Jürgen Habermas ha dedicato più di trent’anni dei suoi studi alle scienze sociali al fine di definire, attraverso la ricostruzione delle tradizioni di pensiero in esse presenti, un quadro teorico di riferimento che orienti i programmi della ricerca storico-sociale. Al pari dei grandi classici del pensiero sociologico, egli ha cercato di affrontare i “problemi della società nel suo insieme” esplicitando gli assunti, i metodi e gli obiettivi della teoria sociale come presupposto indispensabile per un’indagine che ampli i confini disciplinari della (...) sociologia, da un lato, alla riflessione filosofica, dall’altro alla ricerca storiografica. Nel lungo itinerario della sua formazione scientifica questo programma rappresenta il filo conduttore nell’analisi dei “sistemi culturali”, dei “sistemi sociali”, dei “sistemi della personalità” e, soprattutto, nella “teoria dell’evoluzione sociale”, dalla ricostruzione delle condizioni necessarie alla genesi antropologica delle forme socio-culturali di vita – l’“ominizzazione” – sino all’esame della logica e della dinamica di sviluppo delle “formazioni sociali” che egli suddivide in primitive, tradizionali, moderne e contemporanee. Nella Postfazione all’edizione italiana di Profili politico-filosofici (2000), una raccolta che contiene scritti di quarantacinque anni di studi (1953-1998), Leonardo Ceppa sottolinea i due aspetti essenziali dell’opera di Habermas: “la coerenza teorica” e il “carattere assimilatorio”. Habermas non è un pensatore “rivoluzionario” ma un “riformista” che, ricorrendo a un’immagine ingegneristica, all’isolamento del “pensiero che scava fossati” preferisce “costruire ponti” tra i campi del sapere. Questa ricerca si segnala per il tentativo di recepire criticamente le acquisizioni specialistiche delle scienze sociali e della filosofia finalizzando questa tensione apprenditiva alla costruzione di un quadro generale. Nato dai nostri colloqui seminariali, di cui mantiene la forma dialogica dei “turni di parola”, il presente volume focalizza lo sguardo sulle società contemporanee – ripercorrendone la struttura, le sfide presenti e gli scenari futuri – e sulla funzione sociale della sociologia. Ne scaturisce un’indagine di fenomeni fondamentali per comprendere le trasformazioni della modernità: la modernizzazione, il capitalismo organizzato, lo stato sociale, la democrazia politica, la diversità culturale, l’opinione pubblica nell’epoca dei media, la globalizzazione, la crisi ecologica, le disuguaglianze mondiali, i conflitti nazionalistici, il terrorismo islamico, la secolarizzazione, l’ingegneria genetica, l’integrazione europea e la politica mondiale. Nel riordinare i temi sociologici da lui proposti abbiamo cercato di sistemare l’analisi delle società contemporanee a un livello che non si accomodi sul piano dei commenti troppo facili che gli intellettuali, i politici e la gente comune amano fare sull’attualità e che, mantenendo una visione d’insieme sull’opera, chiarisca il testo e i suoi punti ciechi. Il volume si propone come uno strumento di lavoro che accompagni a una lettura critica. Sullo sfondo rimane la domanda se Habermas riesca davvero a conseguire, nei suoi itinerari attraverso la “storia delle idee”, la coerenza logica e la profondità d’indagine necessarie a “sistematizzare” le ricerche delle scienze sociali. Alcune perplessità avvalorate dal confronto con i testi e con la letteratura critica ci hanno suggerito di riservare ai problemi metodologici uno studio specifico che chiarisca il concetto di “scienza ricostruttiva” e ne illustri le applicazioni nell’ambito delle teorie della riproduzione culturale, della socializzazione e dell’evoluzione delle formazioni sociali – uno studio le cui linee sono solo anticipate nell’Introduzione. Il programma di ricerca e la sua recezione critica, relativamente agli assunti della teoria dell’evoluzione sociale. Riprendendo una felice espressione di Karl Popper, ci auguriamo di aver raggiunto la chiarezza argomentativa e la semplicità linguistica dovuta al lettore, confidando nella “cooperazione amichevole-ostile di molti scienziati”. (shrink)

This paper investigates the reason why, in the tradition of Western philosophy, a logic of relations was developed only in the second half of the nineteenth century. To this end, it moves along two different but interconnected paths: on the one hand, it attempts to reconstruct the main views concerning the ontology of relations during the middle ages; on the other, it focuses on the treatment of so-called oblique terms in the logical works of some preeminent authors belonging to the (...) scholastic and late-scholastic tradition. From the ontological point of view, realists and nominalist both denied that polyadic expressions of the language signify polyadic properties in the world extra. Some authors, such as Peter Auriol, claimed that polyadic expressions signify something merely mental, thus recognizing, even though in a limited ontological domain, the existence of full-fledged relations, that is, of ‘things’ simultaneousl... (shrink)

The Hamiltonian structure of General Relativity (GR), for both metric and tetrad gravity in a definite continuous family of space-times, is fully exploited in order to show that: i) the "Hole Argument" can be bypassed by means of a specific "physical individuation" of point-events of the space-time manifold M^4 in terms of the "autonomous degrees of freedom" of the vacuum gravitational field (Dirac observables), while the "Leibniz equivalence" is reduced to differences in the "non-inertial appearances" (connected to gauge variables) of (...) the same phenomena. ii) the chrono-geometric structure of a solution of Einstein equations for given, gauge-fixed, initial data (a "3-geometry" satisfying the relevant constraints on the Cauchy surface), can be interpreted as an "unfolding" in mathematical global time of a sequence of "achronal 3-spaces" characterized by "dynamically determined conventions" about distant simultaneity. This result stands out as an important conceptual difference with respect to the standard chrono-geometrical view of Special Relativity (SR) and allows, in a specific sense, for an "endurantist" interpretations of ordinary physical objects in GR. (shrink)

This paper deals with a number of technical achievements that are instrumental for a dis-solution of the so-called "Hole Argument" in general relativity. Such achievements include: 1) the analysis of the "Hole" phenomenology in strict connection with the Hamiltonian treatment of the initial value problem. The work is carried through in metric gravity for the class of Christoudoulou-Klainermann space-times, in which the temporal evolution is ruled by the "weak" ADM energy; 2) a re-interpretation of "active" diffeomorphisms as "passive and metric-dependent" (...) dynamical symmetries of Einstein's equations, a re-interpretation which enables to disclose their (up to now unknown) connection to gauge transformations on-shell; understanding such connection also enlightens the real content of the Hole Argument or, better, dis-solves it together with its alleged "indeterminism"; 3) the utilization of the Bergmann-Komar "intrinsic pseudo-coordinates", defined as suitable functionals of the Weyl curvature scalars, as tools for a peculiar gauge-fixing to the super-hamiltonian and super-momentum constraints; 4) the consequent construction of a "physical atlas" of 4-coordinate systems for the 4-dimensional "mathematical" manifold, in terms of the highly non-local degrees of freedom of the gravitational field (its four independent "Dirac observables"). Such construction embodies the "physical individuation" of the points of space-time as "point-events", independently of the presence of matter, and associates a "non-commutative structure" to each gauge fixing or four-dimensional coordinate system; 5) a clarification of the multiple definition given by Peter Bergmann of the concept of "(Bergmann) observable" in general relativity. This clarification leads to the proposal of a "main conjecture" asserting the existence of i) special Dirac's observables which are also Bergmann's observables, ii) gauge variables that are coordinate independent (namely they behave like the tetradic scalar fields of the Newman-Penrose formalism). A by-product of this achievements is the falsification of a recently advanced argument asserting the absence of (any kind of) "change" in the observable quantities of general relativity. 6) a clarification of the physical role of Dirac and gauge variables as their being related to "tidal-like" and "inertial-like" effects, respectively. This clarification is mainly due to the fact that, unlike the standard formulations of the equivalence principle, the Hamiltonian formalism allows to define notion of "force" in general relativity in a natural way; 7) a proposal showing how the physical individuation of point-events could in principle be implemented as an experimental setup and protocol leading to a "standard of space-time" more or less like atomic clocks define standards of time. We conclude that, besides being operationally essential for building measuring apparatuses for the gravitational field, the role of matter in the non-vacuum gravitational case is also that of "participating directly" in the individuation process, being involved in the determination of the Dirac observables. This circumstance leads naturally to a peculiar new kind of "structuralist" view of the general-relativistic concept of space-time, a view that embodies some elements of both the traditional "absolutist" and "relational" conceptions. In the end, space-time point-events maintain a "peculiar sort of objectivity". Some hints following from our approach for the quantum gravity programme are also given. (shrink)

Prior to the advent of whole-genome sequencing in ancient humans, the likelihood that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals admixed has long been debated, mostly on the basis of phenotypic assessments alone. Today, evidence for archaic hominin admixture is being documented in an increasing number of studies, expanding the evidential basis of the debate on whether Homo sapiens and Neanderthals merit separate specific taxonomic status. Here we argue that while new evidence has provided us with a finer-grained picture of ancient intra- and (...) intergroup demographic dynamics, it does not yet justify merging the Neanderthals in an expanded concept of Homo sapiens or abandoning specific taxonomies. We approach this issue and the apparent conflict between molecular and morphology-based taxonomies from a diachronic perspective on lineage divergence, highlighting how different taxonomic properties are expected to arise at different points in time, and from an integrative perspective on different species conceptions and delimitation criteria. We argue that in light of similar “invasions” of the genome among other animal taxa, full reproductive isolation as the final, litmus test for distinct species status should be rather considered a biologically misplaced expectation. Therefore, we suggest that specific nomenclature should not be perceived with embarrassment but rather be justifiably applied in human paleogenomic publications, maintaining congruence with zoological literature. We then briefly consider and problematize recent suggestions that human evolutionary diversification should now be best represented by a ‘braided stream” or a network. We conclude by putting our paleoanthropological case study in the broader context of species delimitation in the genomic era. (shrink)

In his article, Florian Vermeiren attributes to Leibniz – like other interpreters before him – the distinction of two different kinds of relations: 1) relations in the proper sense of the word as, for example, the fatherhood subsisting between Sophroniscus and Socrates, which Leibniz considers situated ‘outside the subjects’ involved; 2) relational properties, such as being a father, inherent in Sophroniscus. The distinction is clearly present in Leibniz’s writings. According to Vermeiren, Leibniz considers ‘purely mental’ only the relations ‘out of (...) the subjects’ and not the relational predicates, by means of which, on the other hand, the individuals of the Leibnizian world would be truly related. In this sense, therefore, Leibniz would admit the reality of relations, which would play an important role in his ontology. At least since 1686 (the year in which he wrote the Discourse), however, Leibniz states that the world is made only of individuals with their internal modifications: just as there are no properties with a leg in one subject and a leg in another, there are no individuals bound together by any kind of material nexus or ‘real’ ties. Thus, if we make a list of all fathers on the one hand and sons on the other, there remains the problem of how to properly connect the fathers exactly with their sons. Attributing to each of two related individuals a relational property is not enough to connect them. Being a father in David must necessarily refer in some way to Solomon as a son. Leibniz is aware of this, as his attempts to analyze relational propositions in his essays on rational grammar show. Given the sentence ‘Cajus is killed by Titius’ for example, Leibniz attempts to reduce it to an inference between a pair of categorical sentences, each of which attributes a relational predicate to the subject. Relations (and relational properties) result from the substances and their modes, “without producing any change” of themselves but only in virtue of a consequence, that is of a logical inference. The image of the world derived so from the Monadology and other Leibnizian writings is that of a world composed of a collection of isolated individuals, independent of each other and lacking mutual connections. Relational properties correspond to internal modifications of each individual: the second term, in the case of binary relations (the ‘external’ one: Helen, if Paris loves Helen) is resolved into an internal representation (of Paris, in this case). It is God who coordinates the various representations of individuals with each other, to result in a harmonious whole. Since relations are a consequence of the existence of the individual substances with their intrinsic properties, God himself can be said to be the creator of relations, in so far as he calls the individuals into existence. And this is exactly what Leibniz states, in his commentary on Temmik’s book. (shrink)

Over the years, AI has undergone a transformation from its original aim of producing an ‘intelligent’ machine to that of producing pragmatic solutions of problems of the market place. In doing so, AI has made a significant contribution to the debate on whether the computer is an instrument or an interlocutor. This paper discusses issues of problem solving and creativity underlying this transformation, and attempts to clarify the distinction between theresolutive intelligence andproblematic intelligence. It points out that the advance of (...) ‘intelligent’ technology, with its failure to make a clear distinction betweenresolutive andcreative intelligence, could contribute to the further cultural marginalisation of human activities not connected with production. A further danger is that AI products may suffer a further loss of social reputation and prestige for those activities for which it is not possible to build artificial devices. (shrink)

Usually, the shape of the future is seen as the result of a cultural flow that, according to some privileged cultural variable, like technology, goes undisturbed towards its own outcome. This is a quite naive attitude that has been very rarely successful. Both conventional technology and technology of the artificial show that, within culture, ‘demons’ are always active trying to exploit or even bypass standards in order to give birth to unexpected novelties. This is true within the pure technology area (...) and even more in its artistic extensions. Therefore, no deterministic process is going on but, rather, a permanent remixing of chances that makes any prophecy impossible. (shrink)

In a text written during his stay in Paris, Leibniz, to deny ontological reality to relations, employs an argument well known to the medieval thinkers and which later would be revived by Francis H. Bradley. If one assumes that relations are real and that a relation links any property to a subject – so runs the argument – then one falls prey to an infinite regress. Leibniz seems to be well aware of the consequences that this argument has for his (...) own metaphysical views, where the relation of inherence (‘inesse’) plays such a central role. Thus, he attempts first to interpret the relation of inherence as something ‘metaphoric’, originating from our ‘spatial way’ of looking at the surrounding world; and then he tries to reduce it to the part-whole relation which clearly he considers weaker, from the ontological point of view, than that of ‘being in’. (shrink)

In a text written during his stay in Paris, Leibniz, to deny ontological reality to relations, employs an argument well known to the medieval thinkers and which later would be revived by Francis H. Bradley. If one assumes that relations are real and that a relation links any property to a subject – so runs the argument – then one falls prey to an infinite regress. Leibniz seems to be well aware of the consequences that this argument has for his (...) own metaphysical views, where the relation of inherence plays such a central role. Thus, he attempts first to interpret the relation of inherence as something ‘metaphoric’, originating from our ‘spatial way’ of looking at the surrounding world; and then he tries to reduce it to the part-whole relation which clearly he considers weaker, from the ontological point of view, than that of ‘being in’. (shrink)

At death's door, Leibniz firmly refused to see a priest. This seems to be in strong contrast with the central role that he attributes to God in his philosophy and with his explicit acceptance of the Christian religion. Thus, the circumstances surrounding Leibniz's death, as related by some direct and indirect witnesses, provide an opportunity to examine the sincerity of Leibniz's position on religion. The final conclusion is that Leibniz believed in a religion broadly inspired by Christian principles but that (...) he was not a particularly pious believer, which is fully in line with his own kind of ante litteram deism. (shrink)

The paper examines three essays that Leibniz wrote in 1688, immediately after the composition of the Discourse on Metaphysics, one of his most organic philosophical works. The main topics which emerge from these essays are: the relationship between substance and accidents; the nature of accidents; and, more generally, the nature of abstract entities. Given that accidents' nature is that of changing, Leibniz sees how hard it is to give an account of the relationship between substance and accidents that does not (...) imply any change in the substance, when its accidents undergo a change. To find a way out of this problem, Leibniz assumes that abstract terms (whiteness, wisdom, etc.) do not name real properties or real parts of substances, and that any sentence containing real abstract terms can be rephrased as a sentence containing logical abstract terms, which do no imply any commitment to the existence of real properties. Coherently with this nominalistic attitude, Leibniz ends up, in the Theodicy and in his correspondence with Des Bosses, considering accidents as modes or internal modifications of the substance. (shrink)

Monades non sunt in loco nisi per harmoniam, id est per consensum cum phaenomenis loci, a nullo influxu sed sponte rerum ortum.

The contribution by Hubert L. Dreyfus to the debate on the feasibility of AI projects has been surely of great relevance because of his pointing out specific limits of the machine as compared to the human mind. His critics, along with the actual difficulties encountered in the advance of a pure symbolic AI, induced a wide discussion that in some measure stimulated other ways to follow for reproducing human abilities. Nevertheless, a curious fact characterizes the history of AI regarding the (...) problems raised, among the many, by Dreyfus. While in the first era the main concern by the opponents was to certify the limited power of computers as compared to humans, it seems that today the main concern is exactly the opposite, namely the growing and threatening power of AI devices, both software and hardware based, such as robots. Maybe the reason of that has been, and is today too, the imbalance assigned to the discussion, on the one side, of what human faculties are and work, and, on the other, on what the artificial is and can work. Designing the artificial, in every field, means to give birth to devices that consist of a sort of overlapping of nature and technology, and, therefore, they deserve to be named naturoids. This implies that, to understand them, we need to study their genuine ‘artificial nature’ in general terms, bringing further what H. A. Simon called the ‘science of the artificial’. (shrink)

Since the work by Herbert Simon, no particular attention has been paid to the distinction between conventional technology and technology directed at the reproduction of natural instances. Nevertheless, if we had a general knowledge of the methodological aspects that any attempt to reproduce natural objects or processes unavoidably requires, then we would understand why, as a rule, no artificial device can ‘converge’ to its natural counterpart and why, on the contrary, the more it advances, the further away it goes from (...) it. As a result, our efforts should be oriented to deeply investigate the artificial as it were a truly new ‘nature’ in itself. (shrink)

Technological imagination and actual technological achievements have always been two very different things. Sudden and unpredictable events always seem to intervene between our visions regarding possible futures and the subsequent concrete realizations. Thus, our ideas and projects are continually being redirected. In the field of naturoids—that is, artificial systems designed to simulate certain features of natural ones—the above-mentioned tendency is particularly frequent and illuminating, giving all prophecies a flavor of fiction rather than of reliable technological forecast. The dream of reproducing (...) complete natural systems—man included—by means of technological strategies clashes with the “nature” of artificial objects and also with that of natural exemplars. The only certainty is that the future will exhibit growing rates of variety and heterogeneity, and we cannot know, from our present standpoint, what this will imply for our species, or, at least, for our cultures. (shrink)

This book is a collection of essays published by the author in the long run of about 20 years and is centered on the reconstruction of Leibniz’s logical calculi. All the essays have been revised for the present edition and some of them constituted the background for Lenzen’s first monograph on Leibniz’s logic. A feature common to all these essays is the vindication of the relevance and originality of Leibniz’s logical achievements. Lenzen manifests strong dissatisfaction with the evaluations of Leibniz’s (...) logic previously offered by interpreters like Louis Couturat, Clarence I. Lewis, Karl Dürr, William and Martha Kneale, and states that till now Leibniz’s results in the field of logic have been widely underestimated. The book contains a careful and detailed examination of almost all Leibniz’s papers on the logical calculus and it is based on the knowledge of a wide range of texts unknown to previous interpreters. Lenzen’s acquaintance with the entire corpus of Leibniz’s logical texts is impressive. Some chapters of the book in particular contain very solid and useful logical analyses. Chapter 7, for instance, includes the most profound account of Leibniz’s theory of negation I ever read. Chapter 8 presents in a very clear way Leibniz’s attempt to reduce traditional syllogistic to a calculus based on logical inclusion between terms. Chapter 14 is devoted to Leibniz’s a priori proof of the existence of God and presents the first edition of an important manuscript on the proof. On chapters 3 and 5 a series of convincing reasons are given to argue that Leibniz’s concept of ens does not have to be considered a constant in the logical calculus. In brief: this work discusses a wide range of topics in such a clear and learned way that it will surely become a reference book for scholars interested in the study of Leibniz’s logical papers in the forthcoming years. (shrink)

This book consists of four parts: 1) an introduction of about 60 pages, mainly focused on the problem of the continuum in Leibniz; 2) a selection of Leibniz’s papers according to the critical edition prepared in Berlin, with English translation; 3) two appendices with excerpts in English from Leibniz’s papers and from texts of other authors on the continuum; 4) a rich collection of notes and a Latin-English glossary. In what follows I will make some short remarks about each of (...) these parts. (shrink)

There is a great distance between two pairs of concepts that are consistent in their own fields; namely, information/control and knowledge/decision. Although contemporary techno-sciences and common sense tend to neglect this distance, its intrinsic implications sometimes make it difficult to understand what is going on in our cultural events and developments. In particular, the abuse of the concepts of knowledge and decision makes it impossible to discriminate between the various levels of systems, both natural and naturoid, which surround us. In (...) fact, the majority of so-called intelligent systems are mere information and control processors, rather than systems that are capable of generating knowledge and decision. The diffusion of such a misunderstanding may cause, in turn, the reduction of man to a mere information system based on established and discoverable rules, thereby neglecting his ability, albeit rarely exercised, to override information and control in order to discover or to set up something new. (shrink)

Di Massimo di Tiro si conoscono pochi dettagli biografici. Le fonti antiche, concordi nel ritenerlo ‘filosofo’ e ‘filosofo platonico’, affermano che le sue dissertazioni o indagini filosofiche sono da ricondursi al suo primo soggiorno a Roma, al tempo dell’imperatore Commodo. Le quarantuno dissertazioni filosofiche di Massimo di Tiro offrono una visione privilegiata della cultura imperiale del secondo secolo, epoca in cui, dominante l’eleganza stilistica, anche la filosofia non disdegnava di dispiegare i propri contenuti mediante il bello stilo dello (...) strumento retorico. Nello svolgimento dei temi, perlopiù platonici nell’ispirazione e orientati ad argomenti presenti al dibattito coevo, ma comunque non escludenti altre influenze filosofiche, Massimo di Tiro si mostra pensatore dalla non banale semplicità. Muovendosi fra filosofia e letteratura, fra Platone e Omero, egli calibra l’erudizione sul filtro di un’esigenza educativa di ampio respiro. Nel volume si presenta la prima traduzione italiana completa dal greco. Il commento critico, aggiornato al dibattito accademico internazionale, mira a mostrare come l’opera del pensatore meriti una rinnovata attenzione nell’ambito degli studi classici letterari e filosofici, giacché nel delineare il quadro culturale del tempo essa consente di meglio precisare alcuni non marginali aspetti del platonismo del secondo secolo. (shrink)

From one of Italy's most renowned philosophers and psychoanalysts, an urgent and stirring reflection on violence, morality, and our relationship with the Other. What lies at the foundation of human history and life in a society? According to Massimo Recalcati, it is not the sentiment of love for one's neighbor preached by Jesus in the Gospels but the brutal hatred and violence depicted in the story of Cain and Abel. As timely as it is brilliant, this essay examines Cain's (...) murderous act through the lens of psychoanalysis, showing how delusions of self-sufficiency and individual perfection lie at the deepest roots of fear and violence in our societies. True completeness can only be achieved through others--not despite them. This, argues Recalcati, is the lesson of Cain, one that resonates powerfully in our time." --publisher's website. (shrink)

Lezioni tenute da Massimo Fagioli all'Università di Chieti-Pescara nel 2008.