: This essay presents aspects of the philosophy of nature of Nishida Kitarō (1870–1945) (Kyoto School) and its relation to the physics of his day. Which aspects of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity are treated in Nishida’s Logic of Field? Through exact explanations of the fundamental differences between physics and philosophy this essay aims to clarify the construction of logic in philosophy and physics while considering interdisciplinary aspects.

This is the collected work of the?International Symposium: Philosophy of Nature?, given in May 2016 at the University of Vienna, organized by the?Verein für Komparative Philosophie und Interdisziplinäre Bildung / KoPhil? in Vienna. The elaborated documents by the 30 authors from Europe, Russia, East Asia, Northern America and Oceania aim to create a barrier-free dialogue between philosophers, human- and natural scientists. Focusing on interaction and productive communication, the collected documents present a model of the interdisciplinary research in cross-cultural dimensions in (...) a global world. (shrink)

The subject of this report is a border region between two languages: that of the Zen kōan and that of formal logic. Firstly, I present part of a classic work of Zen Buddhism, the Hekiganroku (Biyen-lu, 碧巌録) with some additional commentary. Secondly, I put forward a possible means of translating Zen kōans into the language of formal logic. This exposition is tied to a three-fold problematic: Is it possible to say that the different logics (of the language of Zen and (...) the language of formal logic) agree in their logical essence? If so, in which aspects can we find these points of agreement? Or do they represent only different parallel logics without any points of crossing? What is the definitive difference between their respective ways of thinking? The answers to these questions may providecontemporary buddhist philosophy with a further perspective: how Zen thought can stimulate and contribute to formal logic. The transcription of Zen kōan into formal logical symbols is able to clarify what is the most important subject in the language of Zen. At the same time it will show the limitations of the language of formal logic and the language of Zen kōan. In my report I try to delineate the limits of verbal expression in formal logic and explore what is the truth expressed in nonverbal applications of Zen logic. A new way of thinking can emerge from the field between the logic of verbal and of non-verbal expression. (shrink)

The subject of this report is a border region between two languages: that of the Zen kōan and that of formal logic. Firstly, I present part of a classic work of Zen Buddhism, the Hekiganroku (Biyen-lu, 碧巌録) with some additional commentary. Secondly, I put forward a possible means of translating Zen kōans into the language of formal logic. This exposition is tied to a three-fold problematic: Is it possible to say that the different logics (of the language of Zen and (...) the language of formal logic) agree in their logical essence? If so, in which aspects can we find these points of agreement? Or do they represent only different parallel logics without any points of crossing? What is the definitive difference between their respective ways of thinking? The answers to these questions may providecontemporary buddhist philosophy with a further perspective: how Zen thought can stimulate and contribute to formal logic. The transcription of Zen kōan into formal logical symbols is able to clarify what is the most important subject in the language of Zen. At the same time it will show the limitations of the language of formal logic and the language of Zen kōan. In my report I try to delineate the limits of verbal expression in formal logic and explore what is the truth expressed in nonverbal applications of Zen logic. A new way of thinking can emerge from the field between the logic of verbal and of non-verbal expression. (shrink)