In this paper, the author considers five basic understandings of metaphysics as a philosophical discipline that 1) studies the most general characteristics of everything that is, 2) investigates beings as beings, 3) considers what goes beyond the framework of experience, 4) analyses the most general terms and 5) provides an explanatory theory. In addition, the author considers a number of relevant ideas and distinctions, the distinction between reality and appearance, the distinction between the apparent and scientific picture of the world (...) (Wilfrid Sellars), the idea that philosophy is the queen of science (Moritz Schlick), the distinction between descriptive and revisionist metaphysics (Peter Frederick Strawson), the synoptic view, the idea of naturalised metaphysics, etc. The author accepts the first point of view, the one according to which metaphysics is understood as a philosophical discipline that studies the most general characteristics of everything that is, and accordingly believes that categorical ontology best fits into that picture. After that, the author briefly presents the most famous criticisms of metaphysics (David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and logical positivists), as well as the positions that led to the formation of modern metametaphysics (Rudolf Carnap and Willard Van Orman Quine). Finally, the author considers verbalism and trivialism and tries to determine whether these two positions can represent a basis for the elimination of metaphysics. The author tries to show that these positions do not eliminate metaphysics, but rather set the framework for contemporary metaphysical discussions. (shrink)

In this article the author critically examines well-known arguments which purport to show that death is not something bad for the person who dies, and tries to show that these arguments are not sound, that is, the author tries to show that death really is something bad for person who died. The author believes that Williams did not show that eternal life would be unbearable and that death after sufficiently long life would be a relief. Furthermore, famous Epicurus ' argument (...) against the fear of death author splits into two related but nevertheless separated arguments, and tries to show that the first one is based on false or at least questionable theory of value, while the other one represents a serious intellectual challenge. Different answers to Lucretius' argument from the asymmetry of past and future nonexistence are examined; the author argues that none of these answers is completely satisfactory. Finally, the author examines and rejects "mathematical argument" against the fear of death as invalid. (shrink)

In this article the author criticizes Michael Devitt’s Naturalistic Moral Realism, as well as that program in general. The author argues the following: moral explanations do not work; the fact that moral featuressupervene on the non-moral ones does not support the thesis of Realism; moral principles can not be tested like factual ones; Moral Realists Naturalists water down their thesis so much that it ceases to be a form of realism; there are no moral observations in any interesting sense.

U ovome članku autor kritički razmatra ključne elemente etike vrlina. Odbacuje čest stav da je etika vrlina bolja, jer je u njoj djelatnik usmjeren na sebe, dok je u deontologiji ili konzekvencijalizu usmjeren na druge; u deontologiji postoje dužnosti prema sebi, konzekvencijalizam je simetričan u tom pogledu, jer je vlastito dobro jednako vrijedno kao i tuđe, štoviše, najvažnije vrline su upravo one koje su usmjerene na druge. Ipak, postoji vrsta situacije koja podržava ovaj stav, naime, u okviru konzekvencijalizma čovjek koji (...) postigne da drugi proizvedu 5 jedinica sreće bolji je od čovjeka koji sam proizvede 3 jedinice sreće, dok je u okviru etike vrlina bolji ovaj drugi. Vrlo je zanimljivo pitanje koji je bolji naprosto. Nadalje, pitanje je može li etika vrlina doista bolje objasniti činjenicu da imamo moralne uzore; mi im se divimo zbog njihovih postupaka, a ta se činjenica daleko bolje uklapa u deontologiju ili konzekvencijalizam. Pored toga, budući da vrline ne možemo odrediti neovisno o postupcima do kojih tipično dovode, divljenje prema vrlinama svodi se na divljenje prema postupcima. Ovaj uvid podupire opću tezu članka da su vrline svodive na postupke, to jest, da etika vrlina ne može biti postojati samostalno već da je svodiva na deontologiju ili konzekvencijalizam.In this article author criticaly examines the key elements of the virtue ethics. He rejects common claim that that virtue ethics is better because it is self-regarding while deontology and consequentalism are other-regarding; within deontology there are duties toward oneself, consequentialism is symmetrical in this respect because my own good counts just as anybody’s else’s good, moreover, crucial virtues are other-regarding. Although, there is a kind of situation that supports this claim, namely, within consequentialist framework man who makes others produce 5 units of good is better than the man who himself produces 3 units, while within the framework of the virtue ethics the second one is better. It is very interesting question which one is better man period. Further, it is questionable whether virtue ethics can better accomodate the fact that we have moral raw models, namely, we admire them because of their actions and this fact much better fits into deontological or consequentialist framework. Also, since we can not specify a virtue independently of the actions it typically brings about, our admiration to virtues ammounts to our admiration to actions. This insight supports the general claim of the paper that virtues are reducible to actions, that is, that virtue ethics can not stand on its own because it is reducible to deontology or consequentialism. (shrink)

This collection of articles is a tribute to Nenad Smokrović, our friend and colleague from the Philosophy Department. He has been working on human rationality for over 25 years. Consequently, articles in this collection are either directly or indirectly related to this subject matter. In this volume, 19 authors from Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Italy, Israel, USA, and GB write about human rationality. What human rationality consists in? What is the relationship between its normative aspect (logic) and its descriptive aspect (psychology)? (...) Do people in fact reason according to the laws of logic? What is the nature and the function of reasoning, argumentation, and inference? ... We are publishing this volume in the hope that it will provide further contribution to the research in the field. (shrink)

The author argues that the atheist does not commit the so called “philosophy fallacy” but rather simply answers the theist’s arguments. The principle that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, although very sound, is nevertheless context-dependent and cannot be accepted without further qualifications. Also, any systematic study of religiousness should explore its links to emotions (prophets often invite people to open their hearts, not their minds or reasons) and its role in the constitution of identity (people often (...) claim that they are Catholics, they are Moslems, etc). (shrink)

Autor raspravlja da pitanje o smislu života prvenstveno treba razumijeti kao pitanje o logičkoj strukturi razloga za djelovanje. Odnosno, pitanje o smislu života u prvome je redu potraga za racionalnom rekonstrukcijom naših praktičnih razloga. Činjenica da se veliki broj naših djelovanja može opravdati unutar okvira instrumentalne racionalnosti upućuje da na kraju lanca opravdanja mora postojati jedan ili više konačnih razloga za djelovanje. Uobičajeni kandidati su sreća, objektivna svrha, briga za druge i slično. Sve navedene odgovore autor odbacuje smatrajući da je (...) okvir instrumentalne racionalnosti u ovome kontekstu pogrešno shvaćen budući da mnoge stvari koje radimo u našim životima nemaju samo instrumentalnu već i intrinzičnu vrijednost. Autor se opredjeljuje za pluralizam vrijednosti odbacujući ideju da mora postojati jedan razlog za djelovanje. The author argues that the question about the meaning of life should primarily be understood asthe question about the logical structure of the reasons for acting. That is, the question about themeaning of life is primarily a quest for rational reconstruction of our practical reason. The fact thatmany of our actions may be justified within the framework of instrumental rationality naturallysuggests that at the end of the chain of justification there must be ultimate reason/s for acting.Usual candidates are happiness, objective purpose, care for others, etc. Author rejects all of theseanswers and argues that the framework of instrumental rationality is ill understood in this context,because many things that we do in our lives do not have only instrumental value but intrinsic valueas well. That is, the author rejects the idea that there must be a single reason for acting and finallyargues in favour of value pluralism. (shrink)

The concept of supervenience is highly important in the philosophy of psychology as a tool to elucidate the relationship between mind and body. it is a widely accepted view that mental properties (states, events) are supervenient over the physical; there is no mental difference without a physical difference. the aim of this paper is to explain what supervenience is, its significance and application in various fields of philosophy, to examine several definitions of supervenience, and finally, to define its four basic (...) forms. (shrink)

Nedostatak ljudskog kretanja u suvremenim uvjetima življenja je današnja stvarnost i nepobitna činjenica. Budući da je tjelesna aktivnost biotička potreba čovjeka, potreban je veći angažman društva u cjelini isto kao i svakog pojedinca koji je dužan voditi brigu o svom tjelesno zdravstvenom statusu. Tjelesna aktivnost ima nezamjenjivu instrumentalnu vrijednost jer predstavlja najbolje sredstvo za postizanje i održanje zdravlja. Pored toga, tjelesna aktivnost ima i intrinzičnu vrijednost zato što omogućava realiziranje i usavršavanje čovjekovih motoričkih znanja i dostignuća. Smatramo da zapostavljanje tjelesno-zdravstvenog (...) aspekta narušava cjelovitost ličnosti, te da stoga svatko ima razloga za redovito tjelesno vježbanje.It is an undeniable fact that nowadays people are insufficient physically active. Since physical activity is human biotic need, society as a whole, just as each individual should take care about his/her physical condition. Physical activity has indispensable instrumental value because it is the best means for achieving and maintaining health. Besides, physical activity has intrinsic value because it enables people to exercise and develop their motoric skills and achievements. We believe that physically inactive life is incomplete life and that therefore everybody has a reason for regular physical activity. (shrink)

U ovom članku autor razmatra osnovne inuticije za i protiv utilitarizma, prvenstveno probleme na koje utilitarizam nailazi u domeni distributivne pravednosti. Sukob intuicija razmatra se u idealiziranoj situaciji u kojoj dijelimo »manu s neba«, dakle, u situaciji u kojoj su po pretpostavci irelevantne zasluge, potrebe, vlasnički odnosi iz prošlosti, itd. Čak i u takvoj situaciji distribucija koju preferira utilitarizam izgleda problematična. Inuticije o jednakosti, prioritetu, apsolutno i relativno boljem položaju, marginalnoj korisnosti, itd. jake su i u situaciji u kojoj smo (...) apstrahirali od svih konkretnih okolnosti. Zanimljivo je da utilitarizam nije u svim mogućim situacijama u konfliktu s egalitarizmom; utilitarističke inuticije u konjunkciji s inuticijama o prioritetu i marginalnoj korisnosti zapravo daju egalitarističke posljedice.In this article the author examines basic intuitions for and aginst utilitarianism, primarily the problems that utilitarins face within the domain of distributive justice. The clash of intuitions is examined in the idealized situation in which we distribute “mana form haven”, that is, in a situation in which merits, needs, property relationships form the past, etc. are irrelevant by assumpition. Even in a such situation, distribution preffered by utilitarianism seems problematic. Inutitions about equality, priority, absolutely and relatively better position, marginal utility, etc. are strong even in the purely abstract situation. It is interesting that utilitarianism is not in conflict with egalitarianism in all possible situations; utilitarian inutitions in conjunction with intuitions about priority and marginal utility in fact have egalitarian consequences. (shrink)

The starting point of this article is the ontological question: What makes it true that2+2=4?, that is, what are the truth makers of mathematical propositions? Of course,the satisfactory theory in the philosophy of mathematics has to answer semantical question: What are mathematical propositions about? Also, epistemological question:How do we know them?, as well. Author compares five theories in the philosophy of mathematics, that is, five accounts of the nature of truth makers in mathematical discourse: fictionalism ; nominalism ; physicalism ; (...) conceptualism and Platonism. (shrink)