Článek se věnuje nejnovější knize Charlese Taylora Secular Age (2007). Poukazuje na její kořeny v hegeliánství a v novějších kritikách modernity a probírá některé námitky vůči Taylorově koncepci včetně Taylorových odpovědí. Taylor představuje dva typy současných etických projektů. Na jedné straně tzv. výlučný humanismus, na druhé straně imanentní antihumanismus. A smyslem jeho genealogie moderního sekularismu je ukázat vzájemnou podmíněnost mezi antihumanismem, humanismem a religiozitou s tím, že bez nějaké formy transcendence se každý západní hodnotový systém vystavuje nepřekonatelným tenzím, aby následně (...) navrhl koncept originality volající k následování jako spojnici hlavního nároku křesťanství ztělesněného v pojmu lásky k bližnímu s moderním uměním jako náhražkovým náboženstvím. Taylorova práce je nejen v tomto ohledu postavena na jeho celoživotním zájmu o Hegelovu filosofii, v níž se hledá takový způsob, jak spojit etiku autenticity se smyslem pro společenství, který by překonal omezení reflektující racionality. Taylorovo obohacení Hegela můžeme chápat jako snahu nahradit tradiční nárok lásky k bližnímu srozumitelnějším pojmem podpory rozmanitosti v jednotě (resp. pojmem kultury). The essay examines Charles Taylor’s latest book The Secular Age (2007) by unveiling its Hegelian roots together with its debt to other critics of modernity and by considering some objections as well as Taylor’s answers. Taylor sketches two types of contemporary ethical projects. On the one hand he considers exclusive humanism, on the other the immanent antihumanism. The moral of Taylor’s story of modern secularism comes to his claim that the anti-humanism is enabled by humanism and humanism again by religiosity. According to him this comes to indispensability of religion: namely, some notion of transcendence is necessary for coherence of any set of values available to western man. Actually the originality inspiring its following is what he understands as the key element that is shared by the central claim of Christianity embodied in the notion of love (agape) overcoming the rigorism of explicit rules on the one hand and modern art as Ersatzreligion.(Not only) this aspect of Taylor’s recent work is rooted in his lifelong interest in Hegel, who looked for such pairing of the ethics of authenticity with a sense for community that could overcome the limits of reflective rationality. We can interpret Taylor’s amendement to Hegel as a substitution of „support for differentiation in unity“ (or simply „culture“) for „love for neighbour“. (shrink)

Abstrakt/Abstract Pri uvažovaní o ľudskej schopnosti morálneho usudzovania môžeme vychádzať z dvoch základných pozícií – racionalizmu alebo emotivizmu. Súčasní morálni filozofi a špeciálni vedci sa týmto krajnostiam už skôr vyhýbajú. Extrémne predstavy striedajú modely, ktoré aj vďaka empirickému výskumu ponúkajú plauzibilné odpovede o fungovaní morálneho súdenia, a to vzájomné prelínanie sa kognitívnych a emočných funkcií. When thinking about human faculty of moral judgment we can start from two basic positions – rationalism or emotivism. Contemporary moral philosophers and special scientists (...) do not go often to these extremes any more. Also thanks to the empirical research extreme images are replaced by models that offer plausible answers about functioning of moral judgment namely the mutual diffusion of cognitive and emotional functions. (shrink)

Cieľom štúdie je analýza Rortyho hodnotenia Heideggera ako ironického teoretika. Rorty tvrdí, že úlohou filozofie je kritika filozofickej tradície, pričom Heidegger je mu v tomto zmysle inšpiráciou. Problémom však je, že Heideggerovi nejde o historicko-filozofickú interpretáciu dejín filozofie, ale len o filozofickú, a tú podriaďuje jedine vlastným filozofickým záujmom. Pre zodpovedné skúmanie hlavného problému je nevyhnutná Rortyho definícia a vymedzenie teoretického ironika, ktorý má pochybnosti o funkčnosti, zameranosti či privilegovanosti slovníkov, ale aj o existencii akéhosi konečného slovníka. Je nevyhnutné poukázať (...) na antropologický a morálno-axiologický rozmer novopragmatistického myslenia, ktorý je vzdialený Heideggerovi po obrate a taktiež na problém sokratovskej spravodlivosti, ktorý mu je taktiež vzdialený, na rozdiel od rortyovského ironika. Dôležitou črtou teoretického ironika je odmietanie tradičnej metafyziky a sústredenie sa na metafyziku v úplne odlišnom slova zmysle, teda ide o snahu pochopiť metafyzické (teoretické) nutkanie natoľko, že sa ho človek zbaví. Avšak ani to pre Heideggera neplatí. Rortyho výzva k filozofii ako napĺňaniu ľudskosti je v absolútnom nesúlade s Heideggerovým Listom o humanizme, v ktorom humanizmus podriaďuje dejinám Bytia a vôbec mu nejde o človeka alebo ľudskú dôstojnosť, ale len o myslenie Bytia. (shrink)

V prvej časti príspevku s názvom Čas sa najprv na základe známeho textu Aurélia Augustína Vyznania vymedzujú hlavné problémy spojené s určovaním času, jeho reálnosťou, pretržitosťou, merateľnosťou atď. V druhej časti s názvom Veľký tresk sa uvádzajú rôzne vymedzenia tejto veľmi špecifickej udalosti, ktorá by mala byť počiatkom všetkého, čo skúmame a čím žijeme; najprv tie tradičné, kedy sa veľký tresk chápe ako explodujúca singularita a biela diera, a potom aj tie novšie, kedy prestáva byť absolútnym počiatkom vesmíru a stáva (...) sa opakujúcim fyzikálnym javom alebo procesom. Napokon v tretej časti s názvom Čas a veľký tresk sa v rámci diskusie o vhodnosti prezentistickej či eternalistickej (dynamickej či statickej) koncepcie času dáva veľký tresk do vzťahu s hypotetickým globálnym časom nášho vesmíru a zároveň sa ukazuje, že celá polemika medzi zástancami prezentistickej a eternalistickej koncepcie času je de facto založená na bežnej chybe - na nerozlišovaní medzi ontologickým a sémantickým realizmom. (shrink)

Článek analyzuje původní verzi Husserlovy kritiky Brentanova pojetí časového vědomí, která je obsažena v Husserlových Přednáškách k fenomenologii vnitřního časového vědomí, a Husserlovu snahu vyřešit Brentanův argument nekonečně nekonečného regresu v rukopisném textu O primární modifikaci paměti. Z Husserlovy kritiky si všímá jen dvou bodů. Za prvé kritiky Brentanova prezentismu, tj. názoru, že časové vědomí je založeno v bodu přítomnosti, v němž jsou psychické fenomény, které názor času konstituují, dány současně. Za druhé Husserlovy výtky, že Brentano nepoužívá pro výklad vědomí (...) času schéma počitkový obsah – pojetí počitkového obsahu. Za tímto účelem rekonstruuje text Brentanovu teorii v podobě, v které ji znal Husserl, a vykládá jak Brentanovy důvody pro odmítnutí časové povahy vnitřního vnímání, tak nedořešené problémy Brentanova hlediska. Následně se pokouší dokázat, že Husserl Brentanův prezentismus podcenil a že věcné problémy, které s jeho odmítnutím souvisely, musel řešit zavedením absolutně „kvazi-prezentního“ vědomí a odmítnutím schématu obsah – pojetí pro výklad konstituce imanentních časových jednot. Oba zvolené body Husserlovy kritiky Brentana se tak v pozdějších vrstvách přednášek ukazují jako částečně neoprávněné.The article discusses the original version of Husserl’s critique of Brentano’s concept of time consciousness, which forms a part of Husserl’s Lectures on the Phenomenology of the Consciousness of Internal Time. Next, it gives an overview of Husserl’s attempt to solve Brentano’s argument from the infinitely infinite regress against the consciousness of internal time. Two points of Husserl’s critique of Brentano are analyzed. The first point concerns Husserl’s critique of Brentano’s presentism. Brentano holds that consciousness of time is contained in the time point of the present now, in which psychical phenomena constituting our time consciousness are given simultaneously. The second point concerns the lack of content – apprehension scheme in Brentano’s explanation of the time consciousness. The article reconstructs Brentano’s position in the form known to Husserl and explains Brentano’s reasons for refusing the internal consciousness of time as well as problems connected with this refusal. An analysis of Husserl’s text proves that Husserl underestimated Brentano’s presentism and that he was forced to introduce a concept of the absolute time consciousness to solve the problems connected with his refusal of Brentano’s position. Since Husserl had to eventually give up the content – apprehension scheme in his explanation of immanent time unities, his original critique of Brentano is shown to be partly unjustified. (shrink)

Príspevok sa venuje problematike mýtu v závere dialógu Gorgias, v súvislosti s funkciou trestu v Platónových dialógoch. Gorgias je jedným z dialógov, ktoré sú kľúčové pre porozumenie problematike trestu. Zameraním pozornosti na záverečný eschatologický mýtus by sa mohlo zdať, že autor v súvislosti s daným otázkami zastáva nejednoznačné stanovisko. K protirečeniu dochádza na úrovni mythos – logos: na jednej strane je v celom priebehu dialógu prezentovaný nápravný účel trestu. V závere však nastáva obrat a Platónov eschatologický mýtus prezentuje na prvý (...) pohľad odlišné stanovisko. Je možné že mýtus odporuje Platónovej téze o nápravnom účele trestu a do popredia tu vystupuje jeho retributívny charakter? Alebo v skutočnosti k žiadnemu protirečeniu nedochádza a jednotlivé prvky dialógu sa navzájom dopĺňajú? Cieľom príspevku je demonštrovať, že zmena pohľadu na formu trestu a uvažovanie o treste ako o metóde elenchos by mohlo byť kľúčom k porozumeniu vzťahu mythos – logos v predmetnom dialógu. (shrink)

Audiozáznam přednášky proslovené ve Filozofické jednotě na Katedře filozofie dne 26. března 2012.V přednášce se pokouším o velmi základní rozlišení tří funkcí, jež mohou myšlenkové experimenty plnit. Nejprve nabízím liberální definici myšlenkového experimentu, podle níž nejde nutně o výjimečné, nereálné, teoreticky zajímavé, bizarní, imaginární scénáře, nýbrž o celkem běžné představování si situace s kognitivním cílem. Snažím se ukázat, že navzdory své šíři je tato definice přiměřeným zachycením všech podstatných vlastností útvarů, jež intuitivně mezi myšlenkové experimenty počítáme. Stručně se poté věnuji (...) prvnímu významu myšlenkových experimentů: imaginární příklady jsou názornou pomůckou při posilování již získaných přesvědčení. Jejich první význam je didaktický. Druhý možný význam myšlenkových experimentů je předmětem vyhraněných diskusí zejména v posledním dvacetiletí: imaginární příklady jsou zdrojem zdůvodnění. Jejich druhý význam je tedy epistemický. Zatímco je však první, didaktický význam zcela nekontroverzní, epistemický význam myšlenkových experimentů je předmětem mnoha odmítnutí. Myšlenkové experimenty jsou tak často odkázány pouze do role názorných pomůcek bez další hodnoty. Snažím se ukázat, že existuje ještě třetí význam myšlenkových experimentů, význam dialektický. Vhodně použitý myšlenkový experiment může v kritické diskusi sloužit jako „přenašeč důkazního břemene”, tj. dokáže vyvolat argumentační tlak na protistranu. Imaginární scénář může za jistých okolností fungovat jako legitimní argument, aniž bychom však nutně museli předpokládat silný epistemický význam myšlenkových experimentů. Myšlenkové experimenty tak mohou být víc než jen líbivé ornamenty, zároveň ale nejsme zavázáni k obhajobě problematické epistemické teze.klíčová slova: myšlenkový experiment, epistemologie, důkazní břemeno. (shrink)

V prvej asti tohto prspevku diskutujem o hlavnch mylienkach Coenenovej et al. tdie (2009) o udskom zdokonaovan, ktor bola nedvno vypracovan pre Eurpsky parlament, v druhej asti definujem udsk podstatu a prirodzenos ako tak, zdrazujc, e udsk podstata nie je biologick, ale socilno-kultrna, a udsk prirodzenos nielen bio-psycho-socio-kultrna, ale sasne aj fyziklna, chemick a geologick. V tretej asti nakoniec vemi strune opisujem podmienky, za ktorch bude naa udsk alebo socilna forma pohybu hmoty definitvne vystriedan dokonalejou a "morlnejou" nadsocilnou formou (...) pohybu. (shrink)

Príspevok sa venuje problematike mýtu v závere dialógu Gorgias, v súvislosti s funkciou trestu v Platónových dialógoch. Gorgias je jedným z dialógov, ktoré sú kľúčové pre porozumenie problematike trestu. Zameraním pozornosti na záverečný eschatologický mýtus by sa mohlo zdať, že autor v súvislosti s daným otázkami zastáva nejednoznačné stanovisko. K protirečeniu dochádza na úrovni mythos – logos: na jednej strane je v celom priebehu dialógu prezentovaný nápravný účel trestu. V závere však nastáva obrat a Platónov eschatologický mýtus prezentuje na prvý (...) pohľad odlišné stanovisko. Je možné že mýtus odporuje Platónovej téze o nápravnom účele trestu a do popredia tu vystupuje jeho retributívny charakter? Alebo v skutočnosti k žiadnemu protirečeniu nedochádza a jednotlivé prvky dialógu sa navzájom dopĺňajú? Cieľom príspevku je demonštrovať, že zmena pohľadu na formu trestu a uvažovanie o treste ako o metóde elenchos by mohlo byť kľúčom k porozumeniu vzťahu mythos – logos v predmetnom dialógu. (shrink)

This book broadens the range of theoretically informed empirical research on business ethics (using data from major American corporations) and addresses the underlying questions about business ethics scholarship. It culminates a decade’s work by the authors—individually, jointly, and with others. The first part of the book addresses the major theoretical questions involved in doing empirical research about normative issues. It addresses the boundaries—methodological, conceptual, and institutional—that too easily separate philosophical and social scientific approaches to business ethics and reviews various ways (...) in which those approaches can be brought close together to benefit research and practice. The second part of the book describes and explains the increasing institutionalization of formal systems designed to manage ethics in organizations. It reviews the state of the art initiatives to foster ethical business conduct and also looks at the relative roles of executives and external policies (e.g., government regulations) in creating meaningful ethical initiatives. In the third part, the focus shifts to individual ethical behavior and how organizations influence it, describing in detail some of the outcomes of organizational ethics initiatives. It also looks at successes, failures, and new prospects in the effort to identify and explain the multiple factors that influence individual ethical behavior. (shrink)

Oliver Sacks MD, Clinical Professor of Neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, talked with Anthony Freeman during his visit to London in January 1995 to publicize his recently published book An Anthropologist on Mars. The interview is preceded by an overview of the book.

Self, Language, and World: Problems from Kant, Sellars, and Rosenberg Edited by James R. O'Shea and Eric M. Rubenstein Introduction KANT Willem deVries, Kant, Rosenberg, and the Mirror of Philosophy David Landy, The Premise That Even Hume Must Accept LANGUAGE AND MIND William G. Lycan, Rosenberg On Proper Names Douglas Long, Why Life is Necessary for Mind: The Significance of Animate Behavior Dorit Bar-On and Mitchell Green, Lionspeak: Communication, Expression, and Meaning David Rosenthal, The Mind and Its Expression MIND AND (...) KNOWLEDGE Jeffrey Sicha, The Manifest Image: the Sensory and the Mental Bruce Aune, Rosenberg on Knowing Joseph C. Pitt, Sellarsian Antifoundationalism and Scientific Realism Matthew Chrisman, The Aim of Belief and the Goal of Truth: Reflections on Rosenberg James O’Shea, Conceptual Thinking and Nonconceptual Content: A Sellarsian Divide ONTOLOGY Anton Koch, Persons as Mirroring the World Eric M. Rubenstein, Form and Content, Substance and Stuff Ralf Stoecker, On Being a Realist About Death William G. Lycan, Biographical Remarks on Jay F. Rosenberg Scholarly Publications of Jay F. Rosenberg. (shrink)

Doctors have an ethical and legal duty to respect patient confidentiality. We consider the basis for this duty, looking particularly at the meaning and value of autonomy in health care. Enabling patients to decide how information about them is disclosed is an important element in autonomy and helps patients engage as active partners in their care.Good quality data is, however, essential for research, education, public health monitoring, and for many other activities essential to provision of health care. We discuss whether (...) it is necessary to choose between individual rights and the wider public interest and conclude that this should only rarely be necessary. The paper makes some recommendations on practical steps which could help ensure that good quality information is available for work which benefits society and the public health, while still enabling patients’ autonomy to be respected. (shrink)

Anthony O'Hear; VI*—Guilt and Shame as Moral Concepts, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 77, Issue 1, 1 June 1977, Pages 73–86, https://doi.org/10.

Rather surprisingly, T.H.Green's ideas on women and the family are as neglected today as they were immediately after his death in 1882, when his thought was first interpreted for a wider public by his colleagues and friends.1 Silence on such matters in the 1880s is not remarkable. It is odd, however, that it persists today, despite recent intense concern with the history of women and the family, including their place in political thought, and despite reviving philosophical interest in the British (...) Idealists and readiness to credit them with a significant impact on politics, education and social work. It has often been remarked that Green's political ideas have much in common superficially with those of John Stuart Mill, since their values and precepts are very similar, although the substructure of their thought is utterly different. Nevertheless it has altogether escaped notice that this is equally true of their ideas on women, marriage and family relationships. Today Mill's fabled feminism easily appears limited and imperceptive, and the priority he gave to the parliamentary vote strangely simplistic. Did Green show any greater realism and understanding? Did he practise as well as preach real equality between men and women, in private as well as public life? In short, what precisely was Green's position on 'the woman question'�? (shrink)

Enhancing Communication & Collaboration in Interdisciplinary Research, edited by Michael O'Rourke, Stephen Crowley, Sanford D. Eigenbrode, and J. D. Wulfhorst, is a volume of previously unpublished, state-of-the-art chapters on interdisciplinary communication and collaboration written by leading figures and promising junior scholars in the world of interdisciplinary research, education, and administration. Designed to inform both teaching and research, this innovative book covers the spectrum of interdisciplinary activity, offering a timely emphasis on collaborative interdisciplinary work. The book’s four main parts focus on (...) theoretical perspectives, case studies, communication tools, and institutional perspectives, while a final chapter ties together the various strands that emerge in the book and defines trend-lines and future research questions for those conducting work on interdisciplinary communication. (shrink)

A Constituição Brasileira de 1988, assim como boa parte das Constituições contemporâneas, abriga uma espécie normativa que a doutrina denomina Princípios Constitucionais. Até recentemente, pouca atenção era conferida às normas principiológicas, seja por parte da doutrina e da jurisprudência. Hoje, são elas alvo de acirrados debates no meio acadêmico, mais precisamente no que concerne ao seu grau de eficária e concretização. Os autores trazem, aqui, subsídios para a discussão, procurando encontrar instrumentos e mecanismos aptos a concretizá-los em sua plenitude.

Oaksford & Chater (O&C) have rejected logic in favor of probability theory for reasons that are irrelevant to mental-logic theory, because mental-logic theory differs from standard logic in significant ways. Similar to O&C, mental-logic theory rejects the use of the material conditional and deals with the completeness problem by limiting the scope of its procedures to local sets of propositions.

Onora O'Neill; I *—The Presidential Address: Constructivisms in Ethics, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 89, Issue 1, 1 June 1989, Pages 1–18, ht.

Leading political theologian Oliver O'Donovan here takes a fresh look at some traditional moral arguments about war. Modern Christians differ widely on this issue. A few hold that absolute pacifism is the only viable Christian position, others subscribe in various ways to concepts of 'just war' developed out of a Western tradition that arose from the legacies of Augustine and Aquinas, while others still adopt more pragmatically realist postures. Professor O'Donovan re-examines questions of contemporary urgency including the use of biological (...) and nuclear weapons, military intervention, economic sanctions, war crimes trials and the roles of the Geneva Convention, international conventions and the UN. His enquiry opens with a challenging dedication to the new Archbishop of Canterbury and proceeds to shed new light on vital topics with which the Archbishop and others will be very directly engaged. It should be read by anyone concerned with the ethics of warfare. (shrink)

In this book Anthony O’Hear examines the reasons that are given for religious faith. His approach is firmly within the classical tradition of natural theology, but an underlying theme is the differences between the personal Creator of the Bible or the Koran and a God conceived of as the indeterminate ground of everything determinate. Drawing on several religious traditions and on the resources of contemporary philosophy, specific chapters analyse the nature of religious faith and of religious experience. They examine connections (...) between religion and morality, and religion and human knowledge – the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments, process thought, and the problem that evil presents for religion. The final chapter returns to the inherently dogmatic nature of religious faith and concludes that rational people should look beyond religion for the fulfilment of their spiritual needs. (shrink)

The sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church captured headlines and mobilized public outrage in January 2002. But much of the commentary that immediately followed was reductionistic, focusing on single "causes" of clerical abuse such as mandatory celibacy, homosexuality, sexual repressiveness or sexual permissiveness, anti-Catholicism, and a decadent secular culture. _Predatory Priests, Silenced Victims: The Sexual Abuse Crisis and the Catholic Church_, a collection of groundbreaking articles edited by Mary Gail Frawley-O'Dea and Virginia Goldner, eschews such one-size-fits-all theorizing. In its (...) place, the abuse situation is explored in all its troubling complexity, as contributors take into account the experiences, respectively, of the victim/survivor, the abuser/perpetrator, and the bystander. Setting polemics to the side, _Predatory Priests, Silenced Victims_ provides a sober and sobering analysis of the interlacing historical, doctrinal, and psychological issues that came together in the sexual abuse scandal. It is mandatory reading for all who seek thoughtful, informed commentary on a crisis long in the making and yet to be resolved. (shrink)

In his commentary on my paper, “Means-Ends Epistemology”, David Chart constructs a Riddle of Induction with the following feature: Means-ends analysis, as I formulated it in the paper, selects “all emeralds are grue” as the optimal conjecture after observing a sample of all green emeralds. Chart’s construction is rigorous and correct. If we disagree, it is in the philosophical morals to be drawn from his example. Such morals are best discussed by elucidating some of the larger epistemological issues involved. “Means-ends (...) Epistemology” sought a normative theory of hypothesis selection. I defined what it means for an inductive method to reliably and efficiently find a correct hypothesis from a set of alternative hypotheses. (In fact, I investigated a number of standards of empirical success for inductive methods.) Call such methods optimal. We may take optimal inferences to be those made by optimal methods. This defines a relation Optimal-Inference(h,e,H): “given the set of alternative hypotheses H, and evidence e, hypothesis h is an optimal inference”. One fundamental difference between the means-ends approach and traditional confirmation theory is that the latter has sought a two-place relation between theory and evidence alone, something like “hypothesis h is highly confirmed given evidence e”. From my point of view, posing the problem of induction as discerning the right relation between theory and evidence is elliptical because it leaves unspecified the set of alternative hypotheses under investigation (as well as other relevant factors, such as the scientist’s background knowledge, observational means, cognitive capacities and epistemic values). Chart’s Riddle highlights the fact that depending on the space of alternative hypotheses, means-ends analysis may select a different hypothesis on the same evidence: “all emeralds are green” in my Goodmanian Riddle, and “all emeralds are grue” in his. To my mind, his example.. (shrink)

This paper discusses the problem of destructive emotions by comparing Eastern and Western assumptions about emotions. In the case of anger, for example, Eastern thinkers straightforwardly posit that it is entirely possible to cultivate attitudes in which anger is naturally absent. In the West, by contrast, it is generally assumed that anger is a “basic” emotion that can be suppressed or managed, but not eliminated from one's basic emotional constitution. Thus, in the Eastern way of thinking, emotion is a force (...) that more easily harmonizes with rational approaches to life and to the specific problems in life. (shrink)