The main objective of the paper is to give initial answers to three important questions. Why did Leibniz visit Spinoza? Why did his preparation for this meeting include a modification of the ontological proof of God? What is the philosophical result of the meeting and what do possible worlds have to do with it? In order to provide answers, three closely related manuscripts by Leibniz from November 1676 have been compared and the slow conceptual change of his philosophical apparatus has (...) been analyzed. The last of these manuscripts was presented and read in front of Spinoza. Around that time Leibniz abandoned the idea of plurality of worlds (cf. Tschirnhaus) and instead proposed the idea of possible worlds, thus introducing possibility into the (onto/theo)logical structure itself in order to avoid the “precipice” of Spinoza’s necessity. What is interesting, however, is how exactly this conceptual change occurred at the end of 1676 and what its philosophical and methodological implications are. (shrink)

This dynamical interpretation of the continuum is based on a threefold perspective. First, detailed differentiation of all standard realms of Leibnizian Weltanschauung – (R real), (P phenomenal), (I ideal). Second, analysis of the scope of the Law of Continuity famously formulated by Leibniz and mapping it onto this (RPI) structure. Third, finding the precise place of dynamics and force in this (RPI) continuum.

In this paper I use a (post)phenomenological approach to clarify the objective cultural expansion of our technology. Thus, I establish a conceptual analogy between two different philosophical analyses of human–machine relations – one historical and one phenomenological. I develop the analogy between them and their corresponding concepts in several steps. (1) First, I present the Homo sapiens technicus tendency and then the phenomenological differentiation between body schema and body image. All of these elucidate our involvement with machines. (2) Then, I (...) conceptualize the term ‘context’, coupling its structural stability with the idea of distextaulity in order to achieve a better empirical understanding of our technological contradictions. (3) I continue to develop and enrich the analogy by illuminating the functional similarities – fluid boundary, automation, complexity – between contextual structures on the one hand and body schemata on the other. (4) Finally, I explore a deeper causal and narrative connection between those strands, shedding light on an interesting twofold circularity: a circular causation and a double narrative within Homo sapiens technicus. (shrink)

The volume Philosophy and Life Sciences in Dialogue is a result of the IV. International Summer School Bioethics in Context, organized by Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” and FernUniversität in Hagen. The book is exemplary in many ways. It contains 11 high-quality articles on fundamental themes and concepts with real philosophical depth – nature, autonomy, the future of trans- and post-humanism, the meta-topic of bioethics and its relations with life sciences. The authors present illuminating historical backgrounds as a context to (...) these theoretical discussions and a source of interesting or forgotten arguments. Most of the articles analyze recent and avantgarde scientific research with its social implications: CRISPR-Cas9 technology, digitalization of health care, justification of animal experiments, questions of human cloning, moral enhancement and the artificial synthesis of life. The main idea of the book is that bioethics is necessarily connected to human practice: it is not just knowledge but a living culture. (shrink)

В настоящата книга се изследва идеята за случайността през нейното историческо и концептуално развитие и са отделени пет основни и типични понятия. Анализът тръгва от класическите примери – Платон, Аристотел, Кант и Хегел – и стига до съвременния контекст на случайността, който е представен през теорията на вероятностите и теорията на сложността. Някои от изведените понятия са формализирани и имат по-логически, математически или пък информационен характер, а други са по-скоро физически или субектни, но всички те са представени в една обща (...) историческа типология. В нея се включва и парадигмата срещу случайността, която има теоретична, културна и дори органична природа. (shrink)

Книгата проследява зараждането на един от най-важните и продължителни исторически конфликти във философията на природата: борбата между релативисти и абсолютисти по отношение на пространството, времето и движението. Катализатор на този конфликт е Рене Декарт - първият, опитващ се да създаде последователна релационистична система във физиката, която обаче започва да ерозира още с възраженията на Нютон. Изследването разкрива и разгръща фундаменталните светогледни позиции на двамата учени през персонална, понятийна и контекстуална рамка. Ако използваме клишета, то в крайна сметка бащата на модерната (...) философия /Декарт/ и бащата на модерната физика /Нютон/ се разминават - точно както се разминават непрестанно идеите и понятията. В изследването са преведени за първи път на български език /от латински и от френски/ два основополагащи и често цитирани откъса от Нютон и Декарт. (shrink)