Im Topologischen Manifest sind die Ergebnisse des Forschungsprojekts „Topologie der Technik“ auf prägnante Weise dargelegt. Der spatial turn analysierte die Produktion des Raumes durch soziale Praktiken, jedoch ohne die Einbettung jener Praktiken in technische Systeme zu berücksichtigen. Angesichts der Bedeutung technisierter Räume für das heutige Leben ist dieser Mangel akut. In diesem Band sind neben dem Manifest Beiträge aus verschiedenen Disziplinen versammelt, um Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer Topologie der Technik auszuloten. Ausgehend von einem modalen Machtbegriff wird nach technogener Formation und (...) Transformation von Räumen gefragt, nach der Konzeptionalisierung relationaler Räume als Struktur- oder Netzphänomenen und der Rolle von Imagination für raumbildende Prozesse. Der InhaltDie interdisziplinären Beiträge gruppieren und positionieren sich um und auf unterschiedliche Weise zum Topologischen Manifest sowie den darin niedergelegten Raumthesen und -typen. Sie reichen von raumtheoretischen Überlegungen und den Besonderheiten relationaler Räume über historische und praxeologische Abhandlungen zur Performanz von Orten bis hin zur Analyse spezifischer Räume wie virtuellen und textuellen Räumen, Sicherheits- und Möglichkeitsräumen oder der Kryosphäre. Die Autorinnen und Autoren erforschen Praktiken, Dynamiken und Zustandsbedingungen im Beziehungsgefüge zwischen Technik, Macht und Raum. Die ZielgruppenForschende auf den Gebieten der Raum- und Technikphilosophie, -soziologie, -geschichte sowie alle interessierten Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler Die HerausgeberDie Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber sind Doktorandinnen und Doktoranden im Forschungsprojekt „Topologie der Technik“ in Darmstadt. (shrink)

Barbara Vetter, Potentiality. From Dispositions to Modality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, 321pp., ISBN: 978–0–19–871431–6.

This is a book review of Barbara Vetter's Potentiality. -/- Philosophy is most intriguing when it teaches us seeing differently. Barbara Vetter’s book Po- tentiality & Possibility (OUP 2014) offers us precisely that: a new orthodoxy when it comes to our view of dispositions, possibility, and, most of all, potentiality. And it does so commendably well with the clarity of expression and the precision we often miss in the literature on causal powers and the like. -/- Vetter (...) writes on page 228: “This book is meant to be the beginning of a debate, not its end.” It is a pleasure and honour to be part of that beginning. Let us start. -/- A first big part of her book aims to show that the standard semantic and/or metaphysical inter- pretation of dispositional predicates and/or dispositions fails and that it ought to be replaced by her potentiality metaphysics. The first half of this commentary, 1., concerns consequences this view has. -/- A second huge part of Vetter’s project is to analyse possibility in terms of potentiality. This will be the focus of the second part, 2., of this review. (shrink)

As Vetter says, we are at the “beginning of the debate, not the end” (2015: 300) when it comes to evaluating her potentiality-based account of metaphysical modality. This paper contributes to this developing debate by highlighting three problems for Vetter’s account. Specifically, I begin (§1) by articulating some relevant details of Vetter’s potentiality-based view. This leads to the first issue (§2), concerning unclarity in the idea of degrees of potentiality. Similarly, the second issue (§3) raises trouble for (...) Vetter’s proposed individuation conditions for potentialities. Finally, the third issue (§4) is about apparently unmanifestable intrinsic potentialities, and suggests that there might be some deeper problems with anchoring metaphysical possibilities in concrete objects. More generally, though the issues detailed here are problematic, I do not take them to be fatal. However, they do show that, at minimum, further clarification of Vetter’s potentiality view is required. As Vetter says, we are at the “beginning of the debate, not the end” (2015: 300) when it comes to evaluating her potentiality-based account of metaphysical modality. This paper contributes to this developing debate by highlighting three problems for Vetter’s account. Specifically, I begin (§1) by articulating some relevant details of Vetter’s potentiality-based view. This leads to the first issue (§2), concerning unclarity in the idea of degrees of potentiality. Similarly, the second issue (§3) raises trouble for Vetter’s proposed individuation conditions for potentialities. Finally, the third issue (§4) is about apparently unmanifestable intrinsic potentialities, and suggests that there might be some deeper problems with anchoring metaphysical possibilities in concrete objects. More generally, though the issues detailed here are problematic, I do not take them to be fatal. However, they do show that, at minimum, further clarification of Vetter’s potentiality view is required. (shrink)

According to dispositionalism about modality, a proposition <p> is possible just in case something has, or some things have, a power or disposition for its truth; and <p> is necessary just in case nothing has a power for its falsity. But are there enough powers to go around? In Yates (2015) I argued that in the case of mathematical truths such as <2+2=4>, nothing has the power to bring about their falsity or their truth, which means they come out both (...) necessary and not possible. Combining this with axiom (T), it is easy to derive a contradiction. I suggested that dispositionalists ought to retreat a little and say that <p> is possible just in case either p, or there is a power to bring it about that p, grounding the possibility of mathematical propositions in their truth rather than in powers. Vetter’s (2015) has the resources to provide a response to my argument, and in her (2018) she explicitly addresses it by arguing for a plenitude of powers, based on the idea that dispositions come in degrees, with necessary properties a limiting case of dispositionality. On this view there is a power for <2+2=4>, without there being a power to bring about its truth. In this paper I argue that Vetter’s case for plenitude does not work. However, I suggest, if we are prepared to accept metaphysical causation, a case can be made that there is indeed a power for <2+2=4>. (shrink)

One implication of Vetter's theory of modality is that necessity and possibility are regarded as unitary natural kinds. In this paper, I argue that from the perspective of the philosophy of causation, there are good reasons to distinguish between different kinds of necessity: causal necessity, which is nomologically necessary, and non-causal necessity, which is metaphysically necessary. One challenge for Vetter's approach is to explain this distinction.

The paper discusses Barbara Vetter’s strategy of grounding metaphysical modalities in the capacities or potentialities of individual things. The first concern is the direction of explanation in tautological and contradictory potentialities. It is argued that the possible and necessary truth of tautologies grounds the possession of tautological potentialities, not vice versa; and that the impossibility of contradictions explains why nothing has contradictory potentialities, not vice versa. It is also argued that Vetter cannot adhere to providing constraints on the (...) existence of uninstantiated properties. Keywords: metaphysical modality, dispositional account of modality, grounding, tautological potentiality, uninstantiated properties. (shrink)

The "Khandha Passages" in the Vinayapitaka and the four main Nikayas. Tilmann Vetter. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vienna 2000. 357 pp. ASch. 774. ISBN 3-7001-2932-7.

The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism. Tilmann Vetter. E.J. Brill, Leiden 1988. xxxviii, 110 pp. Dfl.42.50.

One of the great mysteries of the history of southern Italy, if studied from a purely literary point of view, is the ethnic composition of the Greek cities in the era of the Oscan and Roman conquests. Ancient authors paint a most gloomy picture of those cities which were conquered by the Oscan peoples at the end of the 5th century B.C. or later, saying in some cases that the entire Greek population was slaughtered , in others that the entire (...) elite was slaughtered , and in yet others that the remainder of the Greek population was kept in a state of dire subjection . While not wishing to minimize the horrors of war, these lurid tales must be an over-simplification of the actual situation. It is not readily plausible that entire Greek populations disappeared so abruptly. (shrink)

Potentiality: From Dispositions to Modality, by VetterBarbara. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2015. Pp. ix + 335.

Vetter (2015) develops a localised theory of modality, based on potentialities of actual objects. Two factors play a key role in its appeal: its commitment to Hardcore Actualism, and to Naturalism. Vetter’s commitment to Naturalism is in part manifested in her adoption of Aristotelian universals. In this paper, we argue that a puzzle concerning the identity of unmanifested potentialities cannot be solved with an Aristotelian conception of properties. After introducing the puzzle, we examine Vetter’s attempt at amending (...) the Aristotelian conception in a way that avoids the puzzle, and conclude that this amended version is no longer to be considered naturalistic. Potentiality theory cannot be both actualist and naturalist. We then argue that, if naturalism is to be abandoned by the actualist, there are good reasons to adopt a Platonist conception of universals, for they offer a number of theoretical advantages and allow us to avoid some of the problems facing Vetter’s theory. (shrink)

Vetter's Potentiality is an exposition and development of a new account of possibility and necessity, given in terms of potentialities. In this critical notice, I give an outline of some of the key claims of the book. I then raise some issues for the extent to which Vetter's view can accommodate genuine de re modalities, especially those of possible existence and non-existence.

Barbara Vetter proposes that certain epistemic and metasemantic challenges to our theorizing about metaphysical modality can be met by an approach which generalizes from every day paradigms of objective modality – notably the abilities and dispositions familiar to us “from the context of action” – to give content to the more abstract notion of a most general objective modality: metaphysical modality. I argue that the ability ascriptions which are central to our day to day practical reasoning are permeated with (...) opacity and therefore make for problematic paradigms of an objective modality. While Vetter could retrospectively “purify” her sample of paradigms, this would leave her in a similar position as those who seek to restrict a particularly broad modality, e.g. a priori conceivability, to its objective core. I conclude by taking on Vetter’s pessimistic conjecture that proponents of different approaches to the metasemantic challenge operate under assumptions so dramatically different that we should not expect them to even share a subject matter. Against this, I give an argument which suggests that so long as there is agreement regarding the theoretical role of metaphysical modality, it would be surprising if it made a difference whether one approached metaphysical modality by generalizing from one well-understood modality rather than by restricting another. Keywords: objective modality, abilities, opacity, broadest necessity. (shrink)

Barbara Vetter has argued that the notion of a metaphysical possibility functions like a natural-kind concept that picks out whatever kind is instantiated by the large majority of paradigmatic examples. Vetter holds that proponents of such a view can reject appeals to intuition and a priori reasoning as ways of supporting claims about the extension of metaphysical possibility, and that the attractiveness of a natural-kind account is consequently undiminished by intuitive counterexamples. This paper argues that that is far (...) from obvious. It may be true on a natural kind view that the claim that it is metaphysically possible that p can be established only on the basis of empirical evidence about which kind is instantiated by most paradigm examples and what the members of this kind are. However, that leaves open the possibility that intuition and a priori reasoning can be used to evaluate conditional claims of the following form: If the kind instantiated by most paradigm examples includes (fails to include) X, then it is possible (not possible) that p. If intuition and a priori considerations can be used in this manner, then they are relevant to the assessment of the natural-kind view. Keywords: modality, natural kinds, the a priori, intuition, potentiality. (shrink)

Albert Newen and Petra Vetter argue that neurophysiological considerations and psychophysical studies provide striking evidence for cognitive penetration. This commentary focuses mainly on the neurophysiological considerations, which have thus far remained largely absent in the philosophical debate concerning cognitive penetration, and on the cognitive penetration of perceptual experiences, which is the form of cognitive penetration philosophers have debated about the most. It is argued that Newen and Vetter's evidence for cognitive penetration is unpersuasive because they do not sufficiently (...) scrutinize the details of the empirical studies they make use of-the details of the empirical studies are crucial also when the studies are used in philosophical debates. The previous does not mean that cognitive penetration could not occur. Quite the contrary, details of the feedback connections to the visual perceptual module and one of the candidates presented by Newen and Vetter suggest that cognitive penetration can occur in rare cases. (shrink)

Establishing Dispositionalism as a viable theory of modality requires the successful fulfilment of two tasks: showing that all modal truths can be derived from truths about actual powers, and offering a suitable metaphysics of powers. These two tasks are intertwined: difficulties in one can affect the chances of success in the other. In this paper, I generalise an objection to Dispositionalism by Jessica Leech and argue that the theory in its present form is ill-suited to account for de re truths (...) about merely possible entities. I argue that such difficulty is rooted in a problem in the metaphysics of powers. In particular, I contend that the well-known tension between two key principle of powers ontology, namely Directedness and Independence has received an unsatisfactory solution so far, and that it is this unsatisfactory solution concerning the status of “unmanifested manifestations” that makes it hard for Dispositionalism to account for mere possibilia. I develop a novel account of the status of unmanifested manifestations and an overall metaphysics of powers which allows to better respond to Leech's objection and handle mere possibilia. The central idea of the proposal is that unmanifested manifestations are akin to mere logical existents, and are best characterised as non-essentially non-located entities. (shrink)

Hardcore actualism (HA) grounds all modal truths in the concrete constituents of the actual world (see, e.g., Borghini and Williams (2008), Jacobs (2010), Vetter (2015)). I bolster HA, and elucidate the very nature of possibility (and necessity) according to HA, by considering if it can validate S5 modal logic. Interestingly, different considerations pull in different directions on this issue. To resolve the tension, we are forced to think hard about the nature of the hardcore actualist's modal reality and how (...) radically this departs from possible worlds orthodoxy. Once we achieve this departure, the prospects of a hardcore actualist validation of S5 look considerably brighter. This paper thus strengthens hardcore actualism by arguing that it can indeed validate S5–arguably the most popular logic of metaphysical modality–and, in the process, it elucidates the very nature of modality according to this revisionary, but very attractive, modal metaphysics. (shrink)

This special issue of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy is dedicated to Timothy Williamson's work on modality. It consists of a new paper by Williamson followed by papers on Williamson's work on modality, with each followed by a reply by Williamson. -/- Contributors: Andrew Bacon, Kit Fine, Peter Fritz, Jeremy Goodman, John Hawthorne, Øystein Linnebo, Ted Sider, Robert Stalnaker, Meghan Sullivan, Gabriel Uzquiano, Barbara Vetter, Timothy Williamson, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri.

"Die 1. Aufl. erschien 1932 in Berlin im Verlag Bruno Cassirer (einem Vetter Ernst Cassirers)"--P. [ix].

Die in diesem Bande vereinigten Aufsatze dokumentieren die siebte einer Reihe thematisch aufeinander bezogener Arbeitstagungen von Indologen, Buddhologen und Theologen, zu der das Institut fur Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Asiens der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften eingeladen hatte, und die im September 2000 unter dem Titel "Mythisierung der Transzendenz als Entwurf ihrer Erfahrung" stattfand. Zur Diskussion stand die Tragweite und Anwendbarkeit des Begriffes "Mythisierung", ein zentraler Terminus der Religionshermeneutik Gerhard Oberhammers. Dieser Begriff ermoglichte es den Beitragenden nicht nur, den Gegensatz von Erfahrung, (...) Sprache und Transzendenz in den unterschiedlichen Religionen zu problematisieren, sondern mit ihm konnte auch auf die Bedingungen jeder historisch-konkreten Religion reflektiert werden. Zu den theologischen und philosophischen Beitragen gehoren: Gerhard Oberhammer, Mit-sein, Mythisierung und Transzendenz. Einleitende Gedanken; Siegfried Wiedenhofer, "Mythisierung der Transzendenz". Zwischen Offenbarungsereignis und Traditionsvermittlung; H. J. Adriaanse, Wort, Offenbarung und Theologie als Momente der Mythisierung. Karl Barths Theologie des Wortes Gottes als Prufstein eines religionshermeneutischen Grundbegriffs; Desiree J. Berendsen, Mythisierung der Transzendenz als Ordnung des Lebens. Uber Kierkegaard und Oberhammer; Marcus Schmucker, Von der individuellen Erfahrung zum Text; Norbert Hintersteiner, Von der Gebung des Unendlichen. Phanomen und Transzendenz bei Jean-Luc Marion. Shizuteru Ueda, Mythisierung und Ent-Mythisierung der Transzendenz als Entwurf ihrer Erfahrung im Zen-Buddhismus; Hans-Peter Muller, Mythisierung geschichtlicher Ereignisse im Alten Testament und im Alten Vorderen Orient; Lourens Minnema, Bildlose Bildhaftigkeit. "Mythisierung" im Werk Mark Rothkos; Johann Reikerstorfer, Kritische Toleranz. Verstandigungsmoglichkeiten im interreligiosen Dialog? Indologische Beitrage: Halina Marlewicz, Advaita Vedanta Hermeneutics of Revelation Key-Statements as "Mythicising" of Transcendence; Jan C. Heesterman, Opfer, Transzendenz und Dharma in der Sicht der Mima'sa; Andre Padoux, Mythisierung am Beispiel des Sivaismus; Marion Rastelli, Der Tempel als Mythisierung der Transzendenz; Axel Michaels, Tirtha - Orte der Transzendenz in hinduistischen Texten, Ritualen und Karten; Tilmann Vetter, Zur Anthropologie der Khandha-Passagen in den alteren Sammlungen des Pali-Kanons. (shrink)