A volume devoted explicitly to the subtle and multidimensional phenomenon of background knowing that has to be recognized as an important element of the triad mind-body-world. The essays are inspired by seminal works on the topic by Searle and Dreyfus, but also make significant contribution in bringing the discussion beyond the classical confines.

Dieser Artikel befasst sich mit einigen falschen Auffassungen in Bezug auf ‘privilegierte’ Zugänge zu eigenen Erfahrungen aus der Perspektive der ersten Person, verweist auf die Grenzen solcher Unmittelbarkeit und zweifelt am solipsistischen Geheimnis der Subjektivität. Ausgehend von der Überzeugung, dass sich die Gleichstellung von ‘Blickwinkel’ und ‘Perspektive’ als problematisch erwiesen hat, stellt der Verfasser die These auf, dass wir unterschiedliche Perspektiven aus ein und demselben Blickwinkel haben können. Als gestaltgewordene, in die Umwelt eingebettete und erkenntnisfähige Personen praktizieren wir den Austausch (...) perspektivistischer Standpunkte über die eigene Subjektivität in unserem Lebensalltag leichter und öfter, als wir dies in unseren Theorien zuzugeben bereit sind. Die Art der Methodologie, zu der auch der objektivistische Zugang der dritten Person gehört, ist außerstande, die Irreduktibilität zwischen dem Subjektiven und dem Empirischen zu revidieren, setzt jedoch voraus, dass die Vernunft dem intersubjektiven Raum geöffnet ist, in dem das Irreduktible immer noch weitervermittelt, verglichen und ergänzt werden kann. (shrink)

Široko je rasprostranjeno slaganje da se pozadinska infrastruktura nesvjesno primjenjuje i nije formalno predstavljiva, nego se pogledi razilaze treba li se ta vrsta vještine smatrati znanjem u pravome smislu. U ovome članku pokušavam pokazati da je pozadinska infrastruktura tip stručnog znanja koji služi kao preduvjet umu da bi bio o stvarima u svijetu. Suprotno uobičajenom razumijevanju, da je pozadina prvenstveno mehanička, ovdje predstavljen pogled potvrđuje je kao totalitet znanja preuzet od tijela i pretvoren u implicitno ‘znati-kako’. On se pojavljuje kao (...) modus umskog ‘posvjetovljenja’, kao i organ potencijalnosti.There is wide agreement that background infrastructure is unconsciously applied and is not formallyrepresentable, but views diverge as to whether this sort of skill should be considered knowledgein the proper sense. In this paper I attempt to show that background infrastructure is a type ofskilled knowledge which serves as a precondition for the mind to be about things in the world. Contraryto the common understanding that background is primarily mechanical, the view presentedhere affirms that it as a totality of knowing taken up by the body and converted into an implicit‘know-how’. It appears as a mode of mind’s ‘enworldment’, as well as an organ of potentiality. (shrink)

Il y a presque unanimité à reconnaître que lesavoir des antécédents est appliquée inconsciemment et qu’elle n’est pas représentable formellement, mais les avis divergent quand il s’agit de décider si ce genre d’aptitude doit être considéré comme un savoir au sens propre du terme. Dans cet article, j’essaie de montrer que l’infrastructure des antécedents est un type de savoir technique constituant une condition préalable pour que la pensée soit sur le monde. Contrairement à la conception habituelle, selon laquelle les antécedents (...) sont principalement mécaniques, le point de vue présenté ici les définit comme totalité de savoirs empruntés au corps et transformés en savoir-faire implicite. Celui-ci se manifeste à la fois comme un mode d’«assimilation au monde» et un organe de potentialité. (shrink)

Explores the intriguing prospect that, in some situations, a person's hand has a mind of its own.

Collection with articles of different disciplines on Metaphor as a "Figure of Thought". Summary of contents: 1. A HIstory of Philosophy Perspective 2. A SEmantic Perspective 3. A COgnitive Science Perspective 4. A PHilosphy of Science Perspective 5. A THeological, Sociological and Political Perspective.

Modem theories of metaphor seem to be pretty unanimous in taking the "death" of a metaphor literally. By doing so they too easily wipe out sedimented, past meanings and so ignore semantic memory. A further consequence of this stand is that meanings are reduced to a one-dimensional (either metaphoric or literal), static structure. This article, in a procedure that resembles a sort of "archeology of meaning," is critical of such an attitude, for which conventionalization of metaphors means their burial in (...) the graveyard of language. It attempts to provide a ground for the assumption that labeling of metaphors as "dead" is not lethal, for their meanings can be revitalized and recreated, according to our linguistic competence, diachronic perspective, interests, and needs. It contains implicit support for the thesis that semantic mechanisms are flexible, dynamic, and subject to evolutionary growth. Not even the death of a metaphor can be exempt from this overall scheme. (shrink)

L’article traite de certaines conceptions erronées liées à des approches « privilégiées » – et en même temps mystérieuses – des expériences autonomes à la première personne. Il souligne les limites d’une telle immédiateté et doute de l’intimité solipsiste de la subjectivité. En partant de la conviction selon laquelle l’identification du « point de vue » et de la « perspective » reste problématique, l’auteur affirme que nous pouvons avoir des perspectives différentes d’un même personnel point de vue personnel. En (...) tant que personnes incarnées, intégrées et cognitives, nous pratiquons l’échange des attitudes perspectivistes face à notre propre subjectivité plus souvent et plus facilement dans notre quotidien que nous ne soyons prêts à l’admettre en théorie. La méthodologie qui correspond en partie à l’approche objectiviste de la troisième personne n’est pas en mesure de reconsidérer l’irréductibilité du subjectif et de l’empirique. Elle demande cependant un esprit ouvert à l’espace intersubjectif dans lequel l’irréductible peut encore se communiquer, se comparer et se compléter. (shrink)

The paper deals with some misconceptions concerning ‘privileged’ access to our own experiences from the first-person perspective, points to the limitations of this immediacy, and questions the solipsist privacy of subjectivity. Based on the conviction that the identification of ‘point of view’ with ‘perspective’ proves to be problematic, the author argues that we may take different perspectives from the same point of view. As embodied and embedded cognitive persons we practice the interchange of perspectival attitudes towards our own subjectivity in (...) our daily lives far more easily and frequently than we are prone to admit in our theories. This kind of methodology, part of which is also the objectivist third-person approach, does not have the power to revise the irreducibility between the subjective and the empirical, although it does appeal to the mind open to the intersubjective space, in which the irreducible can still be communicated, compared and complemented. (shrink)

Es herrscht allgemeine Einigkeit darüber, dass die Hintergundinfrastruktur unbewusst eingesetzt wird und nicht formal vorstellbar ist. Die Meinungen gehen jedoch im Hinblick darauf auseinander, ob diese Art Fertigkeit als Wissen im eigentlichen Sinne des Wortes verstanden werden soll. Im Artikel versuche ich zu zeigen, dass die Hindergrundinfrastruktur ein Typ des Fachwissens ist, der für den Geist als Voraussetzung dient, um von den Dingen in der Welt zu sein. Im Gegensatz zur gängigen Auffassung, der Hintergrund sei primär mechanisch, bestätigt der hier (...) vorgestellte Blick, dass er eine Wissenstotalität ist, vom Körper übernommen und in implizites Know-how verwandelt. Er erscheint als ein Modus der „Verweltlichung“ des Geistes und als ein Organ der Potentialität. (shrink)

Im Beitrag wird versucht, die Vernunft zu beschreiben, die für moralische Urteile verantwortlich sein soll. Dieser Versuch stützt sich auf die Untersuchungen von Neurowissenschaftlern, die gängige philosophische Normen vor neue Herausforderungen stellen. Die neurowissenschaftliche „Messung” der Moral bringt die Tatsache zum Ausdruck, dass die moralischen Entscheidungen auf einem intuitiven Niveau getroffen werden und in einem größeren oder kleineren Ausmaß emotional motiviert sind. Dies bedeutet, dass sie eher davon abhängig sind, ob die Einstellung „persönlich” oder „unpersönlich” ist, und weniger von universellen (...) Kriterien der Richtigkeit oder Falschheit. Die moralische „Rechnung”, die sich aus der Evaluation des „Preis-/Leistungsverhältnisses” ergibt, erscheint als Derivation einer primär intuitiven Entscheidungsfindung und einer von der Vernunft ununterbrochen produzierten Erzählart, der man letztendlich Glauben schenkt. Die übliche Antwort der Philosophen auf diese Art von Herausforderungen liegt gerade darin, dass das Gehirn für moralische Entscheidungen und Handlungen nicht verantwortlich gemacht werden kann, genauso wie auch die Neurowissenschaft keine endgültige Erklärung dafür zu geben vermag, wie die „ethische Vernunft” für das moralische Gefühl arbeitet. Verantwortung ist demnach eine Sache der Person und nicht des Gehirns. Gleichwohl kann diese Art Wissen unser Verständnis der den mentalen Prozessen zugrunde liegenden Mechanismen, die bei der Lösung moralischer Dilemmata mit einbezogen sind, entscheidend fördern. (shrink)

This collection of essays represents an interdisciplinary approach to some contemporary issues in the philosophy of science and the theory of knowledge. It is also an attempt to place art in the context of human cognition in general and also to relate it to science and philosophy. Its conception is such that it accords with the view that our creativity is not separable from a humanistic orientation. Within such a humanistic framework, aiming at a stable form of peace becomes the (...) moral responsibility of both the scientist and the philosopher. (shrink)

Široko je rasprostranjeno slaganje da se pozadinska infrastruktura nesvjesno primjenjuje i nije formalno predstavljiva, nego se pogledi razilaze treba li se ta vrsta vještine smatrati znanjem u pravome smislu. U ovome članku pokušavam pokazati da je pozadinska infrastruktura tip stručnog znanja koji služi kao preduvjet umu da bi bio o stvarima u svijetu. Suprotno uobičajenom razumijevanju, da je pozadina prvenstveno mehanička, ovdje predstavljen pogled potvrđuje je kao totalitet znanja preuzet od tijela i pretvoren u implicitno ‘znati-kako’ . On se pojavljuje (...) kao modus umskog ‘posvjetovljenja’, kao i organ potencijalnosti.There is wide agreement that background infrastructure is unconsciously applied and is not formallyrepresentable, but views diverge as to whether this sort of skill should be considered knowledgein the proper sense. In this paper I attempt to show that background infrastructure is a type ofskilled knowledge which serves as a precondition for the mind to be about things in the world. Contraryto the common understanding that background is primarily mechanical, the view presentedhere affirms that it as a totality of knowing taken up by the body and converted into an implicit‘know-how’. It appears as a mode of mind’s ‘enworldment’, as well as an organ of potentiality. (shrink)

This paper is motivated by the general idea that philosophical ambition to understand and define the human mind exclusively in terms of conscious, propositional, and deliberative behaviour cannot be adequate, for it leaves out great part of our mentality, which resides in the background. On a more specific plane it focuses on the background as a means of providing the cognitive organism with most plausible scenarios of reality, and prepares it for what appears most likely to be the case in (...) the world, in an instant way and without engaging in contemplation. The background proves to be a powerful instrument of initiating guesswork and does it in automatic and effortless manner. In such a way this backgrounded “reason” acts ahead of actuality and drives our behaviour and modes of our coping in the natural, social, and cultural world in an implicit way, not available in the conscious foreground.Este artículo viene motivado por la idea general de que la ambición filosófica de definir y entender la mente humana exclusivamente en términos de comportamiento consciente, proposicional y deliberativo no puede ser adecuada, pues deja inexplicada gran parte de nuestra mentalidad, la cual reside en el trasfondo. Más específicamente, el artículo se centra en el trasfondo como medio para proporcionar al organismo cognitivo los escenarios más plausibles de la realidad, y prepararlo para lo que más probablemente sea el caso en el mundo, de forma instantánea y sin entrar en la contemplación. El trasfondo demuestra ser un instrumento poderoso a la hora de hacer conjeturas de una manera automática y espontánea. De esta forma, esta “razón” de trasfondo se anticipa en la práctica y conduce nuestro comportamiento y modos de habérnoslas con el mundo natural, social y cultural de forma implícita, no disponible en el primer plano conscien-te. (shrink)

The paper is an attempt of outlining the mind responsible for moral judgments in a general manner, and according to the investigations done by the neuroscientists, and which challenge some standard philosophical notions. The “measuring” of morality on the part of neuroscience reveals that moral decisions are basically made on an intuitive level that can be emotionally motivated to a greater or lesser extent, what in turn depends on whether the attitude is “personal” or “impersonal”, and not so much on (...) the universal criteria of rightness and wrongness. The cost-benefit moral “calculus” appears to be derivation of some primary intuitive “decision-making”, and a sort of narrative the mind is constantly producing, and we come to believe in. The philosopher’s usual response to the sort of challenge is rightly that it is not the brain that is responsible for moral decisions and deeds, nor is it neuroscience that can provide us with the ultimate explanation of how the “ethical mind” works for moral sense and responsibility is still with persons and not with brains. Yet, the sort of knowledge can significantly enhance our understanding of the mechanisms underlying mental processes involved in solving moral dilemmas. (shrink)

There is wide agreement that background infrastructure is unconsciously applied and is not formally representable, but views diverge as to whether this sort of skill should be considered knowledge in the proper sense. In this paper I attempt to show that background infrastructure is a type of skilled knowledge which serves as a precondition for the mind to be about things in the world. Contrary to the common understanding that background is primarily mechanical, the view presented here affirms that it (...) as a totality of knowing taken up by the body and converted into an implicit ‘know-how’. It appears as a mode of mind’s ‘enworldment’, as well as an organ of potentiality. (shrink)

Ce texte n’est qu’une tentative de description de la raison qui, d’un point de vue général, est responsable des jugements moraux. Cette tentative s’appuie sur les recherches des neuroscientifiques qui lancent un défi aux notions philosophiques en vigueur. La « mesure » neuroscientifique de la moralité révèle que les décisions morales se font à un niveau intuitif et qu’elles peuvent être plus ou moins motivées d’une manière émotionnelle. Ceci signifie qu’elles dépendent davantage du fait que l’attitude soit personnelle ou non (...) et moins des critères universels de rectitude ou d’erreur. Le « calcul » moral résultant de l’estimation du coût et du bénéfice dérive d’une prise de décision tout d’abord intuitive ainsi que de la narration produite par la raison et à laquelle nous finissons par croire. La réponse habituelle des philosophes à ce type de défi est que le cerveau ne peut être responsable des décisions morales et de nos actes, de même que la neuroscience ne peut nous informer comment la « raison éthique » travaille pour le sens du moral. La responsabilité est une question qui touche la personne et non pas le cerveau. Or, ces connaissances peuvent faire avancer notre compréhension des mécanismes des processus fondamentalement mentaux impliqués dans les dilemmes moraux. (shrink)

Il y a presque unanimité à reconnaître que lesavoir des antécédents est appliquée inconsciemment et qu’elle n’est pas représentable formellement, mais les avis divergent quand il s’agit de décider si ce genre d’aptitude doit être considéré comme un savoir au sens propre du terme. Dans cet article, j’essaie de montrer que l’infrastructure des antécedents est un type de savoir technique constituant une condition préalable pour que la pensée soit sur le monde. Contrairement à la conception habituelle, selon laquelle les antécedents (...) sont principalement mécaniques, le point de vue présenté ici les définit comme totalité de savoirs empruntés au corps et transformés en savoir-faire implicite. Celui-ci se manifeste à la fois comme un mode d’«assimilation au monde» et un organe de potentialité. (shrink)

Hands undoubtedly matter. Few, I suspect, would disagree. Yet The Hand, an Organ of the Mind uses this commonplace to dispel what is termed the “intellectualist illusion” , the illusion that the things we do with our hands are always and everywhere guided by an in-the-head centralised planner. Radman’s spirited collection of essays makes the point that we are not the sort of “centralised knowers” that the history of cognitive science might have us believe. Rather the manual is primary: (...) it not only structures our encounters with the world; it is also constitutive of those encounters. We are in fact manual beings .In support of this proposal, Radman has marshaled a wealth of research from a wide range of philosophers, scientists and even artists. In particular, this collection brings to the fore how past and present phenomenological research and 4e paradigms in cognitive science all have important lessons t .. (shrink)

t. 1. Estetika--obshti vŭprosi. Estetika i teorii︠a︡ na arkhitekturata i gradoustroĭstvoto, izobrazitelnoto izkustvo, muzikata, teatŭra i kinoto. --t. 3. Teorii︠a︡, istorii︠a︡ i kritika na literaturata.

The leading scholars represented in _Politics, Philosophy, Writing_ examine six key Platonic dialogues and the most important of the epistles, moving from Plato's most public or political writings to his most philosophical. The collection is intended to demonstrate the unity of Plato's concerns, the literary quality of his writing, and the integral relation of form and content in his work. Taken together, these essays show the consistency of Plato's understanding of the political art, the art of writing, and the philosophical (...) life. Studies emphasizing the unity of Plato's lifework have given way in recent scholarship to specialized and overspecialized examinations of individual dialogues. While each of the contributors to _Politics, Philosophy, Writing_ studies one text, his or her work is oriented toward illuminating the whole of Plato's project. Each of the essays is an innovative contribution to scholarship on its topic; as a collection, they constitute a unique reading of Plato's political philosophy. Plato scholars have generally divided themselves into two camps: those who concentrate on the analytic or logical aspects of the dialogues, and those who concentrate on the literary-critical features. In one camp are the philologists and classicists, and in the other, the writers of inventive interpretive commentaries. By avoiding distinctions between Plato the poet and Plato the philosopher, _Politics, Philosophy, Writing_ allows a deeper exploration of the comprehensiveness of Plato's theoretical vision and illuminates the lasting challenge of his understanding of the human condition. (shrink)

This new study challenges traditional ways of reading Plato by showing that his philosophy and political theory cannot be understood apart from a consideration of the literary or aesthetic features of his writing. More specifically, it shows how Plato’s well-known cosmological dialogues—the _Phaedrus, Timaeus, _and _Critias_—are structured using several books of the _Odyssey _as their shared source text. While there has recently been much scholarly discussion of the relation between poetry and philosophy in Plato’s dialogues, little of it addresses questions (...) central to thoroughgoing literary criticism. Planinc’s work is unique in that it shows the significance of Plato’s extensive refiguring of key episodes in the _Odyssey_ for an interpretation of his political philosophy. Plato’s cosmological dialogues are almost always discussed topically. The _Timaeus _is picked through for its theological or scientific doctrines; the _Critias _is reduced to its Atlantis story, or puzzled over because of its ostensible incompleteness; and the _Phaedrus_ is read for its parallels to modern understandings of erotics or rhetoric. The dialogues are not usually considered in relation to one another, and then only in the context of developmental schemes primarily concerned with distinguishing periods in Plato’s metaphysical doctrines. Planinc argues that the main literary features of the _Phaedrus,_ _Timaeus,_ and _Critias _are taken from books 6 to 9 of the _Odyssey,_ the largest part of the story of Odysseus’s stay with the Phaeacians, from the time he swims to shore and encounters Nausicaa to the time he reveals his identity and begins recounting his earlier travels after hearing Demodocus’s songs. By exploring the full range of the many charming and intriguing things the dialogues present in this literary context, he shows that they are a coherent, unified part of Plato’s corpus. _Plato through Homer_ takes a radically new approach to Plato’s texts that illuminates their literary and philosophic significance and highlights their enduring appeal. (shrink)

Branislav Petronijević, opaske o početku i rezimeu njegovog filozofskog dela -- Faksimil prijave Petronijevićeve disertacije, Folkeltovog i Hajnceovog referata i mišljenja komisije -- Transkripcija Folkeltovog rukopisa -- Prevod Hajnceovog referata -- Beleška o autoru.