This remarkable work shows Meister Eckhart the thirteenth-century western mystic, as the great teacher of the birth of God in the soul, who shatters the dualism between God and the world, and the self and God.

This is my personal homepage. Find my philosophical papers under "Philosophy".

In a recent Philosophy of Science article Gerhard Schurz proposes meta-inductivistic prediction strategies as a new approach to Hume's. This comment examines the limitations of Schurz's approach. It can be proven that the meta-inductivist approach does not work any more if the meta-inductivists have to face an infinite number of alternative predictors. With his limitation it remains doubtful whether the meta-inductivist can provide a full solution to the problem of induction.

Dem anthropofugalen Denken wird die dionysische Bejahung des Lebens entgegengestellt. Nietzsches Ja zum Leben steht somit solchen Denkern entgegen, die das Heil der Welt in der Verweigerung des Erdendaseins erblicken. Das Buch stellt im ersten Teil die negativen Passagen Schopenhauers zum Thema Leben vor, die Nietzsches Widerspruch herausgefordert haben. Der zweite Teil ist dialektisch als Nietzsches Antwort mit dem Konstrukt Übermensch zu verstehen, welcher die allgemeine Problematik der Höherentwicklung aufzeigt. Dabei ist Nietzsches generelle Skeptik gegenüber Moral als Antwort auf die (...) Schopenhauersche »Quelle der Moral« zu verstehen. (shrink)

Avrupa felsefe tarihinin en ünlü mistik düşünürlerinden olan Meister Eckhart‘ın burada çevirisi sunulan vaaz Kitab-ı Mukaddes‘te İsa ile Mecdelli Meryem arasındaki bir anlatının Meister Eckhart tarafından yapılan yorumuna dayanır. Bu yorum, daha sonra 20. Yüzyıl felsefesi içinde özellikle Derrida, Heidegger, Jean-Luc Nancy gibi düşünürler arasında fenomenoloji açısından sorunsallaştırılan ten, beden, dokunma gibi öğeleri merkeze alan güncel felsefi tartışmalara yeni bir bakış açısı getirme olasılığı açısından önemlidir.

This article is a commentary on another article by Burkhard Stephan in "Erwägen Wissen Ethik" (16/2005 Issue 3). The question is examined, whether there exist analogies between (Darwinian) biological evolution cultural development processes. The topics discussed are: 1. Analogies to biological evolution on the cultural level. 2. Analogies to cultural processes on the biological level. 3. Features of the biological evolution of human nature that have direct consequences on the cultural level. 4. Ethical questions raised by the previous three points.

Hans Kelsens Critique of Eric Voegelins "New Science of Politics" has for a long time been very difficult to access, because Kelsen has published only parts of it in his life time and left other parts unpublished. This allowed Voegelin to spread the myth that Kelsen had refrained from publishing his criticism, because he had understood that he was wrong. This is nonsense. The reasons why Kelsen left part of his criticism unpublished are mostly accidental. At the same time Kelsens (...) criticism itself is a very sound rejection of Voegelin's hopelessly flawed theory of modernity as an age of Gnosticism. In this Nachwort to the Edition of Kelsen's Voegelin-criticism I summarize and comment the most important points of Kelsens criticism: 1. Kelsen's take on Voegelin's criticism of positivism. 2. Kelsen's rejection of Voegelin's "theory of representation" which is in fact a rejection of democratic representation in favor of an authoritarian and theocratic model of politics and 3. Kelsen's refuation of Voegelin's explanation of political disorder in the 20th century as a result of Gnostic heresy. My conclusion is that Kelen's criticism is successful (with only very minor qualifications) in all of these points and that thus it is an important contribution to the discussion of Voegelin's scholarship which has until recently been almost entirely apologetic. (shrink)

Die vorauseilende Frage des Buchs wird sein, wie sind Kriterien, Maßstäbe selbstverantwortli-chen und vernünftigen Handelns möglich – wenn überhaupt? Was ist der Grund legitimer mora-lischer Urteile? Läßt ein radikales Denken der Zeitlichkeit noch etwas, woran wir uns „halten“ können? Gibt es eine „Ethik ohne Geländer“? Auch wenn ein Hegelsches Denken der Ge-schichte des Geistes oder ein Kantisches Denken des intelligiblen Charakters nicht mehr möglich sind, so scheint die Frage nach der Nicht-Notwendigkeit eines metaphysischen Denkens nicht eindeutig bejaht zu sein. Wenn (...) in dieser „Kehre“ zur Grundlosigkeit, zur Endlichkeit selbst, das Denken nicht nur zum grundnegativ-kritischen, sondern auch zum positiv-ethischen Denkens wird – wäre dies nicht eine Dialektik der Endlichkeit, Hegels letzter Streich? Diese Untersuchung hat zum Ziel, generell Wege sichtbar zu machen, die zu moralischen Urteilen führen wollen. Dabei konnte von der Sache her nicht ausbleiben, eine Gegenüberstellung zu vollziehen, welche die unterschiedlichen Ausgangspunkte aufzeigt. Der Methodische Schritt geht aus von der Alternative der Grundsätzlichkeit: Gefühl - Vernunft und deren Verquickung unter dem Begriff "emotionale Vernunft". Es kann hier selbstverständlich nicht darum gehen, die ganze Methodenlehre der Ethik auszubreiten. Die Ausführungen wollen vorrangig das Problem der Findung aufzeigen, welches sich schließlich bei allen ethischen Systemen ergibt. (shrink)

This paper tries to answer the question why the epistemic value of so many social simulations is questionable. I consider the epistemic value of a social simulation as questionable if it contributes neither directly nor indirectly to the understanding of empirical reality. To examine this question, two classical social simulations are analyzed with respect to their possible epistemic justification: Schelling’s neighborhood segregation model and Axelrod’s reiterated Prisoner’s Dilemma simulations of the evolution of cooperation. It is argued that Schelling’s simulation is (...) useful because it can be related to empirical reality, while Axelrod’s simulations and those of his followers cannot and thus that their scientific value remains doubtful. I relate this findingto the background beliefs of modelers about the superiority of the modeling method as expressed in Joshua Epstein’s keynote address “Why model?”. (shrink)

Employing computer simulations for the study of the evolution of altruism has been popular since Axelrod's book "The Evolution of Cooperation". But have the myriads of simulation studies that followed in Axelrod's footsteps really increased our knowledge about the evolution of altruism or cooperation? This book examines in detail the working mechanisms of simulation based evolutionary explanations of altruism. It shows that the "theoretical insights" that can be derived from simulation studies are often quite arbitrary and of little use for (...) the empirical research. In the final chapter of the book, therefore, a set of epistemological requirements for computer simulations is proposed and recommendations for the proper research design of simulation studies are made. (shrink)

Simulation models of the Reiterated Prisoner's Dilemma have been popular for studying the evolution of cooperation since more than 30 years now. However, there have been practically no successful instances of empirical application of any of these models. At the same time this lack of empirical testing and confirmation has almost entirely been ignored by the modelers community. In this paper, I examine some of the typical narratives and standard arguments with which these models are justified by their authors despite (...) the lack of empirical validation. I find that most of the narratives and arguments are not at all compelling. None the less they seem to serve an important function in keeping the simulation business running despite its empirical shortcomings. (shrink)

This paper discusses critically what simulation models of the evolution ofcooperation can possibly prove by examining Axelrod’s “Evolution of Cooperation” and the modeling tradition it has inspired. Hardly any of the many simulation models of the evolution of cooperation in this tradition have been applicable empirically. Axelrod’s role model suggested a research design that seemingly allowed to draw general conclusions from simulation models even if the mechanisms that drive the simulation could not be identified empirically. But this research design was (...) fundamentally flawed, because it is not possible to draw general empirical conclusions from theoretical simulations. At best such simulations can claim to prove logical possibilities, i.e. they prove that certain phenomena are possible as the consequence of the modeling assumptions built into the simulation, but not that they are possible or can be expected to occur in reality I suggest several requirements under which proofs of logical possibilities can nevertheless be considered useful. Sadly, most Axelrod-style simulations do not meet these requirements. I contrast this with Schelling’s neighborhood segregation model, thecore mechanism of which can be retraced empirically. (shrink)