Since the end of the last century, there has been several ambitious attempts to naturalize Husserlian phenomenology by way of mathematization. To justify themselves in view of Husserl’s adamant antinaturalism, many of these attempts appeal to the new physico-mathematical tools that were unknown in Husserl’s time and thus allegedly make his position outdated. This paper critically addresses these mathematization proposals and aims to show that Husserl had, in fact, sufficiently good arguments that make his antinaturalistic position sound even today. (...) The starting point of the discussion presented in this paper is the mathematization project introduced by Jean-Michel Roy, Jean Petitot, Bernard Pachoud, and Francisco Varela in their introduction to the book Naturalizing Phenomenology. This proposal was followed by a number of critiques but also by several alternative naturalization attempts clearly inspired by Roy et al.’s ambitious project. The review of some of Husserl’s important arguments often overlooked or misinterpreted by both the naturalization advocates and their critics leads the author of the paper to the twofold conclusion which, on the one hand, explores the deeper reasons for the impossibility of a physical and mathematical treatment of phenomenology, on the other hand, clarifies the sense in which such treatments are possible, namely by way of restriction of the variety of experiential aspects that undergo naturalization and substitution of the aspects amenable to the direct mathematization for the directly unmathematizable ones. In the fourth section of this paper, the author attempts to demonstrate that, contrary to widespread belief, Husserl’s arguments are not obsolete by the standards of the contemporary physico-mathematical approaches employed in the mathematization of phenomenology and indeed stand the test of time. (shrink)

Philosophers of science have often noted that naturalism in science arose out of the struggle to free science or natural philosophy from its origin within a religious understanding of the world. The point of naturalism is to replace philosophical speculation with empirical research, and thus to use science to carry out philosophical work. Simultaneous with the rise of naturalism in the philosophy of science was an awareness and broader recognition of the influence of society on scientific inquiry. This chapter will (...) examine the tension between naturalism and the tenets of the sociology of science – that is, the cultural view of science, which is partly if not wholly antinaturalist – in order to determine to what extent, if any, the two are compatible. (shrink)

Los orígenes del patriarcado se remontan a los comienzos del pensamiento filosófico, por no mencionar el religioso, y los cuestionamientos a esa noción vienen tomando cada vez más impulso a lo largo del mundo en los últimos años. Un reflejo académico de ese movimiento es la relectura crítica de los clásicos de la filosofía a la luz del avance de los feminismos y las consideraciones de género. Juliana Udi brinda en su introducción a Patriarca un análisis exhaustivo de un clásico (...) de la filosofía política seguido de una traducción elegante y cuidadosamente anotada. Con ello intenta un regreso a las fuentes modernas del patriarcado político para identificar sus fundamentos teóricos y su contexto histórico, pero también para discutir desde una perspectiva de género su persistencia social en nuestros días. (shrink)

We begin by treating the antinaturalism of Edmund Husserl's phenomenology, and follow that by considering the recent project of “naturalizing phenomenology.” As a transitional figure, we treat Hans Jonas and the weakly emergent status he allows organismic life. In a section on “affirmative naturalism,” we treat Friedrich Nietzsche, Henri Bergson, and Gilles Deleuze, emphasizing their relation to Spinoza's ethics of joy. We conclude by considering the antinaturalism of continental philosophy positions in critical race theory (Linda Alcoff), gender theory (...) (Judith Butler), and disability studies (Shelley Tremain). (shrink)

Sartre's and Beauvoir's Antinaturalism as Critique of the Concepts of Gender Relations in ModernitySartre's and Beauvoir's antinaturalism can be seen as the rejection of the attribution of some particu-lar "nature" to specific social groups in order to deny essential aspects of their human being or even of their humanity as such. Since the existential approach starts from the lived experience and includes praxis as a crucial factor of becoming oneself, it makes possible to show some phenomena of human (...) being and human relations that remains invisible on the abstract philosophical level. One of these central phenomena is gender, respectively gender relations, and the interconnected mecha-nisms of oppression and social exclusion. The aim of the article is to reconstruct Sartre's and Beauvoir's antinaturalist conceptions and to compare it in order to articulate their consequences for the gender problematic. (shrink)

The paper deals with dispute between naturalism and antinaturalism in meta-ethics. Different standpoints are discussed, especially those of cognitivism, non-cognitivism and emotivism, which leads to certain typology. The author introduces the category of bonitive statements, statements concerning the good, which logic is analogous to the one which determinates relations between deontic statemens. Generalized Hume’s argument on the axiological statements as impossible to be derived from non-axiological is concerned. In particular, it is argued that it does not support antinaturalistic thesis. (...) The standpoint of axiological presentationism is proposed, which makes a link between non-cognitivism and the thesis according to which bonitive statements can be true or false and axiological presentationism can taken as a form of naturalism. (shrink)

Can epistemology be naturalized? The question has more than one sense. There are many forms of both the naturalistic stance and its denial in relation to different topics and by means of different strategies. Only some of them are instantiated in the existing literature. After a taxonomy of the range of possible forms of naturalism and anti-naturalism, the paper suggests an emergentist view which shifts the issue from psychology to cosmology.

W. V. Quine was the most important naturalistic philosopher of the twentieth century and a major impetus for the recent resurgence of the view that empirical science is our best avenue to knowledge. His views, however, have not been well understood. Critics charge that Quine’s naturalized epistemology is circular and that it cannot be normative. Yet, such criticisms stem from a cluster of fundamental traditional assumptions regarding language, theory, and the knowing subject – the very presuppositions that Quine is at (...) pains to reject. Through investigation of Quine’s views regarding language, knowledge, and reality, the author offers a new interpretation of Quine’s naturalism. The naturalism/antinaturalism debate can be advanced only by acknowledging and critiquing the substantial theoretical commitments implicit in the traditional view. Gregory argues that the responses to the circularity and non-normativity objections do just that. His analysis further reveals that Quine’s departure from the tradition penetrates the conception of the knowing subject, and he thus offers a new and engaging defence of Quine’s naturalism. (shrink)

If we appeal to God when our technology (including medicine) fails, we assume a “ God of the gaps.” It is religiously preferable to appreciate technological competence. Our successes challenge, however, religious convictions. Modifying words and images is not enough, as technology affects theology more deeply. This is illustrated by the history of chemistry. Chemistry has been perceived as wanting to transform and purify reality rather than to understand the created order. Thus, unlike biology and physics, chemistry did not provide (...) a fertile basis for natural theologies. It is argued that an active, transformative role of humans is appropriate in biblically inspired religions and called for in the light of imperfections and evil in the world. When the expression “playing God” is used dismissively, as if we trespass upon God–given territory, a theologically problematical association of God and the given order is assumed. A different view of the human calling can be articulated by drawing upon the Christian heritage and by developing an antinatural religious naturalism. (shrink)

The aim of the present investigation is to sketch a new approach to analysing normativity. First I locate the problem of normativity in the landscape of contemporary philosophy and focus on the dispute between naturalism and antinaturalism. Then I discuss the so-called top-down approach to studying normativity, to which I oppose the bottom-up approach inspired by contemporary philosophy of science. I see the integration of these approaches as enabling investigations of normative phenomena that do not reduce them to just (...) one type of normativity. (shrink)

This paper examines Felix Kaufmann’s ideas on the methodology of social sciences through the example of the Marshall Society at Cambridge University and on how these ideas spread. The scope of the study includes his correspondence with the Marshall Society and his unpublished text prepared for a lecture held in 1936. Connections are established between the main theme of Kaufmann’s Methodenlehre der Sozialwissenschaften (1936) and the unpublished text of his lecture, where he highlighted the problems that the naturalism‑antinaturalism dichotomy (...) posed for the methodology of the social sciences and the promising advances in the exact sciences to overcome these problems. Kaufmann avoided adopting a totally rejectionist and adaptive attitude, emphasized that natural and social sciences may have common and different methods, and argued that some methodological conflicts could be reconciled. Kaufmann’s unpublished text serves as an English précis of his 1936 book and facilitates the dissemination of his ideas through the Marshall Society. (shrink)

In this paper, I shall apply the idea of ‘moral relativism’ in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The concept of ‘moral relativism’ has been closely related to postmodernism, and in particular proponents of Aristotlian reject Nietzsche’s kind of relativism, yet the issues remained part of Nietzsche’s philosophy and prominently situated in his philosophical works. Nietzsche talks about morality as antinature, he thinks that how morality is repressive ‘relative’ to what we might concern as the unbridled manifestation of wants and needs (...) and appetites. In his famous publications of Beyond Good and Evil (1886) and On the Genealogy of Morals (1887), Nietzsche argues intensively and effectively about morality, his thought undoubtedly has a pronounced relativistic tendencies. Moral values are not universal and absolute, but are therefore conditional constructions of particular group at particular times with particular goals. Nietzsche speaks in the “interpretation” or “perspective” regarding morality or values in particular. According to Nietzsche, no one kind of morality is correct and neither is incorrect nor unacceptable for everyone; it should be noted that Nietzsche considers that each is correct for one type of person and incorrect for others. This makes it possible for Nietzsche to take a more important level on moral relativism. (shrink)

NATURALISTIC OPPOSITION AGAINST DESCARTES’S THOUGHT My aim is to point out the foundations of Descartes’s programmatic antinaturalism, but also the margin left by Descartes in his program for a dialogue with the followers of naturalism. The latter used it more than once, but this opening for a dialogue was interpreted by them as Descartes’s support for naturalism. In my opinion it is not only a false interpretation of the philosopher’s intention, but also a false presentation of his views on (...) human nature and the world that surrounds us. Keywords: DESCARTES, ANTINATURALISM, NATURALISM. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:MatteringPheng Cheah (bio)Judith Butler. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge, 1993.Elizabeth Grosz. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1994.Any cursory survey of contemporary cultural-political theory and criticism will indicate that the related concepts of “nature” and “the given” are not highly valued terms. The reason for this disdain and even moral disapprobation of naturalistic accounts of human existence is supposed (...) to be self-evident: simply put, in a post-Newtonian age, nature refers to the totality of objects governed by immutable causal laws. If human existence was merely natural or given, then we would never be able to alter the conditions that bring about human oppression. Antinaturalism in contemporary theory, however, betrays a deep fear in its repetitive tirades against the natural. For if it is so obviously precritical to treat human existence as given, then why does antinaturalism need to be articulated again and again? This obsessive pushing away of nature may well constitute an acknowledgement-in-disavowal that humans may be natural creatures after all. Furthermore, as a theoretical position, antinaturalism itself is produced by the polemical energy that strives to keep nature at bay, in quarantine from the sphere of human life. Consequently, antinaturalism works with a conventional philosophical definition of nature which it may do well to question. We may therefore be justified in claiming that, far from being tired superstitions that savvy discourse analysts and cultural constructionists can leave behind, the concepts of “nature” and “the given” are, in fact, neuralgic points, the contested sites around which any theory of political transformation is organized.In its conventional usage, nature is opposed to a whole host of other terms: history, culture, law, production, and so forth. The slipperiness of nature, however, is seen in the fact that the relation between nature and its others defies characterization as a simple relation of exteriority between two ontologically distinct terms. For instance, the relation of nature to history can be posed not only in terms of the modification of nature by historical agency but also from within the realm of historical agency insofar as the constraints of structure or construction on transformative rational agency seem to replicate the limitations or weightiness of nature. Feminism is an exemplary site for rehearsing this fundamental questioning of the distinction between nature and its others because it must refute biologistic and naturalistic justifications for the oppression of women even as it must affirm women’s bodily specificity as the minimal consensual stuff which grounds feminist practice. As Zillah Eisenstein astutely observes in spite of her own intellectual allegiances, “if the body is already engendered in this way, how can we claim our bodies without reproducing the inequities of the gender-system?... [S]o we become involved in explicating patriarchal relations without knowing where patriarchy begins and ends in the definition of a woman’s or a mother’s body. What aspect of the body constitutes a woman’s potential capacities, and what part articulates her oppression?” [73, 75]. [End Page 108] Philosophically speaking, the giving of body or matter—what I propose to call “mattering”—may be the process where history and nature become uncannily indistinguishable in a manner that is both enabling and disabling for political transformation, its condition of (im)possibility.Thus far, the productive unease in feminist theory occasioned by the body as the ambivalent ground of both oppression and emancipatory transformation has resulted in debates over the sex/gender distinction and the question of essentialism/antiessentialism. 1 Discussion has, however, primarily centered on the strategic deployment of the body as a political resource. Two recent books—Judith Butler’s Bodies That Matter and Elizabeth Grosz’s Volatile Bodies—stand out because they promise to raise discussion to a level where political issues concerning the body can be reevaluated through a rigorous rethinking of the relation between nature and its others: culture, history, and society. The authors of these books share the distinctive aim of articulating a feminist theory that is centered on a philosophical exploration of the status of the body. Both Grosz and Butler are trained in Continental philosophy, where the secondary status of... (shrink)

The tendency in semiotics toward unnecessary abstractionism and antinaturalism is criticized. More broadly, a transformation is proposed from abstractionism, with its fetishism of signs, to an animism of signs in which the imagination and the signs it gives birth to not only reconnect with the biocultural heritage, but also animate an idea of culture as involving living purpose, not simply inert code. See the revised version of this chapter in my book, Meaning and Modernity.

Este artigo se divide em duas partes. Na primeira seção, após a introdução, mapeamos as diversas ocorrências de “phýsis” ao longo das Hipotiposes Pirrônicas de Sexto Empírico, dividindo-as em 5 categorias: “natureza” como o real, em posição à “aparência”; o “natural” como aquilo que parece próprio, pertencente a algo ou alguém; a “Natureza”, como uma dimensão criadora e regente; o “natural” em oposição ao “antinatural”; a “natureza dos homens”. A forma como esses diversos usos aparecem na obra é invariavelmente crítica, (...) como elementos da argumentação contra os dogmáticos, especialmente os estoicos. Na segunda parte do trabalho, entretanto, mostramos como a “phýsis” aparece também de maneira positiva no início das Hipotiposes com a função de guia para a vida, como parte da resposta à célebre objeção da apraxía. Além disso, defendemos a hipótese de que a “natureza”, da perspectiva de Sexto, não se opõe nem ultrapassa as convenções e os costumes; pelo contrário, a natureza é o que é reconhecido por todos e é mesmo determinada pelas convenções e pelos costumes. (shrink)

The starting point of the article is claim, that the well-known distinction between natural sciences as explaining and human sciences as interpreting made by W. Dilthey and distinction between idiographic and nomothetic sciences made by H. Rickert are both inadequate at present. Human sciences separate their research areas using logics and statistics and formulating many generalizations and even laws. So it can be argued that they can give explanations sensu stricto. First part of the article describes contemporary controversy naturalism-anti­naturalism in (...) formulation of M. Salmon, who presents the third middle way, that some human science as linguistics or evolutionary psychology can give causal explanations without appealing to human reasons as causes. This standpoint, however, can lead to reductionism and necessity of separating in each human science some kind of "scientific core", which seems to be undesirable. Second part of the article presents possible applications of the D-N model of explanation of C. G. Hempel in human sciences, which is connected with well-known controversy whether these sciences formulate any laws (especially history but also linguistics for example). Leaving out, however, this important question and accepting statement proposed by J. Such, that some generalizations can serve as a premises in D-N arguments, we can claim that some D-N explanations are possible also in human sciences. (shrink)

Klemens Szaniawski has been dealing with many philosophical problems, but the philosophical foundations of statistics and theory of decision were his main interest. Unfortunately, he did not present his results and considerations in a synthetic monograph. One can suppose, however, that it would be an attempt to look at science from the point of view of someone who makes epistemic decisions and to regard statistical inferences as paradigmatic scientific procedures. The material concerning that subject contained in Szaniawski's published papers justifies (...) the claim that it would be an extremely interesting synthesis. The author presents consequences for naturalism and antinaturalism that the discussions surrounding the foundations of statistics and decision theory has brought about. He often employs the results obtained by Szaniawski. (shrink)

Unamuno saw in his defense of religious faith a response to Nietzsche’s criticisms of the Christian, agapeic way of life. To Nietzsche’s claim that engaging in this way of life is something antinatural and life-denying, insofar as it goes against the (alleged) natural tendency to increase one’s own power, Unamuno responded that an agapeic way of life is precisely a direct expression of this natural tendency. Far from being something that goes against our natural inclinations, Unamuno says, an agapeic way (...) of life is a life-affirming exercise, something we are led to given our own natural condition. Hence, the aim of this essay is to comment on Unamuno’s criticism of Nietzsche and to point out the philosophical relevance of Unamuno’s attempt to provide a natural foundation for religious faith when assessing Nietzsche’s criticisms of the possibility of carrying out a Christian, agapeic way of life. (shrink)

O experimento mental como recurso filosófico não é raro ou mesmo recente – podemos pensar no gato de Schrödinger ou na alegoria platônica da caverna. Porém, é incomum que textos ancorados na Filosofia se proponham a analisar objetos ou debater propostas da literatura de ficção, e em especial, da ficção científica. Apressadamente tomada, a relação levantaria um descompasso entre a preocupação filosófica com realidade e verdade e a libertária licença poética da ficção. É como se imaginação filosófica e imaginação criativa (...) não pudessem coexistir. Advogamos justo o oposto disso. Acreditamos que esse descompasso não se sustenta para além da aparência, de uma imposição forçosamente rígida entre realidade e ficção como campos apartados. Este artigo pretende analisar a possibilidade de a ficção científica operar como ferramenta cognitiva capaz não só de simular, mas propor novas dinâmicas para o mundo presente, informando sobre o real. Aproximando o exercício de criar histórias do exercício de pensar realidades alternativas, a ficção científica abre espaço para o questionamento crítico e transformação de nossa própria realidade da vigília, deixando de ser um mero devaneio necessariamente desprovido de agência no mundo. Para tanto, faremos uso de certos aspectos da filosofia semiótica de Charles S. Peirce e de alguns ensaios de Ursula K. Le Guin acerca da ficção científica e da habilidade narrativa. Para Peirce, signos encadeiam-se ininterruptamente em semioses que participam tanto na compreensão do mundo quanto em sua intervenção. Ainda que o exercício da ficção científica possa parecer à primeira vista contraintuitivo ou antinatural, explorar mentalmente novas possibilidades pode render insights preciosos. Peirce institui e valoriza um terceiro modo de pensamento, diferente da lógica vertical da dedução e da indução: a abdução, operação do raciocínio que busca explicar fatos por meio de hipóteses. Poderíamos pensar que a ficção científica muitas vezes se vale de abduções na busca de vislumbrar uma compreensão mais profunda. Insights não simplesmente bons para examinar como seriam situações alternativas, fictícias, mas úteis na necessária tarefa de pôr-se em crítica e transformação contínua do mundo para um lugar melhor. De Ursula Le Guin, examinamos de que modo a habilidade – até onde sabemos – humana de narração fictícia pode ser uma tecnologia de transformação do que é o caso no presente real no qual convivemos. A autora faz uma analogia entre a capacidade de narrar e a cesta: ambas seriam umas das primeiras tecnologias evolutivas de nossa espécie. Cestas e bolsas, histórias e estórias, são artefatos semióticos que armazenam, transportam, reúnem, classificam, alimentam. A ficção como uma cesta e como um signo é uma proposta que alberga e põe em relação não só humanos, mas seres diversos, conectados em semioses mais ou menos próximas, mais ou menos dependentes, mais ou menos perceptíveis; mas nunca, irreais. (shrink)

The article focuses on the anti-naturalism of Menger and Mises. It presents a methodological approach formulated by both scholars as stemming from epistemological anti-naturalism and demonstrating similarities to social phenomenology. The article also discusses the development of the anti-naturalistic perspective on the basis of Hayek’s conception of sensory order. The latter allowed addressing the problem of validity of methodological dualism and established a sound foundation for the methodological approach of the Austrian School of Economics.

Feuerbach deixa claro que a teologia cristã se relaciona negativamente ante a natureza. A depreciação ou desvalorização religiosa pela natureza tem consequências para o julgamento da natureza humana por parte da teologia, pois esta condena também a dimensão natural-sensível da natureza do homem e, frente a esta, enaltece o espírito. Precisamente porque a natureza expressa objetividade, necessidade, corporeidade, sensibilidade, é ela o negativo, por assim dizer uma prova dos limites da interioridade, do sentimento religioso, isto é, a barreira concreta que (...) se opõe à ilusão de uma existência sobrenatural. Deste ponto de vista cristão, ela deve, portanto, ser eliminada, negada. Feuerbach argumenta que Deus (o todo supremo, a essência sublime), o qual a fantasia religiosa criou, é apenas uma representação fantasmagórica do gênero humano, uma construção subjetiva do homem, abstraída de todas as fronteiras e restrições da natureza, e a religião cristã serve ao homem como um meio, com o qual ele tenta livrar-se da natureza. (shrink)