One of the currently most discussed themes in the philosophy of action is whether there is some kind of collective intention that explains what groups do independent of what the indi-viduals who make up the group intend and do. One of the main obstacles to solve this prob-lem is that on the one hand collective intentionality is no simple summation, aggregate, or dis-tributive pattern of individual intentionality (the Irreducibility Claim), while on the other hand collective intentionality is in the heads (...) of the participating individuals, so to speak, and so it is owned by each of the separate individuals who make up the group (the Individual Ownership Claim). The claims are contradictory and until now no satisfactory solution how to reconcile them has been found. In this article I argue that the constitution view, like the one developed by Lynne R. Baker, can provide a way to sidestep the contradiction. Just as a statue as such is constituted by the marble it is made of but has characteristics that are different from the mar-ble (a statue has a head and legs, while the marble hasn’t; while the marble is stony and the statue as such isn’t), I argue that a group is constituted by its members and that a group on the one hand and its members on the other hand have different characteristics. This is possible be-cause group and members are on different levels. Then there is no longer a contradiction be-tween the Irreducibility Claim and the Individual Ownership Claim, for the former claim con-cerns the group level and the latter claim concerns the level of the group members. This ex-plains that a group can have intentions that are no simple summation, aggregate, or distributive patterns of the intentions of its members and that group intentions can be different from if not contradictory to what the individual members taken together intend. (shrink)

People often do things together and form groups in order to get things done that they cannot do alone. In short they form a collectivity of some kind or a group, for short. But if we consider a group on the one hand and the persons that constitute the group on the other hand, how does it happen that these persons work together and finish a common task with a common goal? In the philosophy of action this problem is often (...) solved by saying that there is a kind of collective intention that the group members have in mind and that guides their actions. Does such a collective intention really exist? In this article I’ll show that the answer is “no”. In order to substantiate my view I’ll discuss the approaches of Bratman, Gilbert and Searle on collective intention. I’ll put forward four kinds of criticism that undermine the idea of collective intention. They apply mainly to Bratman and Gilbert. First, it is basically difficult to mark off smaller groups from bigger unities. Second, most groups change in membership composition over time. Third, as a rule, on the one hand groups are internally structured and on the other hand they belong to a larger structure. It makes that generally it cannot be a collective intention that moves the actions of the members of a group. Fourth, conversely, most individual actions cannot be performed without the existence of a wider context of agents who support these actions and make them possible. My critique on Searle mainly involves that in his approach his idea of collective intention is superfluous and that he is not radical enough in his idea that collective action is based on coordinated individual intentions and actions. However, it is a good starting point for showing how collective action actually functions, especially when combined with Giddens’s structuration theory. Every agent in a group executes his or her own individual intentions, relying on what the group offers to this agent and asks from him or her. In this way individual actions of the members of a group are coordinated and it makes that the group can function and that its goals can be performed. And in this way the group is produced and reproduced by fitting individual actions together. An individual agent who belongs to a group only needs to know what s/he wants and what s/he has to do in the group, even if s/he has no knowledge of the intentions and commitments of the other members. Then he or she can do things together with others in a group without supposing that there is something like a collective intention. (shrink)

of “Reason and the structure of Davidson’s ‘Desire-Belief-Model’ ” by Henk bij de Weg In the present discussion in the analytic theory of action, broadly two models for the explanation or justification of actions can be distinguished: the internalist and the externalist model. Against this background, I discuss Davidson’s version of the internalist Desire-Belief Model . First, I show that what Davidson calls “pro attitude” has two distinct meanings. An implication of this is that Davidson’s DBM actually comprises two (...) different models: the “classical” DBM and a model that has an extra premise, the “nonclassical” model. However, from another point of view one can say that the classical DBM is the nonclassical model in which a premise is missing. In order to determine which viewpoint is correct, I introduce Schütz’s distinction between “because-motives” and “in-order-to-motives”. With the help of this distinction, I can show that the classical DBM is an incomplete version of the nonclassical model. Besides of the premise that refers to the agent’s pro attitude, we need this extra premise in order to refer to the occasion as experienced by the agent that makes him or her act. Only then can we fully explain or justify an action. (shrink)

One of the most discussed articles in the theory of knowledge is Edmund Gettier’s article “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?”, published in 1963. In this article Gettier undermined the view that knowledge is justified true belief. I think that Gettier’s analysis has consequences not only for the question what knowledge is but also for our idea of truth. In this paper I argue that an analysis in the sense of Gettier shows that a statement can be both true and not (...) true at the same time. (shrink)

In his work on reasons Dretske argues that reasons are only worthwhile for having them if they are causally relevant for explaining behaviour, which he elaborates in his representational theory of explanation. The author argues against this view by showing that there are reasons that are relevant for explaining behaviour but not causally relevant. He gives a linguistic foundation of his argumentation and shows that Dretske’s representational theory cannot explain human actions because man does not only perceive things that have (...) already meaning but also assigns meanings to what (s)he perceives and that therefore reasons are fundamentally different from causes. (shrink)

In studying what people do two points of view can be distinguished: We can choose the perspective of the actors themselves (the actor’s perspective), or we can look at what is going on from the outside, from a distance (the researcher’s perspective). Regarding the relation between both points of view three standpoints have been defended.

Most philosophers in the analytical philosophy answer the question what personal identity is in psychological terms. Arguments for substantiating this view are mainly based on thought experiments of brain transfer cases and the like in which persons change brains. However, in these thought experiments the remaining part of the body plays only a passive part. In this paper I argue that the psychological approach of personal identity cannot be maintained, if the whole body is actively involved in the analysis, and (...) that the body is an intrinsic part of what I am as a person. (shrink)

In consciousness studies, the first-person perspective, seen as a way to approach consciousness, is often seen as nothing but a variant of the third-person perspective. One of the most important advocates of this view is Dennett. However, as I show in critical interaction with Dennett’s view, the first-person perspective and the third-person perspective are different ways of asking questions about themes. What these questions are is determined by the purposes that we have when we ask them. Since our purposes are (...) different according to the perspective we take, each perspective has a set of leading questions of its own. This makes that the first-person perspective is an approach of consciousness that is substantially different from the third-person perspective, and that one cannot be reduced to the other. These perspectives are independent, although complementary approaches of the mind. (shrink)

In this paper I discern two concepts of meaning: meaning O - which is assigned by us on the basis of our commonsense conception in order to constitute our own daily reality - and meaning I, which we assign when we interpret reality scientifically. Authors who contend that the commonsense conception is nothing but a kind of scientific theory, do not see that the two fields of life have their own concept of meaning. Commonsense and science are not separate from (...) each other, however: though both have their own practices, the way we interpret reality scientifically presupposes our commonsense conception. (shrink)

In consciousness studies, the first-person perspective, seen as a way to approach consciousness, is often seen as nothing but a variant of the third-person perspective. One of the most important advocates of this view is Dennett. However, as I show in critical interaction with Dennett’s view, the first-person perspective and the third-person perspective are different ways of asking questions about themes. What these questions are is determined by the purposes that we have when we ask them. Since our purposes are (...) different according to the perspective we take, each perspective has a set of leading questions of its own. This makes that the first-person perspective is an approach of consciousness that is substantially different from the third-person perspective, and that one cannot be reduced to the other. These perspectives are independent, although complementary approaches of the mind. (shrink)

Heidegger ist durch seinen eigenwilligen Sprachgebrauch einer der dunkelsten Denker unserer Zeit. Dies ist jedoch kein Zeichen von Willkür oder unbegründeter Sucht nach Ürsprünglichkeit, für ihn hängt die Sprache wesentlich mit seinem Philosophieren zusammen (1). Vor allem ist von Seiten der angloamerikanischen Sprachanalytiker an diesem Sprachgebrauch viel Kritik geübt, u.a. durch Carnap. Ausdrücke wie „das Nichtige nichtet” finden in den empirischen Situationen kein Echo, entziehen sich der Methode der Verifikation, erfüllen keine einzige Wahrheitsvoraussetzung und können keine Protokollsätze sein (2). Dennoch, (...) Heideggers Methode kann, vermöge der Art seiner Untersuchung, der Frage nach dem Sinn des Seins, nicht die der logischen Analyse sein ; sie ist die phänomenologische Methode, die für die Ontologie in ihren Fragen nach dem Sinn des Seins die angemessenste Methode ist (3). Heidegger meint, daß die Vorsokratiker in ihrer dichterischen Formgebung dem ursprünglichen Sinn des Seins äußerst nahegekommen sind. Seine Intention beschränkt sich nicht allein auf eine etymologische Analyse von Begriffen wie „physis”, „logos”, „aletheia” usw., wodurch er das Sein zu entbergen sucht, er will mit dieser Analyse auch und vor allem ein neues Fundament legen für unser heutiges Denken und unsere Einstellung dem Sein gegenüber (4). Um dies deutlich zu machen, wählen wir Heideggers Auseinandersetzung mit dem Logosbegriff bei Heraklit im Fragment 50 (Diels), den er in Vorträge und Aufsätze III (Pfüfflingen 1967, S. 3-25) einer minuziösen Untersuchung unterzieht. Heidegger fragt sich, was die ursprüngliche Bedeutung von Logos ist, und er sucht zu beweisen, daß „legein” nicht ursprünglich „sprechen” bedeutet, sondern in dem deutschen „legen” (vorlegen, darlegen, überlegen) wiedergefunden wird, „legein” konnte sprechen bedeuten, weil sprechen besagt : „Beisammen-vor-uns-liegen-lassen”. Deshalb kann nach Heidegger die Sprache nicht als „Verlautbarung” oder „Bedeuten” gedeutet werden. Ausdruck und Bedeutung sind beide Phänomene der Sprache als das „Beisammen-voruns-liegen-lassen” des Unverborgenen in seiner Unverborgenheit. Das Sprechen muß nach Heidegger den Spielraum der Unverborgenheit, mit dem das Hören korrespondieren muß, offenlassen. Das Hören nach dem Logos ist ein „homologein”, dem Logos zugehörig. Ist man dem Logos zugehörig, so ist man in dem Sinne weise, daß man sich in das schickt (geschicklich), was dem Menschen zugewiesen ist : Heidegger widersetzt sich der herrschenden Interpretation von Fr. 50. Das „Eins-Alles” zielt nicht auf den Inhalt der Verkündigung des Logos, sondern vielmehr auf die Weise, in der der Logos anwesend ist, die Weise, in der er wirkt und wohl als das Eine, das alles ausschließt, das lichtende Sammeln, Zusammentragen, das Bergen aller Gegebenheiten in die Offenheit der Welt. Er birgt und entbirgt. Unverborgenheit und Verborgenheit sind Pole dieses einen Seinsereignisses. So bleiben die Gegensätze innerhalb des Lichtkreises der Unverborgenheit bestehen und aufeinander angewiesen. Heidegger identifiziert den Logos mit dem „Hen-Panta”, weil „ Hen-Panta” sagt, was der Logos ist, und der Logos sagt, wie „Hen-Panta” anwesend ist. Wenn der Mensch die Sprache des Logos spricht, sammelt er auch die Dinge, läßt er sie vor-sichliegen, bringt er die Anwesenheit der Dinge in ihrem Anwesen zur Sprache, läßt sie zu ihrem Recht kommen, dabei durch das ursprüngliche „Einen” des Logos geleitet, das „Hen-Panta” ist. Heidegger weist darauf hin, daß dies kein pantheistischer Gedankengang ist. Heraklit will, so meint er, vor dem Geheimnis dieser Worte stehenbleiben, um so das Geheimnis als Geheimnis zu erkennen. Er meint, daß der durch die Vorsokratiker geöffnete Weg durch die Denkentwicklung seit Plato verschleiert geblieben ist. Heidegger sieht in Fr. 50 von Heraklit den stammelnden Ausdruck des noch nicht in Subjekt und Objekt aufgeteilten Seins. In dem Wort Logos dachte Heraklit das Sein des Seienden. Dieses Licht verblaßte schnell. Für Heidegger liegt die große Bedeutung Heraklits in dessen Anregung, in Übereinstimmung mit der Logossprache zu sprechen und den Weg einzuschlagen, den er uns gezeigt hat durch ein uns Offenhalten für das entbergendverbergende Sein (5). Auf wirklich geniale Weise hat Heidegger der Logosphilosophie die Gewalt seines eigenen Denkens verliehen. Diese Auslegung lehrt uns mehr über seine eigene Philosophie, als über die Heraklits. Heidegger ist gefesselt durch das mystisch-prophetische Element in Heraklits Philosophieren. So wie Heraklit der Dolmetscher der Masse sein will, die dem Logos widerspricht, obwohl sie fortwährend darüber spricht, so fühlte Heidegger sich berufen ein Hermeneut zu sein, auf dem durch die Seinsvergessenheit verdunkelten Weg des denkens nach einem neuen (An) denken des Seins. Betroffen ist Heidegger durch die Idee der Einheit, die sich in dem Logos erschließt. Der Logos offenbart sich in der Welt durch Gegensätze, in denen die Einheit sich fortwährend erneuert. Das Denken Heideggers ist von Anfang an auf das Ans-Licht-bringen des (oft) vergessenen, verborgenen Zusammenhängens gerichtet, in dem alles was ist erscheint. Aus dieser Interpretation wird deutlich, wie wertvoll eine Konfrontation der eigenen Zeit mit der Vergangenheit sein kann, angesichts der Gratie, durch die die Geschichte der Philosophie aktuell bleibt (6). Unser großes Bedenken gegen diese Interpretation ist, daß Heidegger sich keine Rechenschaft über die textkritischen Schwierigkeiten dieses Textes gegeben hat. Es ist die Frage, ob wohl Logos im ursprünglichen Text gestanden hat. Wir haben versucht, dies aufzuzeigen. Gleichfalls ist es sehr bedenklich, daß Heidegger „legein” und „legen” etymologisch im Zusammenhang sieht, was deshalb nicht möglich ist, weil beide Wörter auf im Wesen verschiedene indoeuropäische Wurzeln zurückgehen. Unsere Schlußfolgerung ist, daß Heideggers Auslegung von Fr. 50 uns mehr über die Philosophie von Heidegger selbst, als über die Logosphilosophie von Heraklit lehrt. Es ist besonders zu bedauern, daß Heidegger, der sich gerne rühmt die Belange der Wissenschaftlichkeit zu vertreten, die für die Interpretation griechischer Texte unentbehrliche philologische Vorarbeit vernachlässigt hat. (shrink)

This volume includes the critical edition of five apologias in which Erasmus defended his New Testament translation and commentary against Diego López de Zúñiga and Sancho Carranza. The edition is partly based on manuscript sources never used before.

On the level of the administrative power of the municipalities, the amalgamations did not lead to an increase of their authority.In addition, the distance between the citizen and the administration has increased in three ways : the increased distances between the centres and the outlying residential zones raised the problem of intramunicipal service provision ; the social distance also increased because of the increase of the influence of and the importance attached to the municipal executive body; the expansion of the (...) tasks of the administrators led to an organisational distance. The political policy structures have also been profoundly changed after the amalgamations : the national parties have gained in influence; political instability has increased; the structures were adapted to the new situation; the operation of the local policy organs has changed ; the municipal councils acquired a more intellectually oriented professional composition. (shrink)

The present paper draws on climate science and the philosophy of science in order to evaluate climate-model-based approaches to assessing climate projections. We analyze the difficulties that arise in such assessment and outline criteria of adequacy for approaches to it. In addition, we offer a critical overview of the approaches used in the IPCC working group one fourth report, including the confidence building, Bayesian and likelihood approaches. Finally, we consider approaches that do not feature in the IPCC reports, including three (...) approaches drawn from the philosophy of science. We find that all available approaches face substantial challenges, with IPCC approaches having as a primary source of difficulty their goal of providing probabilistic assessments. (shrink)

This volume includes the critical edition of five apologias in which Erasmus defended his New Testament translation and commentary against Diego López de Zúñiga and Sancho Carranza. The edition is partly based on manuscript sources never used before.

In de eerste hoofdstukken van vakwetenschappelijke handboeken wordt de lezer vaak met de grenzen van de betreffende vakwetenschap geconfronteerd. Het terrein en de aard van de vakwetenschap worden geschetst en daarmee de plaats van het terrein binnen de werkelijkheid en de betekenis van de verworven kennis. Het is de filosofie eigen dat zij zich in tegenstelling tot de vakwetenschap langdurig ophoudt bij dergelijke grenzen en er regelmatig naar terugkeert. Voor de vakwetenschap betekent nadenken over de grenzen gedwongen oponthoud dat niet (...) tot gewenste resultaten leidt. Men gaat liever zo snel mogelijk het terrein op om daar onderzoek te doen. De filosofie blijft niet alleen langer stilstaan bij de grenzen, ze beweegt zich vervolgens ook in een andere richting dan de vakwetenschap, de richting van het meer omvattende. (shrink)

This volume includes the critical edition of five apologias in which Erasmus defended his New Testament translation and commentary against Diego López de Zúñiga and Sancho Carranza. The edition is partly based on manuscript sources never used before.

Wat gebeurt er allemaal in relaties? We raken gefrustreerd wanneer een vriend niet terugbelt. We missen een geliefde die ver weg is. We komen elkaar tegen op straat. We vrijen. We voelen ons eenzaam. Soms terwijl we vrijen. We voelen ons diep met iemand verbonden. We verwachten veel. We doen ons best om niet te veel te verwachten. Soms lukt dat, en dan kunnen we elkaar echt ontmoeten. Dit boek gaat over de spanningen die in elke relatie aanwezig zijn. In (...) romantische relaties, maar ook in andere. Je verhoudt je tot de anderen en tot jezelf. Maar je verhoudt je ook tot de verhouding zelf. Dat is een nieuw idee in de cognitiewetenschappen. Daar gaat het veel vaker over kennen, dan over liefhebben. Maar wat als kennen en liefhebben eigenlijk heel dicht bij elkaar zouden liggen? In dit boek breekt cognitiefilosoof Hanne De Jaegher een lans om kennen en liefhebben samen te bestuderen. Want allebei zijn het geëngageerde relaties vol spanningen. Zo schrijft de auteur een wonderlijk nieuw hoofdstuk in de filosofie van de liefde. (shrink)

The 1995 simultaneous election of three legislative assemblies offered the Belgian voters an opportunity to split their ballot between three different parties. An analysis of Flemish individual level survey data shows that 76.1% cast a straight ticket vote, white 20.9 % split their tickets between two and 3 % between three different parties. Ticketsplitting occurs most frequently amongst voters who mention the personality of individual politicians or the issues as a reason to support a party. In addition, the likehood of (...) ticket-splitting increases amongst the higher educated and the non-partisans. No support was found for the hypothesis that ticket-splitters in a multi-party system tend to lean towards one party on some issues and towards the other party on others. Instead, ticket-splitters generally take a position in between two parties. No evidence was found of a differential issue impact across elections, in this sense that regional issues are more critical to regional elections and federal issues to federal elections. (shrink)

This second volume of the Amsterdam edition of the apologias contains the critical edition of the Latin text of one of the apologias against the Spanish theologian Jacobus Lopis Stunica.

The fundamental and unevitable risk of schizophrenia and paranoia reveals to us that the ego is not originally given ; the ego, that unifies the psyche and gives it a personal character (my psyche), is not from the very beginning necessarily present in my psyche. The ego has to be constituted; and in some extreme cases (i.e. schizophrenia and paranoia ) this process of constitution may radically fail : the ego might not have come about. This constitution cannot be thought (...) as a selfconstitution : it is the effect of the Other. I am constituted by the Other ; I receive my personal being from the Other and not from myself. The fundamental processes of the primary repression ('Urverdrängung'), the mirror phase, identification and idealisation, and finally the discourse of the Other are interpreted by De Waelhens against the back-ground of this primordial, — clinical — evidence. The philosophical interpretation of these fundamental structures of our being induces us to understand the ego from the very beginning as separated from itself by the Other, — the Other in me. The different facets of this original splitting and its consequences for our conception of the ego and his relation with the Other are worked out in this study. (shrink)

This article examines the role of philosophy in the development of the kinetic theory of gases. Two opposing accounts of this role, by Peter Clark and John Nyhof, are discussed and criticized. Contrary to both accounts, it is argued that philosophical views of scientists can fundamentally influence the results of their scientific work. This claim is supported by a detailed analysis of the philosophical views of Maxwell and Boltzmann, and of their work on the kinetic theory, especially concerning the so-called (...) specific heat anomaly. It leads to the conclusion that the scientific development of the kinetic theory cannot be understood without taking into account the role of philosophy. (shrink)