In this article I intend to justify six theses: (1) Temporal becoming is founded in an intuition-form of self-intuition, whereas physical space-time is independent of any form of intuition; (2) communicable thoughts are, as Kant says, products of self-consciousness; (3) both roots of idealism are connected by the tensed form of predication; (4) the thinking subject is, as Kant says, an appearance for itself; (5) the subject has, in virtue of this nature, the capacity of mental causality; and (6) mental (...) causality is a sufficient basis for a Kantian “causality from freedom”. (shrink)

“The A2 is Light,” Schelling explains to us in the Presentation of My System of Philosophy. Is such a statement meaningful, so that its truth value can be asked? Is it an empirical statement, which can be tested and possibly confirmed through observations? Or is it a synthetic a priori judgment independent of observations? Such questions are not easy to answer, and they are related to the logical status of Schelling’s theory as a whole. That such questions became important stems (...) from the peculiarity of the philosophical systems that were developed in Jena after 1800. They were called “systems of absolute idealism,” but it is not clear what this means. These systems include not only Schelling’s but also Hegel’s and Krause’s. In the following, some commonalities, as well as specific particularities, of these systems will be examined in more detail from the standpoint of methodology. (shrink)

Zusammenfassung Unser Wissen von Zukunft beruht weder auf Erfahrung noch auf Extrapolation aus Erfahrung, sondern ist apriorisch. Da es also apriorisches Wissen von Zeit gibt, kann eine apriorische Lösung des Induktionsproblems sinnvoll versucht werden.

In his book, Peter Rohs develops a dualism of process-types founded in a theory of time: a type of mental processes belonging to a time-theoretical ontology and a type of physical processes belonging to a timeless ontology (the ontology of physics). This dualism should be proved as a basis for a non-naturalistic philosophy of mind, through which a libertarian concept of freedom and of personal autonomy can be defended. This theory is, as Rohs tries to demonstrate, compatible with the theory (...) of evolution. (shrink)

By personal freedom I mean the “Kantian” capacity of bringing about spontaneously a new series of events. It is characterized by three conditions: there is an alternative, the explanation of the process needs to use action-words, deterministic laws cannot contain such expressions. The will is not a particular cause, but only a dependent moment in the process. Causality of freedom should be defined by the logical structure of the involved laws. Actions can be explained, but only ex post.