Glauben und unser Begriff von ihm stehen seit wenigstens hundert Jahren mit im Zentrum der theoretischen Philosophie. Glauben im weitesten Sinn: jederlei Art des Fürwahrhaltens. Die Frage, was es ist und welchen Begriff wir davon haben, war und bleibt ein Thema insbesondere auch der Erkenntnistheorie, der Philosophie des Geistes und der Ontologie. Welche Auskünfte bietet die Philosophie heute darüber, was das Glauben ist? Wie gut sind sie? Inwieweit lassen sie sich aus dem Begriff begründen, den wir vom Glauben haben? Was (...) für ein Begriff ist das eigentlich? Können wir Wissen vom Glauben haben, wenigstens vom eigenen? Solchen Fragen geht dieser Essay nach, oft ohne definitive Antwort. Es ist eher der Versuch, erkennbar werden zu lassen, weshalb die Erwartung, es gebe solche Antworten, keinen guten philosophischen Grund hat. Und daß dies kein Grund ist, die Wirklichkeit des Glaubens in Frage zu ziehen. (shrink)

I don't have any serious quarrels with John Searle's approach to speech act theory.' There's a lot of little things that I do not really understand. (Example: what is a direction of fit?) There are a few mmor points which I think are wrong. (Example: the doctrine about "underlying rules" which are "manifested or realized" by conventions, and, to be frank, the whole thing about so called constitutive rules. Why should a statement like "Greeting in a normal context cotmts as (...) a corteous recognition of the addressee by the speaker" be regarded as conveying a rule? How could one violate, or follow, the alleged role? Maybe greeting is something which presupposes the existence of certain rules, or maybe statements of the type "x counts as y in context c" are true only in virtue of the fact that certain policies are accepted in the contexts in question, but the statement above, concerning the essence of.. (shrink)

It is often assumed that Paul Grice, in one way or another, has made an important contribution to the theory of speech acts} Grice, as far as I can see, never expressly addresses Austin’s theory in his published work. He hardly ever uses the speech act terminology of "illocution", "perlocution", etc.2 So what does the more or less implicit Gricean contribution to the theory of speech acts consist in'? There is more than one good answer to this question. I shall (...) concentrate on a particularly influential one, which goes back to Strawson (1964). It says that Austin, in his account of the nature of illocutionary acts, over-emphasized the role of conventions; that Austin went wrong in characterizing illocutionary acts as acts which are essentially conventional. The Gricean contribution to speech act theory, according to the envisaged answer, is twofold, both diagnostic and therapeutic. First, it helps us see where and why Austin went wrong in taking illocutionary acts to be essentially conventional. Second, it suggests an essentially intentional — instead of an essentially conventional- element in illocutionary acts. In his 1964 paper Strawson tried to bring out, as regards the interplay of convention and intention in illocutionary acts, both what can be conceded to Austin and what must be learnt from Grice. Austin (1962: 115) had said that "the performance of an illocutionaiy act involves the securing of uptake". Strawson (1964: 158 ff) interprets Austin as meani_ng to say that the performance of an illocutionary act involves understanding of illocutionary force. Understanding of illocutionary force involves, according to Strawson, grasping a "compleX [speaker’s] intention" (ib.: 160), and it is here, of course, where he brings Gricean ideas into _Austin’s scheme of what the essence of illocution is. He says. (shrink)

In his book Naturalizing the Mind, Fred Dretske, among other things, gives what he thinks is a naturalist account of what he calls introspective knowledge.1 I shall not quarrel with his labels; I shall quarrel with what he tries to sell by using them. For him, introspective knowledge is “the mind’s direct knowledge of itself”,2 and he concentrates on knowledge of one’s own current mental occurrences, especially those which belong to the realm of sensory perception. An example he discusses is (...) the knowledge somebody has who looks at something and sees it as blue, and thereby knows that he is, as Dretske puts it, “representing” it as blue. I shall stick to this example. Harvey is looking at my shirt, and he thereby comes to know that he is representing it as blue. Dretske wants to answer the question: What is really happening when Harvey acquires this piece of introspective knowledge? Let me first give, in a very rough way, what I take to be Dretske’s basic idea. Introspective knowledge is not acquired by anything like looking inside oneself. One looks in the same direction as one does when one is acquiring “extraspective” knowledge. Harvey doesn’t first look at my shirt, saying “Uhuh, this shirt looks blue, but now I’d like to find out how I am representing it”, and then turns to look at something else in order to find out what the colour is he is representing the shirt to have. Harvey only looks at the shirt, when he acquires this item of introspective knowledge. In looking at that shirt, he acquires all the information he needs for acquiring the knowledge about himself that he is representing it as blue. The eyes’ job is done. The rest is exploiting that very information, not acquiring any new information. (shrink)

Gemäß Freges Lehre bestehen Gedanken nicht aus Teilen, sie sind allerdings in Teile zerlegbar. Es gibt unterschiedliche Zerlegungen desselben Gedankens, die in allen objektiven Hinsichten gleichwertig sind. Freges einziges Identitätskriterium für Gedanken war sein Äquipollenzprinzip, demzufolge zwei simple Sätze denselben Gedanken ausdrücken, wenn sie unmöglich verschiedene Wahrheitswerte haben. Zerlegung von Gedanken ist für menschliche Erkenntnis unerläßlich, enthält aber ein Moment subjektiver Willkür. Die objektiven Zusammenhänge zwischen Sprache, Sinn und Bezug bestehen nur auf der Ebene unzerlegter Ganzheiten (Sätze, Gedanken, Wahrheitswerte). Freges (...) semantische Lehre hat mit Quines Unbestimmüieitsthesen wesentliche strukturelle Gemeinsamkeiten. (shrink)

since, as I said, I agree on this, I had to look pretty hard in order to find fault with any point he makes. Fortunately, his paper is a very rich one, and so I spotted two more or less incidental remarks I hoped I could reasonably disagree with. Although these two points which I shall focus on are not, as far as I can see, in any way indispensable for arriving at Manuel's main conclusion, I think they are in (...) themselves philosophically interesting enough to consider them a bit closer. (shrink)

among philosophers and therefore a short reminder will do. Pierre was a normal speaker of French, before he moved to London and learnt English without ever using any dictionary or similar devices. During his time in France he had heard about London, and because of what he..

Counterexarnples have been presented in which an S fulfils 1——3 in uttering some x but has an additional intention which makes the example a case of not meaning something by x. In the example given by Strawson it is not only true of S that 1——3 but also that 4b—4f: 43 1S{BAUs(BA(Is(7TA}}}}}.

There is ample evidence for this claim, both in time-honoured works and in recent publications. Before I concentrate on some of the old stuff, let me briefly turn to recent examples. The following sample of quotations from a Nobel Laureate, a leading neuroscientist and a German professor of ‘neuro-didactics’ may illustrate how deep the confusion about what a person is can go among the educated, even today. Francis Crick stated his Astonishing Hypothesis as follows: “You” [...] are in fact no (...) more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased it: “You’re nothing but a bunch of neurons.” This idea is so alien to the ideas of most people alive today that it can truly be called astonishing.1 A few years later, this ‘idea’ seemed not anymore astonishing to Michael Gazzaniga who prefers to put it this way: Some simple facts make it.. (shrink)

We have self-knowledge of various sorts: knowledge of things we have done or suffered, for example, and some knowledge of who we are: of our character-traits, our temper, our inclinations, weaknesses, feelings, addictions, worries, lusts and so on. Most of this knowledge is human knowledge of the regular kind, nothing exciting about it, epistemologically speaking.

Some leading neuro-scientists recently proclaimed an obviously false view that a human person is his/her brain. This falsity arises partly from the conceptual difficulties concerning personhood/a person. By revealing inexhaustible richness of the characteristics of this concept of a person, this essay explains why the concept is so utterly puzzling. The author contrasts Descartes’ concept of a person with Locke’s. For Descartes, the concept has four features: (1) it is the concept of the mind/body-union; (2) it is innate and a (...) primitive (i.e. unanalysable) concept; (3) it is not clear-and-distinct (because it is primitive so that it cannot be reduced to clear-and-distinct concepts); (4) it is of enormous value (because it helps us to dissolve, not to solve, the mind/body-problem). Correspondingly, Locke’s concept of a person has another four features: (1) it is the concept of an entity which is justly rewarded/punished for its doings (including mental doings); (2) it is neither innate (no so-called innate concepts in Locke) nor primitive, but rather a complex idea which is reducible to the concepts of consciousness and memory; (3) it is clear and distinct (because it is made of clear and distinct simple concepts); (4) it is of enormous importance (not because it helps us to solve or dissolve the mind/body-problem, but because it is central to our conceptions of justice and self-care). Through the two examples, this article argues that the concept of a person indeed has inexhaustible richness that is historically caused because this concept is used by many thinkers as a conceptual tool or as a technical or semi-technical term for answering different questions in various distinct and incommensurable theoretical frameworks, so that quite different features have been introduced as characteristics of a person. Thus, we do not have a shared intuitive grasp of this concept, but only a common learned tradition which has bequeathed to us a blend of quite diverse conceptual features that were never meant to go together. The characteristic inexhaustibility of the concept of a person may result from the following reasons: (1) this concept is anthropocentric in its actual application; (2) it is not at all anthropocentric in its intension; (3) it is part of the concept of a person that persons are distinctively valuable. (shrink)

Was Frege Liber Wahrheit sagt, lasst sich, mit ein wenig Gewalt, in zwei Schubfacher auiteilen} Das erste Schubfach — es trtigt die Aufschritt ,,Konstrul~:tives" enthalt die Lehre von der Wahrheit als Gegenstand und als Satzbedeutung. Das andere Schubfach —- mit der Aufschrift ,,Destruktives" —e ist reicher gefiilltg es finden sich hier Arguniente gegen die Korrespondenztheorie, gegen die De— iinierbarkeit von Wahrheit, gegen den Nutzen eines Walirheitsprttdikats und insbesondere Diagnosen dafur, welche Irrttimer den von Frege iiir falsch gehaltenen Auffassungen tiber Wahrheit (...) zugrunde liegen. Solche Diagnosen sind in Freges Schriften oft nur angedeutet. Aber sie sind wichtig, wenn man verstehen will, was Frege an Konstwktivem uber Wahrheit zu s-agen hat. Frege halt das Wort ,,wahr" und seine Bedeutung, also den Begriff und damit die Eigenschait der Wahrheit, iiir letztlich witzlos; der Satz ,,Dass Meerwasser salzig ist, ist wahr" sagt seiner Auffassung nach nicht mehr und nicht weniger als der einfache Satz ,,Meeiwasser ist salzig". Aus diesem Grund ist Frege oft als friiher Vertreter der Redundanztheorie der Wahrheit eingeordnet werden.; Im folenden versuche ich zu zeigen, dass Freges Verhtilmis zur Redundanztheorie differenzierter betrachtet werden sollte. Der Gnmd: Frege unterscheidet zwischen verschiedenen sprachlichen Mitteln des Aussagens von Wahrheit, von denen das Wort ,wahr‘ das Unwichtigste ist. Er schreibt: ,,Die Form des Behauptungssatzes ist [...] eigentlich das, womit wir die Wabrheit aussagen, und wir bedtirfen dazu des 'Wortes ,,wahr“ nicht.·}a, wir ktinnen sagen: selbst da, wo wir die Ausdrucksweise ,,es ist wahr, dass ..." anwcnden, ist eigentlich die Form des Behauptungssatzes das Wesentliche." (Frege 1933, S. 140) In der logischen Notation des Systems der Grundgesetze schltigt sich diese Auffassung darin nieder, dass diese Sprache trotz der Redundanzthese zwei nichtredundante wahrheitstliematisierende Ausdrticke enthalt: erstens den sog. Waagerechten ,,—·-— §", der als ,4; ist das .Wahre“ gelesen werden kann, und zweitens den Urteilsstrich ,,|", durch dessen Voransetzung an ,,—— A" ausgedrtickt wird, dass der durch ,,-—— A" bezeichnete Wahrheitswert als wahr be.. (shrink)

Seeing as the following review might end up being rather long, let me start by saying that I’m enthusiastic about this book. On a scale from 1 to 10 I would give it the highest grade. Not only is it a wonderful book on Nietzsche, it is also a wonderfully written philosophy book. And I don’t mean only the style – which is extremely pleasant to read (my sincere compliments to the translator, even if there’s a small mistake I shall (...) not reveal). I mean the fact that Ferraris is able to do somethi... (shrink)

[This is the translation of an Amazon.de customer’s review with a maximum 5 point rating.] Since the following review is quite long, let me start by saying that I’m extremely enthusiastic about this book, and on a scale of 1 to 10 would have given it a 10. It is a wonderful book about Nietzsche, it is also a wonderfully written philosophy book. Not only because of its linguistic style – which is itself a delight (an excellent translation, despite a (...) glaring mistake I shan’t identify) – but als... (shrink)

We have self-knowledge of various sorts: knowledge of things we have done or suffered, for example, and some knowledge of who we are: of our character-traits, our temper, our inclinations, weaknesses, feelings, addictions, worries, lusts and so on. Most of this knowledge is human knowledge of the regular kind, nothing exciting about it, epistemologically speaking.

Es ist eine weit verbreitete Überzeugung in der Erkenntnistheorie und in der Philosophiehistorie, dass es in der Antike weder ein Außenweltproblem noch einen Idealismus gegeben habe, der damit rechnet, dass es überhaupt keine Außenwelt im Sinne der raum-zeitlich ausgedehnten Totalität aller kausal miteinander verknüpften Einzeldinge gibt. Da der Skeptizismus in der Tat sowohl in der frühen Neuzeit als auch im nachkantischen Idealismus eine Begründungsfunktion in der idealistischen Theorieoption übernimmt, wäre die historische Annahme eines Idealismus in der Antike unplausibel, hätte es (...) seinerzeit kein Außenweltproblem gegeben. Nun lässt sich aber nicht nur zeigen, dass Sextus Empiricus, der berühmteste Skeptiker der Antike, dessen Denken in der zeitgenössischen Philosophie eine wahrhafte Renaissance erlebt, das Außenweltproblem ins Zentrum seiner Argumentation gegen den Materialismus rückt. Darüber hinaus reagiert nämlich Plotin auf Sextus mit einem idealistischen System, das erklärt, wie die Illusion einer Außenwelt durch die Tätigkeit einer strebenden Intentionalität zustande kommt, die Plotin als „Seele“ bezeichnet. In diesem Zusammenhang entwickelt Plotin eine Theorie der Produktion der Außenwelt und ihres Scheins von Materialität. Damit greift er die skeptische Destruktion des antiken Materialismus auf und überbietet diese als erster explizit durch die Konstruktion eines idealistischen Systems. Auf diese Weise antizipiert er wichtige Grundgedanken Fichtes und Schellings. Dieser in der Forschung bisher fast unbeleuchtete Zusammenhang von Skeptizismus und Idealismus in der Antike wird in einer historischen und systematischen Studie untersucht, die sich als die Genealogie eines nur vermeintlich ausschließlich modernen Problems versteht. Die Entfremdung des Subjekts von seiner Welt ist demnach kein historischer Holzweg, der in der Philosophie erst seit Descartes gangbar ist, sondern erweist sich vielmehr als eine Grundkonstante der philosophischen Reflexion.. (shrink)

Frank Jackson has a new objectivist and representationalist account of the content of colour-experience. I raise several objections both against the account itself and, primarily, against how he tries to support it. He argues that the new account enables us to see what is wrong with the so-called Opacity Puzzle. This alleged puzzle is an argument in which a seemingly implausible conclusion is derived from three premises of which seem plausible to an representationalist. Jackson’s diagnosis of the puzzle as a (...) fallacy of equivocation is mistaken. The term ‘‘the property of being red’’ is not ambiguous in the way he claims it to be, and the puzzling argument is valid. Moreover, its conclusion is not implausible, so after all there is no real puzzle. I try to show how Jackson’s wrong diagnosis results from neglecting the difference between properties proper and properties as conceived in the light of a given property-concept. (shrink)

Frank Jackson has a new objectivist and representationalist account of the content of colour-experience. I raise several objections both against the account itself and, primarily, against how he tries to support it. He argues that the new account enables us to see what is wrong with the so-called Opacity Puzzle. This alleged puzzle is an argument in which a seemingly implausible conclusion is derived from three premises of which seem plausible to an representationalist. Jackson.

The idea [Vorstellung] is all there is about which all philosophers agree that it is real. At least if there is anything at all about which there is agreement in the philosophical world, it is the idea; no idealist, no egoist, no dogmatic skeptic can deny 1 the existence of the idea.

Begriffe konnen uns auf unterschiedliche Weise in Verwirrung stiirzen. Manche — so mag es scheinen — handeln von fir uns grundsatzlich Undenk— harem. Als Beispiel mag der Begriff der Unendlichkeit dienen; Theologen kennen gewiss auch andere. Zweitens gibt es Begriffe, die sich -— wie es scheint — auf eine merkwtirdige Weise als analysewiderspenstig erweisen. Zwar sind sie — nicht nur dem ersten Anschein nach — harmlose, in ihrer.