Lorenzo Magnani’s book is a broad and deep meditation on the theme of violence. For the author, the theoretical and methodological problem lies not in trying to find a privileged access to the issue of violence, but rather to raise this issue to the status of an independent, chiefly philosophical subject. This requires a strategic twofold move: on the one hand, one needs a strong and comprehensive philosophical hypothesis about violence; on the other, it is necessary to bring to (...) a theoretical unity the plurality or, to put it differently, the fragmentation of analyses consecrated to the issue of violence—and this result is achieved precisely thanks to a comprehensive philosophical hypothesis. (shrink)

Most biologists and some cognitive scientists have independently reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as learning in the traditional “instructive‘ sense. This is, admittedly, a somewhat extreme thesis, but I defend it herein the light of data and theories jointly extracted from biology, especially from evolutionary theory and immunology, and from modern generative grammar. I also point out that the general demise of learning is uncontroversial in the biological sciences, while a similar consensus has not yet been (...) reached in psychology and in linguistics at large. Since many arguments presently offered in defense of learning and in defense of “general intelligence‘ are often based on a distorted picture of human biological evolution, I devote some sections of this paper to a critique of “adaptationism,‘ providing also a sketch of a better evolutionary theory. Moreover, since certain standard arguments presented today as “knock-down‘ in psychology, in linguistics and in artificial intelligence are a perfect replica of those once voiced by biologists in favor of instruction and against selection, I capitalize on these errors of the past to draw some lessons for the present and for the future. (shrink)

Nowadays, the widespread view is that classical sociology is tainted with ‘methodological nationalism and it would appear that there has been a significant overlap between social and political space. We disagree with this point of view for three reasons: (1) by dealing with the global world, classical sociology has already glimpsed the possibility of going beyond the nation-state as a unit of analysis; (2) having operated above all with the notion of ‘social’ rather than ‘national’, its categories are transnational; and (...) (3) when classical sociology has dealt with national society, studies have not reified it within its political boundaries. Consequently, in our opinion, classical sociology highlights both analytical categories that go beyond the ontology of the nation-state as well as new socio-political forms defined within the trajectory of modernity under the pressure of globalization processes. (shrink)

This article provides the first complete edition of the eighteen quodlibetal questions ascribed to Adenulf of Anagni (†1289) with an introductory study concerning the life and works of this author. Although the analysis of the texts reveals a strong dependence of Adenulf on the Summa Halensis, Thomas Aquinas and Gerard of Abbeville and a modest degree of originality, these questions represent an important source for the rising Thomism and the reception of the most prominent 13th-century figures.

La presente contribución recoge el diálogo mantenido entre distintos filósofos del Derecho a propósito de la última obra del Profesor Massimo La Torre “Il diritto contro se stesso. Saggio sul positivismo giuridico e la sua crisi”. Al hilo del trabajo del citado autor, los participantes reflexionan sobre preguntas centrales para la teoría y filosofía del Derecho contemporánea: ¿cuál es la naturaleza del Derecho? ¿es el razonamiento jurídico eminentemente moral? ¿qué lugar debe ocupar la práctica jurídica en su conceptualización? ¿qué (...) lugar ocupa la fuerza en el Derecho? (shrink)

Over the years, AI has undergone a transformation from its original aim of producing an ‘intelligent’ machine to that of producing pragmatic solutions of problems of the market place. In doing so, AI has made a significant contribution to the debate on whether the computer is an instrument or an interlocutor. This paper discusses issues of problem solving and creativity underlying this transformation, and attempts to clarify the distinction between theresolutive intelligence andproblematic intelligence. It points out that the advance of (...) ‘intelligent’ technology, with its failure to make a clear distinction betweenresolutive andcreative intelligence, could contribute to the further cultural marginalisation of human activities not connected with production. A further danger is that AI products may suffer a further loss of social reputation and prestige for those activities for which it is not possible to build artificial devices. (shrink)

We prove ExpTime-membership of the satisfiability problem for loosely ∀-guarded first-order formulas with a bounded number of variables and an unbounded number of constants. Guarded fragments with constants are interesting by themselves and because of their connection to hybrid logic.

Pigliucci, Massimo A recent New York Times article has noted a new trend in secular writings, what the author, James Atlas, termed 'Can't-Help-Yourself books'. This trend includes writings by prominent scientists and secularists that are characterised by two fundamental - and equally misguided - ideas: an over-enthusiastic embrace of science, and the dismissal of much of human experience under the generic label of 'illusion'.

Usually, the shape of the future is seen as the result of a cultural flow that, according to some privileged cultural variable, like technology, goes undisturbed towards its own outcome. This is a quite naive attitude that has been very rarely successful. Both conventional technology and technology of the artificial show that, within culture, ‘demons’ are always active trying to exploit or even bypass standards in order to give birth to unexpected novelties. This is true within the pure technology area (...) and even more in its artistic extensions. Therefore, no deterministic process is going on but, rather, a permanent remixing of chances that makes any prophecy impossible. (shrink)

This paper is about the development of a face-to-face collaborative technology to support shifting attitudes of participants in conflict via a narration task. The work is based on two cultural elements: conflict resolution theory and the design of a collaboration enforcing interface designed specifically for the task. The general claim is that participants may achieve a greater understanding of and appreciation for the other’s viewpoint under conditions that support partaking in a tangible joint task and creating a shared narration. Specifically, (...) a co-located interface for producing a joint narration as a tool for favoring reconciliation is presented and discussed. The process based on this technology implicitly includes classical steps in conflict resolution approaches, such as escalation and de-escalation. Our goal is to show that this interface is effective and constitutes an alternative to a typical face-to-face moderated discussion. (shrink)

This paper is about the development of a face-to-face collaborative technology to support shifting attitudes of participants in conflict via a narration task. The work is based on two cultural elements: conflict resolution theory and the design of a collaboration enforcing interface designed specifically for the task. The general claim is that participants may achieve a greater understanding of and appreciation for the other’s viewpoint under conditions that support partaking in a tangible joint task and creating a shared narration. Specifically, (...) a co-located interface for producing a joint narration as a tool for favoring reconciliation is presented and discussed. The process based on this technology implicitly includes classical steps in conflict resolution approaches, such as escalation and de-escalation. Our goal is to show that this interface is effective and constitutes an alternative to a typical face-to-face moderated discussion. (shrink)

At death's door, Leibniz firmly refused to see a priest. This seems to be in strong contrast with the central role that he attributes to God in his philosophy and with his explicit acceptance of the Christian religion. Thus, the circumstances surrounding Leibniz's death, as related by some direct and indirect witnesses, provide an opportunity to examine the sincerity of Leibniz's position on religion. The final conclusion is that Leibniz believed in a religion broadly inspired by Christian principles but that (...) he was not a particularly pious believer, which is fully in line with his own kind of ante litteram deism. (shrink)

In his article, Florian Vermeiren attributes to Leibniz – like other interpreters before him – the distinction of two different kinds of relations: 1) relations in the proper sense of the word as, for example, the fatherhood subsisting between Sophroniscus and Socrates, which Leibniz considers situated ‘outside the subjects’ involved; 2) relational properties, such as being a father, inherent in Sophroniscus. The distinction is clearly present in Leibniz’s writings. According to Vermeiren, Leibniz considers ‘purely mental’ only the relations ‘out of (...) the subjects’ and not the relational predicates, by means of which, on the other hand, the individuals of the Leibnizian world would be truly related. In this sense, therefore, Leibniz would admit the reality of relations, which would play an important role in his ontology. At least since 1686 (the year in which he wrote the Discourse), however, Leibniz states that the world is made only of individuals with their internal modifications: just as there are no properties with a leg in one subject and a leg in another, there are no individuals bound together by any kind of material nexus or ‘real’ ties. Thus, if we make a list of all fathers on the one hand and sons on the other, there remains the problem of how to properly connect the fathers exactly with their sons. Attributing to each of two related individuals a relational property is not enough to connect them. Being a father in David must necessarily refer in some way to Solomon as a son. Leibniz is aware of this, as his attempts to analyze relational propositions in his essays on rational grammar show. Given the sentence ‘Cajus is killed by Titius’ for example, Leibniz attempts to reduce it to an inference between a pair of categorical sentences, each of which attributes a relational predicate to the subject. Relations (and relational properties) result from the substances and their modes, “without producing any change” of themselves but only in virtue of a consequence, that is of a logical inference. The image of the world derived so from the Monadology and other Leibnizian writings is that of a world composed of a collection of isolated individuals, independent of each other and lacking mutual connections. Relational properties correspond to internal modifications of each individual: the second term, in the case of binary relations (the ‘external’ one: Helen, if Paris loves Helen) is resolved into an internal representation (of Paris, in this case). It is God who coordinates the various representations of individuals with each other, to result in a harmonious whole. Since relations are a consequence of the existence of the individual substances with their intrinsic properties, God himself can be said to be the creator of relations, in so far as he calls the individuals into existence. And this is exactly what Leibniz states, in his commentary on Temmik’s book. (shrink)

The paper examines three essays that Leibniz wrote in 1688, immediately after the composition of the Discourse on Metaphysics, one of his most organic philosophical works. The main topics which emerge from these essays are: the relationship between substance and accidents; the nature of accidents; and, more generally, the nature of abstract entities. Given that accidents' nature is that of changing, Leibniz sees how hard it is to give an account of the relationship between substance and accidents that does not (...) imply any change in the substance, when its accidents undergo a change. To find a way out of this problem, Leibniz assumes that abstract terms (whiteness, wisdom, etc.) do not name real properties or real parts of substances, and that any sentence containing real abstract terms can be rephrased as a sentence containing logical abstract terms, which do no imply any commitment to the existence of real properties. Coherently with this nominalistic attitude, Leibniz ends up, in the Theodicy and in his correspondence with Des Bosses, considering accidents as modes or internal modifications of the substance. (shrink)

The paper examines three essays that Leibniz wrote in 1688, immediately after the composition of the Discourse on Metaphysics, one of his most organic philosophical works. The main topics which emerge from these essays are: the relationship between substance and accidents; the nature of accidents; and, more generally, the nature of abstract entities. Given that accidents’ nature is that of changing, Leibniz sees how hard it is to give an account of the relationship between substance and accidents that does not (...) imply any change in the substance, when its accidents undergo a change. To find a way out of this problem, Leibniz assumes that abstract terms do not name real properties or real parts of substances, and that any sentence containing real abstract terms can be rephrased as a sentence containing logical abstract terms, which do no imply any commitment to the existence of real properties. Coherently with this nominalistic attitude, Leibniz ends up, in the Theodicy and in his correspondence with Des Bosses, considering accidents as modes or internal modifications of the substance. (shrink)

Cover’s very stimulating remarks offer me the opportunity to attempt to clear up certain aspects of my interpretation of Leibniz’s theory of relations. I will first address the more important issues raised by Cover; then, at the end of these notes, I will offer one major reason for my own dissatisfaction with my book.

Cover’s very stimulating remarks offer me the opportunity to attempt to clear up certain aspects of my interpretation of Leibniz’s theory of relations. I will first address the more important issues raised by Cover; then, at the end of these notes, I will offer one major reason for my own dissatisfaction with my book.

This is one of the most philosophically interesting books on Leibniz published in the last years: it is highly rewarding not only for Leibniz scholars, but also for people interested in typical issues of contemporary analytic philosophy like transworld identity, the identity of indiscernibles, the contrast between suchness and thisness, etc. It is even a quite demanding book: clearly written and well argued, it discusses at length, in rigorous analytical style, many philosophical topics, raising several questions and suggesting original answers.

This book consists of four parts: 1) an introduction of about 60 pages, mainly focused on the problem of the continuum in Leibniz; 2) a selection of Leibniz’s papers according to the critical edition prepared in Berlin, with English translation; 3) two appendices with excerpts in English from Leibniz’s papers and from texts of other authors on the continuum; 4) a rich collection of notes and a Latin-English glossary. In what follows I will make some short remarks about each of (...) these parts. (shrink)

Monades non sunt in loco nisi per harmoniam, id est per consensum cum phaenomenis loci, a nullo influxu sed sponte rerum ortum.

Monades non sunt in loco nisi per harmoniam, id est per consensum cum phaenomenis loci, a nullo influxu sed sponte rerum ortum.

Monades non sunt in loco nisi per harmoniam, id est per consensum cum phaenomenis loci, a nullo influxu sed sponte rerum ortum.

Cover’s very stimulating remarks offer me the opportunity to attempt to clear up certain aspects of my interpretation of Leibniz’s theory of relations. I will first address the more important issues raised by Cover; then, at the end of these notes, I will offer one major reason for my own dissatisfaction with my book.

This is one of the most philosophically interesting books on Leibniz published in the last years: it is highly rewarding not only for Leibniz scholars, but also for people interested in typical issues of contemporary analytic philosophy like transworld identity, the identity of indiscernibles, the contrast between suchness and thisness, etc. It is even a quite demanding book: clearly written and well argued, it discusses at length, in rigorous analytical style, many philosophical topics, raising several questions and suggesting original answers.

This book consists of four parts: 1) an introduction of about 60 pages, mainly focused on the problem of the continuum in Leibniz; 2) a selection of Leibniz’s papers according to the critical edition prepared in Berlin, with English translation; 3) two appendices with excerpts in English from Leibniz’s papers and from texts of other authors on the continuum; 4) a rich collection of notes and a Latin-English glossary. In what follows I will make some short remarks about each of (...) these parts. (shrink)