” attraverso nuove mete, mete grandi e chiare, imponendosi su tali sediziosi mezzi. Questa controforza è quella che io chiamo il nuovo Umanesimo della fede ».

È possibile istituire un nesso tra la presenza di Dio nel mondo, che Buber avrebbe descritto fin dai suoi primi scritti chassidici attraverso la nozione cabalistica di Shekinah, la presenza di Dio nell'uomo e la presenza dell’uomo a se stesso? È possibile riconoscere alla presenza il carattere fondamentale dell’accadere della relazione e, insieme, fondare la religione sull'accadere di quell’originario evento d’incontro, su una risposta al Tu? È possibile che, proprio attraverso l’evento della presenza, del presente dischiuso nell’Augenblick, la religione possa (...) ritornare al suo significato di relazione, di legame vissuto nella pienezza dell’ora terrena? Ultima delle Sefirot a rompersi nella dottrina di I. Luria, la presenza di Dio nel mondo si offre all’uomo capace di riceverla, nell’in-tra-tenersi della relazione, sul fondamento di una passività originaria, in cui l’uomo è chiamato a rispondere con un’azione che proviene dall’interezza del proprio essere. Relazione entro l’essere del singolo uomo, chiamato a compiere in se stesso quell’interezza che ha nome unità; relazione tra il singolo uomo e l’intero cosmo, a partire da ogni singolo “altro” che gli può accadere di incontrare; relazione come incontro, unità, rivelazione, religione e, pertanto, come presenza. Religione come presenza, parimenti nell’urgere dell'eterno nell’istante, nel “qui e ora” della ewige Offenbarung. “In principio è la relazione” - tale è l’intuizione buberiana fondamentale, a partire dalla quale la realtà può raggiungere il proprio compimento come quel dialogo in cui incontrante e incontrato si chiamano tra loro Io e Tu, nel dono reciproco della presenza. Presenza e relazione, sistole e diastole dell’unica vita reale. (shrink)

Solcando il mare aperto dell’Europa all’alba del Ventesimo secolo, il giovane Martin Buber (1878-1965) ha sopra di sé diverse costellazioni, offerte tanto dal filosofare di Nietzsche, Dilthey e Simmel, quanto dalla letteratura della Jung Wien, quanto ancora da un ebraismo personale e sotterraneo, oscillante tra sionismo culturale e chassidismo. L’antitesi tra religione e religiosità offre a lui – come a noi – il sestante con il quale orientarsi in una così ardua navigazione. Forte di ciò, Buber veleggia in direzione dei (...) lidi, talora ascosi, della mistica, approdando a Cusano e a Böhme, a Laozi e al Baal Schem. La pluralità delle vie, da lui attraversate in questa stagione della sua vita e del suo pensiero, è fedelmente ripercorsa nella presente monografia, in cui il giovane Buber assurge a paradigmatico testimone della simbiosi ebraicotedesca d’inizio Novecento e della sua irripetibile Stimmung. (shrink)