The Hans Reichenbach Papers comprise published and unpublished manuscripts, lectures, correspondence, photographs, drawings, and related materials from his early student days until his death. The correspondence contains about 9000 pages to and from Reichenbach; it ranges over his entire career. Those with whom Reichenbach maintained lifelong contact include Rudolf Carnap, Ernst Cassirer, Herbert Feigl, Philip Frank, Carl Hempel, Sidney Hook, Paul Oppenheim and Wolfgang Pauli. In addition, there is significant correspondence with von Astor, Bergmann, Bertalanffy, Dingler, Dubislav, Einstein, Fraenkel, (...) Frank, Freundlich, Grelling, Grünbaum, Paul Hertz, Hutten, Jordan, Landé, von Laue, Lewin, C.I. Lewis, Charles Morris, Nagel, Neurath, Northrop, Planck, Quine, Regener, Rougier, Salmon, Schillp, Schlick, Scholz, Schrödinger, Martin Strauss, Tarski, Vaihinger, Weiss, Williams, Zawarski, and Zilsel. The correspondence provides a valuable source of information about Reichenbach’s personal and philosophical development. It also provides primary source material for research into one of the 20th century most influential philosophical movements. Reichenbach’s manuscripts include many of his own notes as a student. Some go as far back as his university days in science and mathematics. Some of the most significant of these notes are those taken by him as a student of Albert Einstein on the special and general theories of relativity. There are four such notebooks dating from 1918. In addition there are his student notes on astronomy, Planck and electricity, Hilbert’s “Statistical Mechanics” and “Problems and Principles.” He also kept many of his lecture notes from Germany, Turkey, and the United States. The number of lectures runs to over 100 and provides a glimpse into the problems of philosophy and how he presented them to his students. Many of his lectures discussed principles of radio and issues in philosophy and modern science, often in form of popularizations of questions in relativity and quantum theory delivered on radio programs for a wider audiences. In addition to this there are an abundance of notes, calculations, and diagrams used to draft both published and unpublished papers. (shrink)

In a review of my book “Wahrscheinlichkeitslehre”, Dr. Ernest Nagel has recently criticized some of my ideas on probability and induction. His review includes a good exposition of my ideas, and I have to thank him for his serious attempts to do justice to my results. He attacks, however, some very essential points of my theory. I may be allowed, therefore, to answer him as frankly and thoroughly as he attacks me.

The paper presents some considerations concerning the role of consciousness as a privileged state in nature which has implications for ethics. Especially in the modern talk about consciousness of human beings or animals since Thomas Nagel or Peter Singer we find discussions about the role of consciousness as an important irreducible and ‘higher’ phenomenon connected with a first person authority in epistemology and with special privileges in bioethics. In particular animal consciousness is often considered as a ‘lower’ state in (...) a “natural hierarchy”. In bioethics consciousness has been combined with qualities like the ability for future options, subjectivity, sentience or pain and further more, these elements have been used as criteria to justify an extraordinary ‘moral status’ for instance in these of ‘higher’ beings like Great Apes or for ‘higher’ conscious animals as “subjects of life” or having pain . On the other hand some analytical philosophers deny any ‘higher’ consciousness with respect to animals because of different theoretical reasons . Nevertheless advocates and denyers of animal ‘consciousness’ both assume that the possession of consciousness justifies privileges in ethics. This is the background for modern ethicists and philosophers of human and animal mind to refer implicite or explicite to a concept of “natural hierarchy” expressed by terms of “higher/lower” etc. In short, they talk in hierarchical terms about relations between natural entities like plants, animals, and men . This implies at first a theoretical question: What kind of epistemological or ontological justifications do allow to speak in terms of a “natural hierarchy”? The second more practical question is: If it is possible to talk in this way, is it justified for ethics? These and similar questions are discussed in the following paper from the perspective of modern and a Kantian epistemology. The first part reminds the great influence of two traditional metaphysical thinking patterns – the Aristotelian anima-order and the Cartesian machina-order on natural philosophy in general and its influence on modern neurocentric philosophy of mind . The second part presents some epistemological and ontological problems and considerations in this field. The third part presents an example in modern ethics using an hierarchical order . The important main result is, that it is very difficult to justify consciousness at the top of a “natural hierarchy” of organisms. (shrink)

Dieser Beitrag präsentiert einige Betrachtungen über die Rolle des Bewusstseins als eines in der Natur privilegierten Zustands, der mit Implikationen für die Ethik behaftet ist. Besonders im modernen Diskurs über das Bewusstsein beim Menschen oder beim Tier nach Thomas Nagel oder Peter Singer stößt man auf Diskussionen über die Rolle des Bewusstseins als eines wichtigen irreduktiblen und „höheren” Phänomens, das in Bezug steht zur Autorität der ersten Person in der Epistemologie sowie zu speziellen Vorrechten in der Bioethik. Insbesondere tierisches (...) Bewusstsein wird oft als ein „niedrigerer” Zustand in der „Naturhierarchie” bewertet. In der Bioethik wurde Bewusstsein mit Eigenschaften wie zukünftige Entscheidungsfähigkeit, Subjektivität, Empfindungsvermögen oder Schmerzfähigkeit in Verbindung gebracht. Mehr noch: Diese Elemente dienten als Kriterien, um den außerordentlichen „moralischen Status” bestimmter Lebewesen zu bestätigen, so etwa den Status der als „höhere Wesen” geltenden+ Menschenaffen oder anderer „höherer”, mit einem Bewusstsein ausgestatteter Tiere im Sinne von „Lebenssubjekten” , oder auch den Status von Schmerz empfindenden Tieren . Andererseits streiten einige analytische Philosophen die Existenz eines „höheren” Bewusstseins bei Tieren aus verschiedenen theoretischen Gründen ab . Dennoch vertreten sowohl die Befürworter als auch die Gegner der These von der Existenz tierischen „Bewusstseins” die Ansicht, dass Wesen, die über ein Bewusstsein verfügen, in der Ethik mit Vorrechten ausgestattet seien. Vor diesem Hintergrund greifen moderne Ethiker und Philosophen, die sich mit der Frage des Bewusstseins bei Mensch und Tier beschäftigen, zurück auf das Konzept der „Naturhierarchie”, die in Termini „höher/niedriger” usw. zum Ausdruck kommt. Kurz gesagt, ist damit in hierarchischen Termini von den Beziehungen zwischen natürlichen Wesen wie Pflanzen, Tieren und Menschen die Rede . Dies impliziert zunächst folgende theoretische Frage: Was für epistemologische oder ontologische Gründe berechtigen, mit den Termini einer „Naturhierarchie” zu sprechen? Die zweite, praktischere Frage lautet: Wenn es möglich ist, in dieser Weise zu sprechen, ist dann auch die Ethik dazu berechtigt? Diese und ähnliche Fragen werden im Beitrag aus der Perspektive der modernen wie auch der kantischen Epistemologie erörtert. Im ersten Teil wird an den großen Einfluss zweier traditioneller metaphysischer Denkmuster erinnert – der Seelenlehre des Aristoteles und der cartesianischen Sichtweise des Menschen als einer Maschine, die ihren Niederschlag in der Naturphilosophie allgemein fanden und sich auch auf die moderne neurozentrische Philosophie der Vernunft auswirken. Der zweite Teil präsentiert bestimmte epistemologische und ontologische Probleme und die dazu existierenden Reflexionen. Im dritten Teil wird an einem Beispiel gezeigt, wie eine hierarchische Ordnung in die Praxis umgesetzt wird . Das ausschlaggebende Ergebnis ist die Einsicht, dass es äußerst schwierig ist, Bewusstsein als den Gipfel einer „natürliche Hierarchie” der Organismen zu rechtfertigen. (shrink)

L’article présente quelques considérations sur le rôle de la conscience comme un état privilégié dans la nature qui a des incidences sur l’éthique. C’est notamment dans le discours moderne sur la conscience des êtres humains depuis Thomas Nagel ou Peter Singer que l’on rencontre des débats sur le rôle de la conscience en tant que phénomène irréductible et « supérieur », lié, dans l’épistémologie, à l’autorité de la première personne, ou, dans la bioéthique, aux droits particuliers. De plus, la (...) nature animale est souvent considérée comme un stade « inférieur ». Dans le domaine de la bioéthique, la conscience a été associée aux qualités telles que la capacité de prévision, la subjectivité, la sensibilité ou la douleur. De plus, ces éléments ont été utilisés comme critères pour justifier un « statut moral » exceptionnel, par exemple, des êtres comme les grands singes , des animaux dotés d’un niveau de conscience supérieur en tant que « sujets de vie » ou encore de ceux qui sont capables d’éprouver la douleur . D’autre part, plusieurs philosophes analytiques nient aux animaux, pour des raisons théoriques différentes, tout degré de conscience élevé . Cependant, les partisans comme les pourfendeurs de la conscience animale partent du principe que le fait de posséder la conscience justifie les droits éthiques. C’est sur ce contexte que se basent les experts en éthique et en philosophie modernes qui étudient le mental humain et animal lorsqu’ils se réfèrent, de façon implicite ou explicite, au concept de la « hiérarchie naturelle » exprimée par les notions de niveau supérieur/intérieur. En résumé, c’est en termes de « hiérarchie naturelle » qu’ils s’expriment lorsqu’ils évoquent les relations entre les êtres naturels comme les plantes, les animaux ou les hommes . Cela implique d’abord une question théorique, celle de savoir quelle sorte de justification épistémologique ou ontologique permet de parler en termes de « hiérarchie naturelle ». Une autre question, plus pratique, se pose : S’il est possible de parler en ces termes, est-ce pour autant justifiable d’un point de vue éthique ? D’autres questions similaires sont également discutées dans l’article dans une perspective épistémologique moderne et kantienne. La première partie rappelle l’influence importante de deux modèles de pensée, celui de l’ordre anima d’Aristote et celui de l’ordre machina de Descartes, sur l’étude philosophique de la nature en général ainsi que l’influence de cette dernière sur la philosophie moderne et neurocentrique de l’intelligence . La deuxième partie expose quelques problèmes et réflexions ontologiques et épistémologiques dans le domaine. La troisième présente un exemple de l’ordre hiérarchique dans l’éthique moderne. La conclusion principale est qu’il est très difficile de justifier le sommet de la « hiérarchie naturelle » qu’occuperait la conscience. (shrink)

John Rawls puede ser considerado como el filósofo político más importante del siglo veinte. Dedicó su vida a la reflexión, la enseñanza y a escribir sobre el problema de cómo los seres humanos, cuyos intereses y valores los ponen en conflictos potenciales, pueden habitar decentemente en un mundo común. Nunca hay un atisbo de información personal en su trabajo publicado, excepto las generosas expresiones de agradecimiento a estudiantes y colegas por sus contribuciones intelectuales. Pero quienes le conocen son conscientes de (...) la importancia personal de sus principales preocupaciones, que han sido siempre las injusticias asociadas a la raza, a la clase, a la religión y a la guerra. (shrink)

The present article discusses the relation of Th. Nagel’s ethics of altruism with kantian ethics. According to Nagel himself, his position resembles that of Kant in two respects: it defends the thesis of the autonomy of moral motivation, and it bases moral on a determinate self-conception of persons. However, differently from Kant, the principle of Nagel’s ethics is just the modest presupposition that persons essentially understand themselves as being one among a plurality of other persons. Starting from (...) the nagelian argument in The Possibility of Altruism (1970), but contemplating also Nagel’s more recent position in The Last Word (1999), it is argued that in order to defend his conception of a rational ethics in a convincing way, Nagel has to approximate himself more to the kantian foundation of ethics than he wants to admit. (shrink)

O presente artigo discute a relação da ética do altruísmo, defendida por Thomas Nagel, com a ética kantiana. Segundo o próprio Nagel, sua posição é semelhante à de Kant sob dois aspectos: ela defende a tese da autonomia da motivação moral, e ela funda a moral numa determinada autoconcepção da pessoa. No entanto, diferentemente de Kant, o princípio da ética nageliana é apenas o pressuposto modesto de que uma pessoa essencialmente considera a si mesma como sendo uma numa (...) pluralidade de pessoas. Partindo do argumento nageliano em The Possibility of Altruísmo, mas contemplando também a posição mais recente de Nagel em The Last Word, argumenta-se que Nagel só pode defender sua concepção de uma ética racional de modo convincente, se ele se aproximar mais da fundamentação kantiana da ética do que ele pretende. (shrink)

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has confronted us with constantly new challenges. We need to browse new inventories of scientific knowledge to reflect on previous experiences and thus facilitate societal learning. In line with the first volume on the COVID-19 pandemic in this series, contributions from different disciplines and fields of practice create an awareness of the complexity of this crisis and help us to understand the diversity of challenges it poses. The first part focuses on philosophical, sociological and psychological problem (...) diagnoses, the second on reactive strategies in the fields of medicine, nursing care, the economy and law. After taking a look at religious contexts and fields of practice, leading experts from the healthcare sector share their experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. With contributions by Mahmoud Abdallah, Désirée Amschl-Strablegg, Cornelia Baptist-Kröpfl, Herbert Beiglböck, Ulrike Berdnik, Alois Birklbauer, Anneliese Derkits, Reinhold Esterbauer, Franziska Grossschädl, Katharina Heimerl, Andreas Heller, Marie-Christin Hinteregger, Hartmann Jörg Hohensinner, Elisabeth Horvath, Isabella Jonveaux, Anna-Christina Kainradl, Ulla Kriebernegg, Wolfgang Kröll, Ulrike Kylianek, Martin M. Lintner, Saskia Löser, Christa Lohrmann, Sandra Müller, Gerold Muhri, Manfred Novak, Sabine Petritsch, Eva Peyker, Michaela Pfadenhauer, Barbara Pichler, Johann Platzer, Lisa Pongratz, Maria Puntigam, Elisabeth Reitinger, Hans-Walter Ruckenbauer, Hellmut Samonigg, Walter Schaupp, Georg Tafner, Christa Tax, Wolfgang Toller and Jürgen Wallner. (shrink)

Ernest Nagel played a key role in bridging the gap between American philosophy and logical empiricism. He introduced European philosophy of science to the American philosophical community but also remained faithful to the naturalism of his teachers. This paper aims to shed new light on Nagel’s intermediating endeavors by reconstructing his philosophical development in the late 1920s and 1930s. This is a decisive period in Nagel’s career because it is the phase in which he first formulated the (...) principles of his naturalism and spent a year in Europe to visit the key centers of logical empiricism. Building on a range of published and unpublished papers, notes, and correspondence—including hundreds of pages of letters to his close friend Sidney Hook—I reconstruct Nagel’s philosophical development, focusing especially on the philosophical influence of John Dewey, Morris R. Cohen, Rudolf Carnap, and Hans Reichenbach. (shrink)

Este artículo explora el llamado fenómeno de la suerte moral, centrándose en el planteamiento seminal de Thomas Nagel y Bernard Williams. Se pretende clarificar los diversos aspectos envueltos en la cuestión y remarcar las divergencias entre ambos. Asimismo, se caracterizan las diferentes cuestiones a las que han de dar razón tanto quienes mantienen que el fenómeno es ilusorio, como quines lo consideran real. La meta no es otra que alcanzar una comprensión crítica de la naturaleza de dicho fenómeno y (...) de los diferentes elementos involucrados en él. (shrink)

In the philosophical literature on mental states, the paradigmatic examples of mental states are beliefs, desires, intentions, and phenomenal states such as being in pain. The corresponding list in the psychological literature on mental state attribution includes one further member: the state of knowledge. This article examines the reasons why developmental, comparative and social psychologists have classified knowledge as a mental state, while most recent philosophers--with the notable exception of Timothy Williamson-- have not. The disagreement is traced back to a (...) difference in how each side understands the relationship between the concepts of knowledge and belief, concepts which are understood in both disciplines to be closely linked. Psychologists and philosophers other than Williamson have generally have disagreed about which of the pair is prior and which is derivative. The rival claims of priority are examined both in the light of philosophical arguments by Williamson and others, and in the light of empirical work on mental state attribution. (shrink)

Do we apply higher epistemic standards to subjects with high stakes? This paper argues that we expect different outward behavior from high-stakes subjects—for example, we expect them to collect more evidence than their low-stakes counterparts—but not because of any change in epistemic standards. Rather, we naturally expect subjects in any condition to think in a roughly adaptive manner, balancing the expected costs of additional evidence collection against the expected value of gains in accuracy. The paper reviews a body of empirical (...) work on the automatic regulation of cognitive effort in response to stakes, and argues that we naturally see high- and low-stakes subjects as experiencing different levels of ‘epistemic anxiety’, and anticipate different levels of cognitive effort from them for this reason. If unresolved epistemic anxiety always bars an ascription of knowledge, then we can explain our responses to cases involving shifting stakes without positing any variation in the standards of intuitive knowledge ascription. (shrink)

Once symbolized by a burning armchair, experimental philosophy has in recent years shifted away from its original hostility to traditional methods. Starting with a brief historical review of the experimentalist challenge to traditional philosophical practice, this chapter looks at research undercutting that challenge, and at ways in which experimental work has evolved to complement and strengthen traditional approaches to philosophical questions.

Humans have distinctive powers of reflection: no other animal seems to have anything like our capacity for self-examination. Many philosophers hold that this capacity has a uniquely important guiding role in our cognition; others, notably Hilary Kornblith, draw attention to its weaknesses. Kornblith chiefly aims to dispel the sense that there is anything ‘magical’ about second-order mental states, situating them in the same causal net as ordinary first-order mental states. But elsewhere he goes further, suggesting that there is something deeply (...) misleading about reflection’s first-person view of cognition. This chapter takes a closer look at the conditions under which reflection is misleading. Even if humans are the only reflective animals, we are no longer the only creatures that can be questioned about their claims. Chatbots can also be asked to explain themselves, and by studying the conditions under which they produce clarification as opposed to confabulation, we can develop a non-skeptical account of the epistemic value of reflection. I argue that this capacity naturally supports the distribution of complex problem solving among multiple agents. (shrink)

The lottery paradox involves a set of judgments that are individually easy, when we think intuitively, but ultimately hard to reconcile with each other, when we think reflectively. Empirical work on the natural representation of probability shows that a range of interestingly different intuitive and reflective processes are deployed when we think about possible outcomes in different contexts. Understanding the shifts in our natural ways of thinking can reduce the sense that the lottery paradox reveals something problematic about our concept (...) of knowledge. However, examining these shifts also raises interesting questions about how we ought to be thinking about possible outcomes in the first place. (shrink)

In the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke insists that all knowledge consists in perception of the agreement or disagreement of ideas. However, he also insists that knowledge extends to outer reality, claiming that perception yields ‘sensitive knowledge’ of the existence of outer objects. Some scholars have argued that Locke did not really mean to restrict knowledge to perceptions of relations within the realm of ideas; others have argued that sensitive knowledge is not strictly speaking a form of knowledge for Locke. (...) This chapter argues that Locke’s conception of sensitive knowledge is in fact compatible with his official definition of knowledge, and discusses his treatment of the problem of skepticism, both in the Essay and in the correspondence with Stillingfleet. (shrink)

In the late 1930s, a few years before the start of the Second World War, a small number of European philosophers of science emigrated to the United States, escaping the increasingly perilous situation on the continent. Among the first expatriates were Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach, arguably the most influential logical empiricists of their time. In this two-part paper, I reconstruct Carnap’s and Reichenbach’s surprisingly numerous interactions with American academics in the decades before their move in order to explain (...) the impact of their arrival in the late 1930s. This second part traces Reichenbach’s development and focuses on his frequent interactions with American academics throughout the 1930s. I show that Reichenbach was quite ignorant about developments in Anglophone philosophy in the first stages of his career but became increasingly focused on the United States from the late 1920s onwards. I reconstruct Reichenbach’s efforts to find a job across the Atlantic and show that some of his English publications—most notably Experience and Prediction—were attempts to change the American narrative about logical empiricism. Whereas U. S. philosophers identified scientific philosophy with the views of the Vienna Circle, Reichenbach aimed to market his probabilistic philosophy of science as a subtler alternative. (shrink)

This book collects Thomas Nagel's recent philosophical reflections on topics of fundamental interest: ethics, moral psychology, science and religion, death and the holocaust, and the metaphysics of mind. Among the figures discussed are Peter Singer, Alvin Plantinga, Christine Korsgaard, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch, T. M. Scanlon, Ronald Dworkin, Samuel Scheffler, Daniel Kahneman, Jonathan Haidt, Joshua Greene, and Daniel Dennett. Nagel consistently defends a realist interpretation of moral truth and resists reductive attempts to subsume ethics to psychology (...) and evolutionary theory. He also defends a pluralistic conception of the content of morality against utilitarianism, including deontological elements such as rights and special responsibilities. A realist outlook also informs his discussions of metaphysical and epistemological questions. The book closes with tributes to a number of people Nagel has known over the course of his career. The essays are all addressed to a general audience, and should appeal not only to philosophers but to anyone interested in current attempts to understand human life, human values, and how we fit into the world. (shrink)