Can epistemology be naturalized? The question has more than one sense. There are many forms of both the naturalistic stance and its denial in relation to different topics and by means of different strategies. Only some of them are instantiated in the existing literature. After a taxonomy of the range of possible forms of naturalism and anti-naturalism, the paper suggests an emergentist view which shifts the issue from psychology to cosmology.

Among the main concerns of 20th century philosophy was that of the foundations of mathematics. But usually not recognized is the relevance of the choice of a foundational approach to the other main problems of 20th century philosophy, i.e., the logical structure of language, the nature of scientific theories, and the architecture of the mind. The tools used to deal with the difficulties inherent in such problems have largely relied on set theory and its “received view”. There are specific issues, (...) in philosophy of language, epistemology and philosophy of mind, where this dependence turns out to be misleading. The same issues suggest the gain in understanding coming from category theory, which is, therefore, more than just the source of a “non-standard” approach to the foundations of mathematics. But, even so conceived, it is the very notion of what a foundation has to be that is called into question. The philosophical meaning of mathematics is no longer confined to which first principles are assumed and which “ontological” interpretation is given to them in terms of some possibly updated version of logicism, formalism or intuitionism. What is central to any foundational project proper is the role of universal constructions that serve to unify the different branches of mathematics, as already made clear in 1969 by Lawvere. Such universal constructions are best expressed by means of adjoint functors and representability up to isomorphism. In this lies the relevance of a category-theoretic perspective, which leads to wide-ranging consequences. One such is the presence of functorial constraints on the syntax–semantics relationships; another is an intrinsic view of (constructive) logic, as arises in topoi and, subsequently, in more general fibrations. But as soon as theories and their models are described accordingly, a new look at the main problems of 20th century’s philosophy becomes possible. The lack of any satisfactory solution to these problems in a purely logical and set-theoretic setting is the result of too circumscribed an approach, such as a static and punctiform view of objects and their elements, and a misconception of geometry and its historical changes before, during, and after the foundational “crisis”, as if algebraic geometry and synthetic differential geometry – not to mention algebraic topology – were secondary sources for what concerns foundational issues. The objectivity of basic geometrical intuitions also acts against the recent version of structuralism proposed as ‘the’ philosophy of category theory. On the other hand, the need for a consistent and adequate conceptual framework in facing the difficulties met by pre-categorical theories of language and scientific knowledge not only provides the basic concepts of category theory with specific applications but also suggests further directions for their development (e.g., in approaching the foundations of physics or the mathematical models in the cognitive sciences). This ‘virtuous’ circle is by now largely admitted in theoretical computer science; the time is ripe to realise that the same holds for classical topics of philosophy. (shrink)

The development of Artificial Intelligence has led to many controversies of philosophical interest involving issues of logic, computer science, software engeneering. The paper goes through the main steps of this development, deals with their philosophical relevance and sketches the unsolved problems, with special emphasis on the AI models of semantic competence. Some criticisms raised to such models in AI, either in its “classical” or “neural networks” format, are examined. On the ground of the discussion of these criticisms, a view is (...) proposed which avoids the inherited gap between the project of AI and naturalistic philosophy and suggests that filling the gap also provides a filter in order to select a definite form of naturalism. (shrink)

Modern color science finds its birth in the middle of the nineteenth century. Among the chief architects of the new color theory, the name of the polymath Hermann von Helmholtz stands out. A keen experimenter and profound expert of the latest developments of the fields of physiological optics, psychophysics, and geometry, he exploited his transdisciplinary knowledge to define the first non-Euclidean line element in color space, i.e., a three-dimensional mathematical model used to describe color differences in terms of color distances. (...) Considered as the first step toward a metrically significant model of color space, his work inaugurated researches on higher color metrics, which describes how distance in the color space translates into perceptual difference. This paper focuses on the development of Helmholtz’s mathematical derivation of the line element. Starting from the first experimental evidence which opened the door to his reflections about the geometry of color space, it will be highlighted the pivotal role played by the studies conducted by his assistants in Berlin, which provided precious material for the elaboration of the final model proposed by Helmholtz in three papers published between 1891 and 1892. Although fallen into oblivion for about three decades, Helmholtz’s masterful work was rediscovered by Schrödinger and, since the 1920s, it has provided the basis for all subsequent studies on the geometry of color spaces up to the present time. (shrink)

Una raccolta di riflessioni originali sul rapporto tra la scienza e la nostra società, a partire dal pensiero del grande fisico e intellettuale Carlo Bernardini.

The issue as to whether an atomistic or holistic viewof knowledge and meaning is correct relies on the way part/whole relationships is analysed,exactly as the issue as to whether a constructive or realistic view of knowledge and meaningis correct relies on the way internal/external relationships is analysed. Both theprinciple of compositionality and the context principle depend on how finely the constituents,the nature and the size of the context are identified; both the notion of meaning andthe notion of truth depend on (...) the resources of internalisation/externalisation. Thus thespectrum of semantic and epistemological theories varies from (global) atomismto (global) holism, and from minimal to maximal internalisation. Are compositionaltheories necessarily extensional? Does formal semantics necessarily rely on set theory?Does the domain-specific character of the notions of element, part and whole prevent anygeneral, non-trivial account? The aim of the present paper is to provide a negative answerto these questions by exploring some of the features a theory covering the phenomenologyof part and whole should have. This phenomenology will only be sketched through a fewparadigmatic examples, showing how the reference of notions of part and wholevaries and which are the constraints inherentin such variation. Categorytheory provides the tools for fashioning this framework, since it allows describing any coherentcollection of objects (with actions defined over them) and (action preserving) maps betweenthe objects, as well as the variation of such collections in terms of suitablefunctors, coding the ways parts and wholes undergo co-variation. The main thesis is thatthere are interference patterns between the two pairs Local/Global and Internal/External,only in terms of which the above phenomenology can be properly described.Se mai tu diventeraimetá di te stesso, e te l''auguro, ragazzo, capirai cose al di lá della comune intelligenza dei cervelli interi.Avrai perso metá di te e del mondo, ma la realtá rimasta sará mille volte piú profonda e preziosa. E tupure vorrai che tutto sia dimezzato e straziato a tua immagine, perchè bellezza e sapienza e giustizia ci sono soloin ció che é fatto a brani. (shrink)

Born in 1945, John Lane Bell is not only one of the greatest logicians of our time, but he is also one the most gifted in the art of writing, as witnessed by the success of his introductory texts, many of which were originally written as lecture notes: their essential clarity is an exemplar of the Attic style. More generally, Bell’s works are a rare example of how rigour and sophisticated elegance can coexist.

This new translation presents the _Analects_ in a revolutionary new format that, for the first time in any language, distinguishes the original words of the Master from the later sayings of his disciples and their followers, enabling readers to experience China's most influential philosophical work in its true historical, social, and political context.

This chapter introduces and defends a pragmatist model of aesthetic disagreement that avoids many of the philosophical puzzles generated by the traditional, semantic, approach. Mainstream philosophical inquiry into aesthetic disagreement begins with a rather innocuous assumption: to understand what’s going on we must first explain what disputants are saying, which involves identifying the meaning of the relevant expressions or determining how aesthetic claims could be true. However, this task brings with it a new host of semantic and epistemic puzzles and (...) fails to vindicate the central role aesthetic disagreements occupy in our aesthetic lives more generally. Further, it isn’t clear how settling the meaning of aesthetic expressions bears on everyday aesthetic disagreements. Paying attention to what we do in an aesthetic disagreement will give us a better chance at identifying what matters for determining what we say. (shrink)

Thomas E. Hill, Jr., interprets and extends Kant's moral theory in a series of essays that highlight its relevance to contemporary ethics. He introduces the major themes of Kantian ethics and explores its practical application to questions about revolution, prison reform, and forcible interventions in other countries for humanitarian purposes.

E. J. Lowe; The problems of intrinsic change: rejoinder to Lewis, Analysis, Volume 48, Issue 2, 1 March 1988, Pages 72–77, https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/48.2.7.

E. J. Lowe; Coinciding objects: in defence of the ‘standard account’, Analysis, Volume 55, Issue 3, 1 July 1995, Pages 171–178, https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/5.

The responses to the questions of why? when?, how?, where?, and in what ways? business ethics should be taught in the BusinessEthics classroom inundate the scholarly literature. Yet, to date, despite some very interesting ideas, with respect to the answers givento the above question, not only has nothing even close to consensus been reached, but this particular area of pedagogy is instagnation—authors still challenge both the very idea of teaching business ethics as well as the practical value of such courses (...) for ourstudents once they graduate to the corporate world.In this paper I will suggest that the reason for this lack of pedagogical progress is that there has been a serious oversight regarding the most important teaching question of all: Who? I will show that the pedagogical issue of whom should be teaching Business Ethics has been largely ignored, skirted or answered incorrectly. I will then boldly argue that the only necessary condition for successful courses inBusiness Ethics is that they be taught by experts in ethics, i.e., Ph.D.s in philosophy. (shrink)

The responses to the questions of why? when?, how?, where?, and in what ways? business ethics should be taught in the BusinessEthics classroom inundate the scholarly literature. Yet, to date, despite some very interesting ideas, with respect to the answers givento the above question, not only has nothing even close to consensus been reached, but this particular area of pedagogy is instagnation—authors still challenge both the very idea of teaching business ethics as well as the practical value of such courses (...) for ourstudents once they graduate to the corporate world.In this paper I will suggest that the reason for this lack of pedagogical progress is that there has been a serious oversight regarding the most important teaching question of all: Who? I will show that the pedagogical issue of whom should be teaching Business Ethics has been largely ignored, skirted or answered incorrectly. I will then boldly argue that the only necessary condition for successful courses inBusiness Ethics is that they be taught by experts in ethics, i.e., Ph.D.s in philosophy. (shrink)