Solipsism is an extreme position. Ludwig Wittgenstein addressed this position several times over more than 20 years. Wittgenstein first became familiar with solipsism under the title of “theoretical egoism” when reading Schopenhauer at the tender age of 16. Elizabeth Anscombe related a personal conversation in which Wittgenstein said that Schopenhauer's theory of the world “as idea” struck him as fundamentally right, if in need of a few clarifications and adjustments, but that he opposed the theory of the world as will. (...) Wittgenstein's first philosophy was that of Schopenhauer and he was only liberated from it by Frege's conceptual realism. According to Schopenhauer, an “organic” philosophy needs an organic exposition. An organic philosophy stands in contrast to systematic philosophy, which argues sequentially “in the form of a chain” of propositions starting from one fundamental principle. Wittgenstein's overarching aim in the Tractatus is to delimit sense by expounding the limits for the expression of thoughts in language. (shrink)

The big question at the end of Feferman is: Is it possible to find a foundation for unlimited category theory? I show that the answer is no by showing that unlimited category theory is inconsistent.

This critical study concentrates on action-theoretical aspects of the Davidsonian philosophy of social science given in Macdonald/pettit 1981. It questions the relevance to social science of developing Davidson’s semantic “principle of charity” into a “principle of humanity”, discusses specific formulations of assumptions of behavioural and attitudinal rationality in the explanation of action, and joins issue with the causal account given of the latter suggesting that its metaphysical motivation is of no concern to social science.

What is the purpose of our economic system? What would a more life-serving economy look like? There are many books about business and society, yet very few of them question the primacy of GDP growth, profit maximization and individual utility maximization. Even developments with a humanistic touch like stakeholder participation, corporate social responsibility or corporate philanthropy serve the same goal: to foster long-term growth and profitability. Humanism in Business questions these assumptions and investigates the possibility of creating a human-centered, value-oriented (...) society based on humanistic principles. An international team of academics and practitioners present philosophical, spiritual, economic, psychological and organizational arguments that show how humanism can be used to understand, and possibly transform, business at three different levels: the systems level, the organizational level and the individual level. This groundbreaking book will be of interest to academics, practitioners and policymakers concerned with business ethics and the relationship between business and society. (shrink)

Researchers from across the social sciences have found consistent deviations from the predictions of the canonical model of self-interest in hundreds of experiments from around the world. This research, however, cannot determine whether the uniformity results from universal patterns of human behavior or from the limited cultural variation available among the university students used in virtually all prior experimental work. To address this, we undertook a cross-cultural study of behavior in ultimatum, public goods, and dictator games in a range of (...) small-scale societies exhibiting a wide variety of economic and cultural conditions. We found, first, that the canonical model – based on self-interest – fails in all of the societies studied. Second, our data reveal substantially more behavioral variability across social groups than has been found in previous research. Third, group-level differences in economic organization and the structure of social interactions explain a substantial portion of the behavioral variation across societies: the higher the degree of market integration and the higher the payoffs to cooperation in everyday life, the greater the level of prosociality expressed in experimental games. Fourth, the available individual-level economic and demographic variables do not consistently explain game behavior, either within or across groups. Fifth, in many cases experimental play appears to reflect the common interactional patterns of everyday life. Key Words: altruism; cooperation; cross-cultural research; experimental economics; game theory; ultimatum game; public goods game; self-interest. (shrink)

We would like to thank the commentators for their generous comments, valuable insights and helpful suggestions. We begin this response by discussing the selfishness axiom and the importance of the preferences, beliefs, and constraints framework as a way of modeling some of the proximate influences on human behavior. Next, we broaden the discussion to ultimate-level (that is evolutionary) explanations, where we review and clarify gene-culture coevolutionary theory, and then tackle the possibility that evolutionary approaches that exclude culture might be sufficient (...) to explain the data. Finally, we consider various methodological and epistemological concerns expressed by our commentators. (shrink)

Biologists study life in its various physical forms, while philosophers of biology seek answers to questions about the nature, purpose, and impact of this research. What permits us to distinguish between living and nonliving things even though both are made of the same minerals? Is the complex structure of organisms proof that a creative force is working its will in the physical universe, or are existing life-forms the random result of an evolutionary process working itself out over eons of time? (...) What moral and social questions arise regarding modern advances in biotechnology? What is more relevant to human nature: genetics or sociocultural influences? Is Darwinism the death-knell of God? These are just some of the vital questions addressed by a distinguished group of philosophers and scientists which includes: Aristotle, Francisco J. Ayala, , Michael Benton, Tom Bethell, Joe Cain, David Castle, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Michael Denton, A.G.N. Flew, Stephen Jay Gould, J.B.S. Haldane, John F. Haught, D. W. E. Hone, James W. Kirchner, James Lovelock, Jane Maienschein, Ernst Mayr, Gregory M. Mikkelson, Leslie Orgal, William Paley, the Prince of Wales, Christopher Pynes, Richard A. Richards, Mark Ridley, Holmes Rolston III, Michael Ruse, Lee Silver, Elliott Sober, Kim Sterelny, Derek Turner, and Edward O. Wilson. This second edition contains material on design without selection, testing macroevolutionary claims, recent biotechnological issues, key ecological concerns, the Gaia hypothesis, genetically modified foods, and the so-called intelligent design movement. (shrink)

Keine wissenschaftliche Debatte ist in den letzten Jahren mit soviel Vehemenz in der Öffentlichkeit ausgetragen worden, wie der Streit um die Willensfreiheit. Der traditionelle Begriff von "Willensfreiheit", der auch dem deutschen Strafrecht und seinem Schuldbegriff zugrundeliegt, setzt voraus, daß Menschen jenseits aller psychologischen und neurobiologischen Determinanten entscheiden und handeln können. Eine solche Konzeption von Willensfreiheit ist weder begrifflich-philosophisch noch empirisch akzeptabel. In diesem Buch entwickeln Gerhard Roth und Michael Pauen gemeinsam ein neues Konzept der Willensfreiheit. Grundlage ist ein "aufgeklärter (...) Naturalismus", der vorwissenschaftliche Phänomene, philosophische Begriffe und wissenschaftliche Methoden gleichermaßen ernst nimmt. Hieraus ergibt sich ein Verständnis von Freiheit, das die Fähigkeit zu selbstbestimmtem Handeln auf der Basis eigener Wünsche und Überzeugungen in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Roth und Pauen entgehen damit den Schwierigkeiten vieler traditioneller Konzeptionen, erfassen das Alltagsverständnis von Willensfreiheit und werden zugleich auch den Erkenntnissen der Neurobiologie gerecht. Ihr Konzept, so argumentieren die Autoren, macht zudem ein wesentlich differenzierteres Verständnis von Schuld und Verantwortung möglich, aus dem sich weitreichende Konsequenzen für das Strafrecht und den Strafvollzug ergeben. "Freie Handlungen dürfen weder unter Zwang noch unter vollständiger Determination vollzogen werden. Wir bezeichnen diese Forderung als Autonomieprinzip, aber Handlungen, die wir frei nennen, dürfen auch nicht zufällig sein.". (shrink)

This chapter begins by noting the importance of debates in science education that hinge upon support for or rejection of the Enlightenment project. It then distinguishes the historic eighteenth-century Enlightenment from its articulation and working out in the Enlightenment project; details Mario Bunge’s and others’ summation of the core principles of the Enlightenment; and fleshes out the educational project of the Enlightenment by reference to the works of John Locke, Joseph Priestley, Ernst Mach, Philipp Frank and Herbert Feigl. It (...) indicates commonalities between the Enlightenment education project and that of the liberal education movement, and for both projects it points to the need to appreciate history and philosophy of science. (shrink)

Gianni Vattimo and Santiago Zabala recast Karl Marx's theories at a time when capitalism's metaphysical moorings are buckling. Leaving aside the ideal of development and the general call for revolution, hermeneutic communism relies on interpretation rather than truth and proves more flexible in different contexts. It motivates a resistance to capitalism's inequalities yet intervenes against violence and authoritarianism by emphasizing the interpretative nature of truth. Paralleling Vattimo and Zabala's work on the weakening of religion, Hermeneutic Communism realizes the effective potential (...) of Marxist thought. (shrink)

In this insightful study of the common origins of analytic and continental philosophy, Friedman looks at how social and political events intertwined and influenced philosophy during the early twentieth century, ultimately giving rise to the two very different schools of thought. He shows how these two approaches, now practiced largely in isolation from one another, were once opposing tendencies within a common discussion. Already polarized by their philosophical disagreements, these approaches were further split apart by the rise of Naziism and (...) the resulting emigration of all influential German-speaking philosophers except for Heidegger. Although the book gives a general overview of the philosophical issues of the period, the author pays special attention to the relationships among three key twentieth-century philosophers: Rudolf Carnap, Ernst Cassirer, and Martin Heidegger. (shrink)

(2005). Ernst Cassirer and Contemporary Philosophy of Science. Angelaki: Vol. 10, continental philosophy and the sciences the german traditionissue editor: damian veal, pp. 119-128.

Das Netz der Kultur bildet eine kommunikative Medialität, in der sich Freiheitsspielräume des menschlichen Lebens eröffnen.