Reflecting a revival of Peirce studies and the rediscovery of the pragmatist tradition in American philosophical thinking, this study articulates a contemporary and relevant interpretation that may offer a challenge to neo-pragmatists.

Abstrak: Pemisahan antara ruang privat dan publik merupakan solusi liberalisme atas tantangan pluralitas masyarakat modern. Dalam kaca mata politik pengakuan, solusi liberalisme tidak mencukupi. Liberalisme dianggap mengenal individu hanya sebagai subjek hukum dan karena itu hanya dapat memperhatikan tuntutan validitas hukum. Dalam kaca mata liberalisme, kesetaraan subjek-subjek hukum hanya dapat dijamin jika aspek-aspek tradisi, kultural dan konsep hidup baik dijauhkan dari politik. Namun apa yang menjadi objek pengakuan justru aspek-aspek ini. Tulisan ini memperkenalkan konsep konsep pengakuan intersubjektif Axel Honneth. Konsep (...) pengakuan intersubjektif melampaui paham pengakuan interkultural seperti diperkenalkan oleh tokoh seperti Charles Taylor. Dalam paradigma intersubjektif, pengakuan tidak hanya dilihat pada tataran relasi interkultural, tapi dipahami sebagai sebuah antropologi. Pengakuan mengkonstruksi manusia sebagai subjek. Hal ini ditunjukkan Honneth dalam uraiannya tentang pelbagai tingkatan interaksi antarmanusia yakni tataran cinta, hukum dan solidaritas. Pada bagian akhir tulisan diajukan beberapa pertimbangan kritis atas konsep pengakuan Honneth ini. Kata-kata Kunci: Pengakuan, multikulturalisme, intersubjektivitas, teleologi, autentisitas. Abstract: The separation between private and public spheres is the solution of liberalism to the challenges of plurality in modern societies. In the perspective of politics of recognition this solution of liberalism is insufficient. Liberalism is considered to recognize the individual only as a subject of law and therefore can only attend to the demands of legal validity. In the perspective of liberalism, equality of legal subjects can only be guaranteed if the aspects of tradition, culture and the concept of a good life are seperated from politics. But precisely these aspects are the object of recognition. This paper introduces the concept of intersubjective recognition of Axel Honneth. The concept of intersubjective recognition goes beyond intercultural recognition as introduced by Charles Taylor, for example. In the intersubjective paradigm, recognition is not only seen at the level of intercultural relations, but understood as an anthropology. Recognition constructs the human being as subject. This is shown by Honneth in his account of the various levels of human interaction, that is the level of love, law and solidarity. At the end of the article the author will give some critical considerations on Honneth's concept of recognition. Keywords: Recognition, multiculturalism, intersubjectivity, teleology, authenticity. (shrink)

Most analytic philosophers are atheists, but is there a deep connection between analytic philosophy and atheism? The paper argues a) that the founding fathers of analytic philosophy were mostly teenage atheists before they became philosophers; b) that analytic philosophy was invented partly because it was realized that the God-substitute provided by the previously fashionable philosophy - Absolute Idealism – could not cut the spiritual mustard; c) that analytic philosophy developed an unhealthy obsession with meaninglessness which led to a new kind (...) of atheism that dismissed talk of God as factually meaningless (neither true nor false) rather than meaningful but false; but d) that this new-fangled atheism (unlike the old-fashioned atheism of the founders) is false, since it relies on theories of meaning – verificationism and falsificationism – which are themselves false. The primary focus is on Bertrand Russell, though other analytic philosophers such as Ayer, Neurath and Flew are also extensively discussed. (shrink)

This paper is a critique of coercive theories of meaning, that is, theories (or criteria) of meaning designed to do down ones opponents by representing their views as meaningless or unintelligible. Many philosophers from Hobbes through Berkeley and Hume to the pragmatists, the logical positivists and (above all) Wittgenstein have devised such theories and criteria in order to discredit their opponents. I argue 1) that such theories and criteria are morally obnoxious, a) because they smack of the totalitarian linguistic tactics (...) of the Party in Orwell’s 1984 and b) because they dehumanize the opposition by portraying them as mere spouters of gibberish; 2) that they are profoundly illiberal since if true, they would undermine Mill’s arguments for free speech; 3) that such theories are prone to self-contradiction, pragmatic and otherwise; 4) that they often turn against their creators including what they were meant to exclude and excluding what they were meant to include; 5) that such theories are susceptible to a modus tollens pioneered by Richard Price in his Review Concerning the Principle Questions of Morals(1758); and 6) that such theories are prima facie false since they fail to ‘predict’ the data that is it their business to explain (or, in the case of criteria, fail to capture the concept that they allegedly represent). The butcher’s bill is quite considerable: some of Hobbes, a fair bit of Locke, half of Berkeley, large chunks of Hume, Russell's Theory of Types, verificationism in its positivist and Dummettian variants, much of pragmatism and most of Wittgenstein - all these have to be sacrificed if we are to save our souls as philosophic liberals. (shrink)

Charles Taylor identifies a close connection between morality and politics, noting that much confusion arises from poorly understood, and sometimes clearly mistaken, moral ontologies. Together with fellow communitarians and civic-republicans, Taylor argues that the rights-based judicial review of legislation rests upon a fundamentally mistaken Rawlsian/Kantian moral ontology. While accepting Taylor’s critique of Rawls’ moral ontology and its questionable ability to defend judicial review, I develop an alternative reading of judicial review relying on insightful new work by Wilfrid Waluchow. I (...) conclude that if we accept Waluchow’s common- law conception of the judicial review, there is good reason for Taylor to reject some of his deprecating comments about judicial review. I further suggest that a common-law conception of the judicial review may be amicable to the larger Communitarian and Civic-republican project. (shrink)

We raise three issues concerning the Eichenbaum, Otto & Cohen (1994) model. (1) We argue against the strict division of labor that Eichenbaum et al. attribute to neocortical and limbic regions. (2) We raise the possibility that the anterior and posterior portions of the hippocampus may be important for different types of information processing. (3) We argue that, rather than reflecting relational processing, different neural responses to “match” and “nonmatch” trials may relate to different required spatial responses.

El objetivo de este trabajo es poner de manifiesto la relevancia del legado filosófico de Karl-Otto Apel a la luz del diálogo con la ética de Charles Taylor. Nos detenemos en los últimos libros publicados de Charles Taylor y ensayamos una interpretación crítica de sus tesis a partir de la pragmática trascendental de Apel. Hundiendo sus raíces en la matriz hermenéutica y crítica, la ética del discurso de Karl-Otto Apel sigue ofreciendo una dialéctica fecunda entre realidad (...) e idealidad que resulta insoslayable para afrontar con garantías el futuro de la humanidad. The aim of this paper is to highlight the relevance of the philosophical legacy of Karl-Otto Apel in light of the dialogue with the philosophy of Charles Taylor. The paper is focused on the last published books of Charles Taylor and a critical interpretation of some of his main ideas from the Apel’s transcendental pragmatics is addressed. Plunging its roots in the hermeneutic and critical matrix, Karl-Otto Apel's ethic of discourse continues to offer a fruitful dialectic between reality and ideality that is unavoidable to face the future of humanity with guarantees. (shrink)

In The Origin of Species (1859) Darwin challenged many of the most deeply-held beliefs of the Western world. Arguing for a material, not divine, origin of species, he showed that new species are achieved by "natural selection." The Origin communicates the enthusiasm of original thinking in an open, descriptive style, and Darwin's emphasis on the value of diversity speaks more strongly now than ever. As well as a stimulating introduction and detailed notes, this edition offers a register of the many (...) writers referred to by Darwin in the text. (shrink)

Neste artigo analisaremos como a filosofia de Charles Sanders Peirce influencia o pensamento de Karl-Otto Apel na elaboração da sua ética do discurso. Pretendemos mostrar que Apel compreende que Peirce elabora uma transformação da filosofia transcendental kantiana, substituindo o “eu penso” por um “eu argumento”, neste viés Peirce demonstrou a existência de um acordo mútuo intersubjetivo dentro da comunidade científica. Sendo que, este acordo é mediado pela linguagem, e se dá em função da garantia da verdade das proposições. (...) Conclui-se que Apel ver em Peirce a introdução de uma ética mínima que supera o solipsismo metódico, e se baseia na intersubjetividade, tornando possível um acordo mútuo, que mais tarde será a base para a fundamentação pragmático-transcendental da ética do discurso. (shrink)

The present edition provides a detailed and accessible discussion ofhis theories and adds an account of the immediate responses to the book on publication.

Discusses contemporary notions of the self, and examines their origins, development, and effects.

Familiarity with Charles Darwin's treatise on evolution is essential to every well-educated individual. One of the most important books ever published--and a continuing source of controversy, a century and a half later--this classic of science is reproduced in a facsimile of the critically acclaimed first edition.

Should engineering ethics be taught? Despite the obvious truism that we all want our students to be moral engineers who practice virtuous professional behavior, I argue, in this article that the question itself obscures several ambiguities that prompt preliminary resolution. Upon clarification of these ambiguities, and an attempt to delineate key issues that make the question a philosophically interesting one, I conclude that engineering ethics not only should not, but cannot, be taught if we understand “teaching engineering ethics” to mean (...) training engineers to be moral individuals (as some advocates seem to have proposed). However, I also conclude that there is a justification to teaching engineering ethics, insofar as we are able to clearly identify the most desirable and efficacious pedagogical approach to the subject area, which I propose to be a case study-based format that utilizes the principle of human cognitive pattern recognition. (shrink)

The essays collected in this volume all explore the problem of the relation between moral philosophy and modernity. Charles Larmore addresses this problem by attempting to define the way distinctive forms of modern experience should orientate our moral thinking. Charles Larmore wonders whether the dominant forms of modern philosophy have not become blind to important dimensions of the moral life. The book argues against recent attempts to return to the virtue-centered perspective of ancient Greek ethics. As well as (...) exploring the differences between ancient and modern ethics, the author examines such topics as the roles of reason and history in our moral understanding, the inadequacy of philsophical naturalism, and the foundations of modern liberalism. There are also extended discussions of a number of leading contemporary philosophers: Rawls, Habermas, Williams and Rorty. (shrink)

This book proposes a new paradigm for the interpretation of Plato's early and middle dialogues. Rejecting the usual assumption of a distinct 'Socratic' period in the development of Plato's thought, this view regards the earlier works as deliberate preparation for the exposition of Plato's mature philosophy. Differences between the dialogues do not represent different stages in Plato's own thinking but rather different aspects and moments in the presentation of a new and unfamiliar view of reality. Once the fictional character of (...) the Socratic genre is recognised, there is no reason to regard Plato's early dialogues as representing the philosophy of the historical Socrates. The result is a unified interpretation of all of the dialogues down to the Republic and the Phaedrus. (shrink)

"This is a marvelous book, full of subtle, thoughtful, and original argument.