I argue that there are no physical singularities in space–time. Singular space–time models do not belong to the ontology of the world, because of a simple reason: they are concepts, defective solutions of Einstein’s field equations. I discuss the actual implication of the so-called singularity theorems. In remarking the confusion and fog that emerge from the reification of singularities I hope to contribute to a better understanding of the possibilities and limits of the theory of general relativity.

This essay goes through Frederick 2015 (the critique) in some detail, responding to the various paraphrases and criticisms therein. It is argued that in each case the critique is mistaken about what Lester 2012 (Escape from Leviathan: EfL) says, or about what the critique presents as a sound criticism, or both. Introduction: the three problems with the critique and the philosophical problem that EfL is attempting to solve. “Abstract”: the critique’s confusion about EfL’s aprioristic theory of instrumental rationality. There are (...) then detailed replies (too many and too diverse to summarise) to quotations from the critique’s confused interpretations and criticisms under the following headings (quoted from the critique): “2. Instrumental Rationality”; 3. Weakness of Will”; “4. Desires and Values”; “5. Free Will”; “6. Self-Interest”; “7. Maximisation”; “8. Morals”. Finally, in “9. Conclusion”, the philosophical problem for economics is briefly restated. The philosophical interpretation of homo economicus in EfL (as with its overall philosophical theory of libertarianism) has yet to be given adequate critical consideration. (shrink)

A poem about relationship between mathematics and the human experience of time.

En este artículo se trataría de explorar la formación, durante el tardofranquismo, de una vanguardia filosófica caracterizada por la ruptura explícita con el ethos universitario. A partir de un análisis prácticamente exhaustivo de la producción filosófica de Eugenio Trías y de Fernando Savater en el periodo señalado se trata de mostrar la ruptura -total en el caso de Savater y parcial en el caso de Eugenio Trías- operada por estos autores con la filosofía académica, incluidas las alternativas “modernistas” de ésta. (...) En el caso de Fernando Savater esto se produce a través de una lectura de Nietzsche filtrada por la importación de contenidos teóricos procedentes de la “sociología sagrada”, de la literatura de Cioran y en menor medida de la Teoría Crítica frankfurtiana. En el caso de Trías, la estrategia consiste básicamente en la reconversión vanguardista del ejercicio docto del comentario de textos canónicos mediante la importación de técnicas y principios inspirados en el estructuralismo. El proceso tendría lugar en un contexto marcado por tranformaciones importantes en el campo político, religioso y editorial. La metodología del trabajo se apoyará en la sociología de los campos de producción intelectual inspirada por Bourdieu, en la sociología de las redes filosóficas y rituales de interacción propiciada por Randall Collins y en el análisis microhistórico de las “constelaciones filosóficas” sugerido por los discípulos de Dieter Henrich. (shrink)

In Chapter 2 of Escape from Leviathan, Jan Lester defends two hypotheses: that instrumental rationality requires agents to maximise the satisfaction of their wants and that all agents actually meet this requirement. In addition, he argues that all agents are self-interested (though not necessarily egoistic) and he offers an account of categorical moral desires which entails that no agent ever does what he genuinely feels to be morally wrong. I show that Lester’s two hypotheses are false because they cannot accommodate (...) weakness of will, because they are inconsistent with agency, which requires free will, because ends, obligations and values cannot be reduced to desires, and because maximisation is often not possible. Further, Lester’s claim that agents are self-interested is vacuous, his attempted reduction of moral behaviour to want-satisfaction fails, and his contention, that agents always do what they genuinely think to be morally required, seems untenable. A defence of freedom that depends on homo economicus is far from promising. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Against the Ethicists (Adversus Mathematicos XI) by Sextus EmpiricusJohn Christian LaursenSextus Empiricus. Against the Ethicists (Adversus Mathematicos XI). Translation, Commentary, and Introduction by Richard Bett. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Pp. xxxiv + 302. NP.Sesto Empirico. Contro gli etici. Introduction, Editing, Translation, and Commentary by Emidio Spinelli. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1995. Pp. 450. NP.Joining the rising tide of scholarly literature that says that skeptics can indeed live their (...) skepticism, and that it is not necessarily a bad life, are these two fine translations of Book XI of Sextus Empiricus’s Against the Mathematicians (known as MXI), the most important for ethics and politics. Considering that the length of Sextus’s text is only 39 pages (in the English version), the length of these two volumes alone indicates that a great deal of philosophical and philological scholarship will be found in them. Both authors do an excellent job of tracking down Sextus’s sources and his targets.Spinelli accepts the traditional position (Janacek’s) that MXI was written after Sextus’s Outlines of Pyrrhonism, although he is aware of the minority position that it was the other way around. Bett makes a convincing case for the minority position, including a substantial appendix comparing passages from the two works which suggest that Outlines polishes MXI. This has the merit of explaining Sextus’s apparent “negative dogmatism” in MXI as part of early skepticism and a phase on the way to the more refined and more thoroughly undogmatic skepticism of the Outlines. However, Bett himself mentions counterevidence to his thesis, so it cannot be considered decisively established. Spinelli explains the apparent dogmatism on the assumption that Outlines came first: the usual skeptical reservations set forth in that book should be understood as implied (165–66, 169). Other explanations are that apparent affirmations are ad hominem polemic “inside” Stoic theory (240ff.) or merely relative and with no ontological status (291).Bett divides the text into part A (1–167) and part B (168–end), arguing for compilation of the two parts of the book from different sources with different purposes. Spinelli writes that the often-denigrated 168–end “has a precise function in the internal compositional strategy” of the book (339).English speakers have had to rely too long on the Loeb translation by” B. Bury. Bett questions many of his renderings. For example, Bury translated kakon and kakia as “evil,” with connotations of intentionality, and at MXI 121 even supplied a footnote to Genesis! Bett prefers the less-loaded “bad” and “vice.” Spinelli usually translates kakon with “mali” but uses the loaded “malvagità” for kakia at MXI 121, where Bett would have suggested “vizio.” Bury translated alogon and alogois with “irrational” which Bett corrects to “non-rational” at MXI 143, 148, and 161 to capture the point that what is in question is neither rational nor irrational, but rather “sensory happenings” which have [End Page 313] nothing to do with reasoning (161). Spinelli renders alogon as “irrazionale” at MXI 143 and alogois as “sottrati al ragionamento” at MXI 148 and 161.Spinelli’s is a much more useful and substantial volume than the previous Italian translation. The only thing that might keep Bett’s volume from replacing the Loeb edition is that it does not supply the Greek text on facing pages. Spinelli does.The exhaustive and careful analyses of Spinelli and Bett allow them to disagree in important ways with parts of the substantial recent work on ancient skepticism by Hankinson, McPherran, Annas, Nussbaum, Striker, and Decleva Caizzi (cited as Caizzi by Bett), not to mention the older work of Janacek and the debates from the early 1980s (now dated) among Frede, Burnyeat, and Barnes. Although they do not find Sextus’s work to be flawless by any means, it is clear that we are long past the point at which his work could be dismissed as silly or merely derivative.On the test case of the treatment of Sextus’s example of the tyrant (MXI 166), both Spinelli and Bett point in the right direction. Spinelli sees that “the Pyrrhonist can live easily” (330) and that MXI 165–67 provides “a new key to understanding the ‘moral skepticism... (shrink)

Recent years have seen the publication of a number of significant studies of Plutarch’s Adversus Colotem. The Adv. Col. has always been of interest, of course, as a source for Presocratic philosophers and also the philosophy of the Hellenistic Epicureans, Cyrenaics, and Academics. But in these recent studies it has also been considered as a whole work in its own right, with critics and interpreters becoming increasingly interested not just in looking through Plutarch to access a Hellenistic o...

At the beginning of Irenaeus of Lyons’ Adversus Haereses, the doctrine of the Valentinian Ptolemy is presented using terms from the semantic field of time and eternity, which were undergoing a semantic evolution in contemporary Middle Platonic philosophy. These allow us to identify three phases, from a chronological point of view, at the beginning of the Valentinian myth: strict, supra-durational, eternity – eternity of indefinite duration – moment ante tempus.

The patristic period is the process that starts with the birth of Jesus and continues until the Nicean Council. Before the Nicean Council, Jesus, the only God's apostle, has gone instead of Jesus, the son of God. There was no intact Bible in the time of Irenaeus, who was among the apologists who advocated monotheism. This harsh and hard struggle of Irenaeus against those who do not accept the one God undoubtedly provides us with information about the profile of Christ (...) before the Nicean Council. Adversus Haereses consists of five parts. In the first part of the work, he explains his thoughts on gnosticism, in the second part, he criticizes and refutes the gnostic arguments, and explains the Christian doctrine in the other three parts. The first sentence of his book begins with "There is only one God: it cannot be otherwise." In this article, I will analyze the monotheistic words of Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses. (shrink)

An account of the astrological controversies that arose in Renaissance Italy in the wake of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s _Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem_, published in 1496.

This scarce antiquarian book is a selection from Kessinger Publishing's Legacy Reprint Series. Due to its age, it may contain imperfections such as marks, notations, marginalia and flawed pages. Because we believe this work is culturally important, we have made it available as part of our commitment to protecting, preserving, and promoting the world's literature. Kessinger Publishing is the place to find hundreds of thousands of rare and hard-to-find books with something of interest for everyone!

Adversus Mathematicos x is the second book dedicated by Sextus to the discussion of the physical doctrines put forward by dogmatic philosophers. An extensive section deals with Diodorus Cronus' arguments concerning movement.

Adversus Mathematicos x is the second book dedicated by Sextus to the discussion of the physical doctrines put forward by dogmatic philosophers. An extensive section deals with Diodorus Cronus' arguments concerning movement.

The focus is on the meaning of ὑπόϑεσις in Irenaeus of Lyons’ Adversus haereses. Our case is to argue that two different elements converge in ὑπόϑεσις or its translations in the Latin version of AH. The first stems from the Greek literary field, in which ὑπόϑεσις means the “subject” or “plot” of a dramatic or poetic composition. The second is related to the philosophical meaning of ὑπόϑεσις as “that which is placed under” or “foundation”. On the one hand, Irenaeus (...) uses ὑπόϑεσις theologically to express the plot of the historia salutis, so that the term can be understood as teaching or doctrine. On the other hand, this ὑπόϑεσις is at the same time a regula, the normative foundation of all the elements that take part in God’s economy of salvation. (shrink)

The treatise was in origin a polemic against the Erasistrateans in Rome whom Galen found to be in opposition to his own views. It is of interest not only for Galen's views on venesection but also for the fragments of the writings of Erastistratus contained in it. The text has not yet appeared in a modern critical edition. The Kühn edition of 1826 is the most recent, but Kühn did not go beyond the work of the Renaissance editors in dealing (...) with the numerous corruptions of the text. The emendations proposed below are occasioned by the want of a satisfactory reading anywhere in the tradition. (shrink)