Is God's foreknowledge compatible with human freedom? One of the most attractive attempts to reconcile the two is the Ockhamistic view, which subscribes not only to human freedom and divine omniscience, but retains our most fundamental intuitions concerning God and time: that the past is immutable, that God exists and acts in time, and that there is no backward causation. In order to achieve all that, Ockhamists distinguish ‘hard facts’ about the past which cannot possibly be altered from ‘soft facts’ (...) about the past which are alterable, and argue that God's prior beliefs about human actions are soft facts about the past. (shrink)
Wittgenstein’s concepts shed light on the phenomenon of schizophrenia in at least three different ways: with a view to empathy, scientific explanation, or philosophical clarification. I consider two different “positive” wittgensteinian accounts―Campbell’s idea that delusions involve a mechanism of which different framework propositions are parts, Sass’ proposal that the schizophrenic patient can be described as a solipsist, and a Rhodes’ and Gipp’s account, where epistemic aspects of schizophrenia are explained as failures in the ordinary background of certainties. I argue that (...) none of them amounts to empathic-phenomenological understanding, but they provide examples of how philosophical concepts can contribute to scientific explanation, and to philosophical clarification respectively. (shrink)
The paper was read at the Colloquium ‘Après Maréchal’ , organised in memory of the philosopher J. Maréchal. In the first half of the paper the author develops the fundamental tenet of Maréchal’s philosophy: an attempt to go beyond the philosophy of Kant by using the transcendental method. The author bears witness of this attempt by criticising and transforming the transcendental method itself. For unavoidably the question arises in what way transcendental philosophy can justify a philosophical reflection. In the second (...) half of the paper experiences are described which suggest that other ways than the transcendental method and reflection are to be explored if philosophical research is to be fruitful: the experiences of faith, evil, culture, art and of the individual person. A new kind of reflection seems necessary, less intellectual and more “biological”, where thinking and life are linked together, allowing us to talk about such a thing as a “physical faith”. (shrink)
The paper was read at the Colloquium ‘Après Maréchal’ , organised in memory of the philosopher J. Maréchal. In the first half of the paper the author develops the fundamental tenet of Maréchal’s philosophy: an attempt to go beyond the philosophy of Kant by using the transcendental method. The author bears witness of this attempt by criticising and transforming the transcendental method itself. For unavoidably the question arises in what way transcendental philosophy can justify a philosophical reflection. In the second (...) half of the paper experiences are described which suggest that other ways than the transcendental method and reflection are to be explored if philosophical research is to be fruitful: the experiences of faith, evil, culture, art and of the individual person. A new kind of reflection seems necessary, less intellectual and more “biological”, where thinking and life are linked together, allowing us to talk about such a thing as a “physical faith”. (shrink)
