Die vorliegende Arbeit ist die teilweise überarbeitete Fassung meiner Dissertation, die im Wintersemester 1994/95 von der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln angenommen wurde (Tag des Rigorosums war der 5. Februar 1995). Zur ursprünglichen Fassung (Einleitung und Kommentar) ist später die kritische Ausgabe des Textes hinzugefügt worden. Die Veröffentlichung der Arbeit wurde aus verschiedenen Gründen verschoben. Ich habe allerdings versucht, die inzwischen erschienene Literatur, soweit es mir möglich war, zu berücksichtigen. In der Einleitung werden alle Fragen ausführlich behandelt, auf eine (...) Diskussion über die Beziehung Platons zu Thukydides wurde aber verzichtet. Diesem Problem werde ich an anderem Ort nachgehen. Im Kommentar wurde bewußt besonderes Gewicht sowohl auf auf textkritische als auch auf historische Fragen gelegt, nicht jedoch die zahlreichen rhetorischen Figuren, da sie schon in der Dissertation von Th. Berndt übersichtlich zusammengestellt sind. Betreut wurde die Arbeit von Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. RudolfKassel. Seine große Gelehrsamkeit und wissenschaftliche Strenge haben meine Arbeit stark gefördert. Für seine Kritik, fiir seine zahlreichen Hinweise und nicht zuletzt fiir seine Geduld möchte ich ihm sehr herzlich danken. Mein Dank gilt auch all jenen, die mir während meines Studiums in Deutschland und bei der Entstehung dieser Arbeit geholfen haben: Prof. Dr. K. Bormann hat bereitwillig das Korreferat übernommen; Prof. Dr. P. Funke hat den Teil über den Korinthischen Krieg gelesen und einige nützliche Hinweise beigesteuert; Prof. Dr. G. A. Lehmann hat mein Studium der Alten Geschichte stets freundlich begleitet; Prof. Dr. D. (shrink)

Some aspects of the problem of measurement in quantum theory are treated. We stress that the problem is both physical and conceptual, that the physical problem has been solved and the conceptual one is inherent in quantum theory. We also deal with some remarks made by Wigner concerning physics and the explanation of life, and present alternative positions on the mind-matter relationship within a deterministic framework, as we see them.

In a Recent article [9], Alexander Rosenberg attacks the “manipulative” view of causation as being unilluminating and as being beset with difficulties. As a proponent of that view [3], I have felt it necessary to take up cudgels in its defence.Rosenberg's criticisms are directed at Gasking's version of this view [5]. Gasking's recipe for causation is, “one says ‘A causes B’ in cases where one could produce an event of the A sort as a means to producing one of the (...) B sort”. Here it is taken for granted that we have general manipulative techniques for producing events of the A sort and that this is implicitly assumed when one speaks of A as a cause. There is one qualification to this formula for causes which arises from the necessity for individuating processes, namely, that, for A to be the cause of B, it must not always lead to B, but only in special cases. (shrink)

Is the Copenhagen interpretation really a subjective one? What is the special role that observations play in quantum theory? Is there really something peculiar about the projection postulate? Why does the Copenhagenist treat probabilities as properties of individual systems? Is there a measurement problem, and if so, can itin principle be solved within the framework of quantum theory? We offer aconceptual treatment of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics in which these questions are answered and contrast it with another interpretation (...) which we call Popperism. The interpretations differ in their choice of a state description, from which it follows that they will offer a different account of the relation of measurements to states and different ways of describing quantum theory. But the two descriptions are equally consistent and physically completely equivalent. (shrink)

We consider the mind-dependence or independence of the "now," of "becoming," and of "time's arrow," by considering the various senses in which these notions might be mind-dependent or not. These matters cannot be sensibly discussed without taking a stand regarding criteria of "reality." Proceeding from a basically phenomenalist position we conclude that merely to differentiate between appearance and reality is implicitly to assume a directed flow of time. We discuss the relationship between phenomenological and physical time and their possible asymmetries. (...) We find that physical time acquires meaning only through phenomenological time, and that phenomenological time is fundamentally asymmetric. This still leaves room for the question: Is there anything in physical time which reflects the fact that it, to be meaningful, must be applied asymmetrically? The relevance of relativity theory to this question is discussed. (shrink)

We rebut the objections to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics presented by Park [9,10], Margenau [10], and Popper [11]. It seems to us that these authors, having adopted different interpretations of quantum mechanics, have been unable to grasp the perspective of the Copenhagenist. They therefore miss the points which the Copenhagenist is making when he: accords a special status to observations in quantum theory; attributes a state vector to an individual system; places restrictions on the simultaneous measurability of non-commuting (...) observables; hesitates to use his measurements for retrodictions. In our opinion, the arguments of the above authors reflect their incomprehension of Copenhagenism. Elsewhere [5,6] we have discussed two alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics which we have called Copenhagenism and Popperism. We have there shown how the dispute between the schools stems from disparate uses of the word ‘state’. We continue the discussion here within the context of the above points and show how these disparate notions of state are related to diverse notions of ‘behaviour’. (shrink)

We treat some puzzling aspects of the notions of objects and attributes by presenting a mathematical model which exhibits these very same, seemingly perplexing, features.

Durkheim écrit ce livre avec un but double : d'abord il voulait expliquer ce qui crée une société, ce qui la tient ensemble ; ensuite il voulait éclaircir l'influence qu'a la société sur la pensée logique. Pour Durkheim, la religion est la clé utilisée pour déverrouiller ces deux problématiques.Dans ce livre, Durkheim argumente que les représentations religieuses sont en fait des représentations collectives : l'essence du religieux ne peut être que le sacré. Il est une caractéristique qui se trouve universellement (...) dans toutes les religions. Le sacré, être collectif et impersonnel, représente ainsi la société elle-même. Ensuite il argumente que la société a un impact majeur dans la genèse de la pensée logique. C'est la société qui fournit à l'individu les catégories (le temps, l'espace, le nombre etc.) et les concepts nécessaires pour la pensée logique. (shrink)

É bem conhecida a oposição estabelecida por Kant entre experiência possível e dialética, na medida em que esta última é caracterizada como a “lógica da ilusão”. Ao mesmo tempo, o modo de pensar metafísico, que ocorre dialeticamente, em sentido kantiano, é uma tendência inevitável da razão, expressa na exigência formal de completude das categorias. Como o pensar, enquanto exercício livre da razão, é em si mesmo mais amplo do que a atividade de conhecer, própria do entendimento, o pensar contém o (...) conhecimento, embora este se qualifique pelas regras e pelos limites determinantes da objetividade. A pergunta que tentaremos formular é se essa relação continente-conteúdo não poderia configurar também uma dependência da experiência em relação ao raciocínio dialético, que estaria de algum modo indicada na função reguladora das idéias da razão. Nesse caso, a oposição formal entre conhecer e pensar seria inseparável da inclusão estrutural (dependência) da experiência no âmbito da razão. Na raiz do problema estaria talvez a tensão (dialética) entre a aspiração subjetiva de totalidade e as exigências objetivas de limitação e segmentação da experiência e a forma da experiência teria de ser finalmente concebida a partir de um fundo de inteligibilidade problemática. Dialectics and experienceThe separation of possible experience as objective knowledge and dialetics as a non-objective or non-theoretical knowledge is one of the most important aspects of kantian critical philosophy. But Kant also says that the activity of reason, as a pure thinking, has more amplitude than understanding knowledge. So we could say that theoric knowledge would depend on rational ( and non-theoretical) knowledge, as something contained in it. If we accept that, the consequence would be a relation of dependence between the form of objective knowledge and the background of a problematic – even doubtful – inteligible knowledge. (shrink)

gl. 1. Ėkofilosofii︠a︡ kak zhiznesokhrani︠a︡i︠u︡shchiĭ kulʹturnyĭ proekt -- gl. 2. Obrazy kulʹtury mira v istoriko-personologicheskom izmerenii -- gl. 3. Borʹba za mir v sovremennom mire : opyt, kont︠s︡ept︠s︡ii, modeli resheniĭ.

Em artigo inédito, Franklin Leopoldo e Silva desenvolve os sentidos da memória na produção da identidade, destacando as relações significativas do presente com o passado e o futuro na construção da história. Desse ponto, o autor acentua o papel das instituições nesse processo – um processo de exercício de poder, no qual se tem, na verdade, a institucionalização do poder – e, dentre elas, em particular a instituição universitária.

O presente artigo visa analisar, a partir do pensamento do filósofo Michel Foucault, o exercício da liberdade sob uma perspectiva ética, no âmbito do estoicismo tardio. Liberdade essa que se faz possível a partir do cuidado de si, por meio de exercícios regulares que possibilitam ao indivíduo viver a vida como arte. Com efeito, é na prática do cuidado de si, que o indivíduo se coloca como transformador do mundo e de si mesmo, o qual dá-se no encontro com o (...) outro, longe de ser uma experiência solitária com o próprio eu, realiza-se na associação com outrem. (shrink)

Neste livro Gombrich discute as idéias e as posturas específicas que tiveram influência decisiva na prática da arte renascentista. Todos os estudos aqui reunidos tratam de algo a que se pode chamar clima renascentista de opiniões sobre a arte, além da influência desse clima sobre a prática e a crítica da arte.

Alfred Edward Housman (1859–1936), ki je kasneje postal angleški pesnik in eden največjih filologov svojega časa, je svoj zafrkantski »fragment« objavil pri triindvajsetih, leta 1883, v reviji Bromsgrovian. Revijo je izdajala Bromsgrove School, kjer se je šolal kot najstnik (1870–77); na šolo, ki je prva prepoznala njegov jezikovni in pesniški talent, se je za kratek čas (1881–82) vrnil kot pomožni učitelj po ne­pričakovanem študijskem porazu na Oxfordu. Kot ugotavlja Ralph Marcellino, ni naključje, da besedilo paro­dira predvsem Ajshila, ki je bil (...) Housmanov najljubši pesnik. V njem odzvanja Oresteja, zlasti drami Agamemnon in Prinašalke pitnih darov, verjetno zato, ker so ju dijaki na šoli, kjer je poučeval, pri pouku največ brali. Prav ta ciljna publika je znala ceniti norčevanje iz retoričnih figur ter sintaktičnih konstrukcij, ki jim jih je njihov pomožni učitelj vbijal v glavo. (shrink)

Wittgenstein’s concepts shed light on the phenomenon of schizophrenia in at least three different ways: with a view to empathy, scientific explanation, or philosophical clarification. I consider two different “positive” wittgensteinian accounts―Campbell’s idea that delusions involve a mechanism of which different framework propositions are parts, Sass’ proposal that the schizophrenic patient can be described as a solipsist, and a Rhodes’ and Gipp’s account, where epistemic aspects of schizophrenia are explained as failures in the ordinary background of certainties. I argue that (...) none of them amounts to empathic-phenomenological understanding, but they provide examples of how philosophical concepts can contribute to scientific explanation, and to philosophical clarification respectively. (shrink)

Los recientes desarrollos de la inteligencia artificial generativa suponen desafíos a conceptos tradicionales del Derecho, uno de ellos es el de autoría. El problema que aborda este trabajo es cómo concebir la autoría de una obra escrita por una inteligencia artificial generativa en la que la intervención humana, en cuestiones de estilo y contenido, es nula o mínima. Para ello se enumeran casos recientes en los que se plantea ese problema a partir de artículos escritos empleando ese tipo de tecnología. (...) Pero el objetivo del trabajo es la revisión de la concepción de autoría que subyace a las normativas internacionales que regulan la propiedad intelectual y los presupuestos éticos que las justifican (la concepción de Locke, la concepción romántica y la concepción utilitarista). Sobre la base de una lectura de “¿Qué es un autor?” de Michel Foucault se sostiene que la noción de autoría cumple una función social que, al menos al estado del arte de la inteligencia artificial generativa, esta no puede cumplir y, por tanto, no debe ser reconocida como autora de las obras mencionadas. Concluyendo que las obras literarias elaboradas por inteligencia artificial generativa multipropósito con nula o escasa intervención humana deben ser consideradas como obras de dominio público. (shrink)

O objetivo deste texto é explorar aproximações e divergências no pensamento de Paulo Freire e Ivan Illich na forma como eles vêem a relação entre educação e transformação social. Acredita-se que a retomada da polêmica Freire e Illich sobre o problema educação e transformação social pode contribuir para melhor compreender e esclarecer a verdadeira natureza desse problema, já clássico na história da educação moderna.