The standard model for mereotopological structures are Boolean subalgebras of the complete Boolean algebra of regular closed subsets of a nonempty connected regular T 0 topological space with an additional "contact relation" C defined by xCy x ØA (possibly) more general class of models is provided by the Region Connection Calculus (RCC) of Randell et al. We show that the basic operations of the relational calculus on a "contact relation" generate at least 25 relations in any model of the RCC, (...) and hence, in any standard model of mereotopology. It follows that the expressiveness of the RCC in relational logic is much greater than the original 8 RCC base relations might suggest. We also interpret these 25 relations in the the standard model of the collection of regular open sets in the two-dimensional Euclidean plane. (shrink)

The standard model for mereotopological structures are Boolean subalgebras of the complete Boolean algebra of regular closed subsets of a nonempty connected regular T0 topological space with an additional "contact relation" C defined by xCy ? x n ? Ø.

English summary: The modern age understands justice not only as being an object of jurisprudence. Historical, philosophical, social and cultural studies along with theological approaches each draw near to justice in their own way. This collection devotes itself to the intricate interaction of outside perspectives with the judicial-interdisciplinary thematisation of the law, presenting revised papers delivered at the Protestant Institute for Interdisciplinary Research's symposium in honour of Professor Dr. Dres. h.c. Eberhard Schmidt-Aamann. The case studies and basic considerations deal (...) with, among other things, the function of the law in antique city states, the immanence and transcendence of justice from a theological perspective, as well as the relationship between economics and legal study. German description: Das Recht ist in der Moderne langst nicht nur Gegenstand der Rechtswissenschaft. Historische, philosophische, sozial- und kulturwissenschaftliche wie auch theologische Ansatze nahern sich dem Recht in je eigener Weise. Solche Aussenperspektiven stehen in komplexer Wechselwirkung mit der juristisch-binnendisziplinaren Thematisierung des Rechts. Dieser Sammelband ist dem Wechselspiel von Aussen- und Binnenperspektiven gewidmet. Er vereint die uberarbeiteten Beitrage eines Symposions, das an der Forschungsstatte der Evangelischen Studiengemeinschaft in Heidelberg zu Ehren von Prof. Dr. Dres. h.c. Eberhard Schmidt-Assmann veranstaltet wurde. Die exemplarischen Fallstudien und Grundsatzuberlegungen thematisieren unter anderem die Funktion des Rechts in antiken Stadtstaaten, die Immanenz und Transzendenz des Rechts aus theologischer Perspektive sowie das Verhaltnis von Okonomik und Rechtswissenschaft. Mit Beitragen von: Hans Diefenbacher, Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Klaus Gunther, Christoph Mollers, Thorsten Moos, Michael Moxter, Bernhard Nagel, Martin Ramstedt, Karl-Siegbert Rehberg, Magnus Schlette, Eberhard Schmidt-Assmann. (shrink)

Should decision-making algorithms be held to higher standards of transparency than human beings? The way we answer this question directly impacts what we demand from explainable algorithms, how we govern them via regulatory proposals, and how explainable algorithms may help resolve the social problems associated with decision making supported by artificial intelligence. Some argue that algorithms and humans should be held to the same standards of transparency and that a double standard of transparency is hardly justified. We give two arguments (...) to the contrary and specify two kinds of situations for which higher standards of transparency are required from algorithmic decisions as compared to humans. Our arguments have direct implications on the demands from explainable algorithms in decision-making contexts such as automated transportation. (shrink)

The normative force of evidence can seem puzzling. It seems that having conclusive evidence for a proposition does not, by itself, make it true that one ought to believe the proposition. But spelling out the condition that evidence must meet in order to provide us with genuine normative reasons for belief seems to lead us into a dilemma: the condition either fails to explain the normative significance of epistemic reasons or it renders the content of epistemic norms practical. The first (...) aim of this paper is to spell out this challenge for the normativity of evidence. I argue that the challenge rests on a plausible assumption about the conceptual connection between normative reasons and blameworthiness. The second aim of the paper is to show how we can meet the challenge by spelling out a concept of epistemic blameworthiness. Drawing on recent accounts of doxastic responsibility and epistemic blame, I suggest that the normativity of evidence is revealed in our practice of suspending epistemic trust in response to impaired epistemic relationships. Recognizing suspension of trust as a form of epistemic blame allows us to make sense of a purely epistemic kind of normativity the existence of which has recently been called into doubt by certain versions of pragmatism and instrumentalism. (shrink)

How can we be responsible for our attitudes if we cannot normally choose what we believe, desire, feel, and intend? This problem has received much attention during the last decades, both in epistemology and in ethics. Yet its connections to discussions about reasons and rationality have been largely overlooked. Responsibility for Rationality is the first book that connects recent debates on responsibility and on rationality in a unifying dialectic. It achieves four main goals: first, it reinterprets the problem of responsibility (...) for attitudes as a problem about the normativity of rationality; second, it breaks the stalemate between rationalist and voluntarist accounts of mental responsibility by defending a hybrid view; third, it provides novel support to recent accounts of the normativity of rationality by arguing that epistemic reasons and other ‘right-kind’ reasons are genuine normative reasons; fourth, it sets the foundations and the research agenda for an ‘ethics of mind’, including an illustration of how to approach applied issues in epistemology within the presented framework. After spelling out connections between responsibility and rationality (part I), the book engages in debates in normative epistemology (part II) and brings them to bear on the broader field of an ethics of mind (part III). -/- Full draft of current version available on request, comments welcome! (shrink)

Many of our attitudes are non-culpable: there was nothing that we should have done to avoid holding them. I argue that we can still be blameworthy for non-culpable attitudes: they can impair our relationships in ways that make our full practice of apology and forgiveness intelligible. My argument poses a new challenge to indirect voluntarists, who attempt to reduce all responsibility for attitudes to responsibility for prior actions and omissions. Rationalists, who instead explain attitudinal responsibility by appeal to reasons-responsiveness, can (...) make sense of blameworthiness for non-culpable attitudes. In response, voluntarists could propose a revision of our actual practices. This would lead us into a quite different debate. (shrink)

Der Monotheismus ist die wohl wichtigste Entdeckung - oder Erfindung? - der Geistesgeschichte. Er entwickelte sich im Verlauf der Bewältigungsversuche komplexer als erwartet. Gottes (vermeintliche) Offenbarung bleibt geheimnisvoll: Sind intellektueller und kultischer Gottesbezug überhaupt möglich oder sind sie ein paradoxes Geschäft, das seinen Gegenstand erst produziert? Wie könnte man sich diesem Gegenstand nähern? Ist es überhaupt ein Gegenstand oder sprengt Gott alle Begrifflichkeit und alle menschliche Vernunft? Ist vielleicht negative Theologie die vernünftigste 'Logie'? Oder solle man die Intellektualität im Bezug (...) auf Gott aufgeben? Kann man vielleicht Gott an Spuren erkennen? Und warum wüsste man, dass es seine Spuren sind? Das Buch stellt Fragen nach dem angemessenen Umgang mit dem Unverfügbaren; und schon das Fragestellen erweist sich als problematisch. Die Fragen bleiben unbeantwortet. Aber sie werden gestellt. Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, geb. 1946, Dr. phil., Professor für Philosophie an der Freien Universität Berlin; 1999 Fellow an der University of Pennsylvania, 2004/05 am Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton; 2011 Gastprofessor an der Universität Tel-Aviv; Forschungsschwerpunkte: Religionsphilosophie, Geschichte der Philosophie und Philologie in der Frühen Neuzeit, Geschichtsphilosophie, Geschichte der Metaphysik und Geschichte der politischen Philosophie. (shrink)

"In der Philosophie der Gegenwart fehlt es an einem systematischen Lehrbuche uber die verwickelten Strukturverhaltnisse, die unseren alltaglichen und wissenschaftlichen Wirklichkeitsbegriffen zu Grunde liegen. Das vorliegende Buch versucht, diese Lucke auszufullen. Dem umfassenden Feld seiner Aufgabe entsprechend wendet es sich nicht nur an den engeren Kreis der Fachphilosophen, sondern zugleich an den weiteren Kreis aller derjenigen, denen der Wirklichkeitsbegriff ihres Arbeitsgebietes ein Problem ist." "(Aus dem Vorwort zu Band I)" Der Greifswalder Philosophieprofessor Gunther Jacoby (1889-1969) gilt neben Nicolai Hartmann (...) als Begrunder einer neuen, beschreibendenden Ontologie, die zu Beginn dieses Jahrhunderts als Gegenbewegung zum Neukantianismus entstand und die in ihren Raum- und Zeitanalysen die Ergebnisse der Relativitatstheorie Albert Einsteins verarbeitete. Jacobys Hauptwerk "Allgemeine Ontologie der Wirklichkeit" (der erste Band erschien 1925, der zweite Band in 2 Teilen 1955), das seit langerem vergriffen ist, wird jetzt als Reprint wieder aufgelegt, erganzt durch eine Einleitung und ein Verzeichnis seiner Publikationen.". (shrink)