Frontmatter -- Vorwort -- Inhalt -- 1. Normlogische Begriffe und Prinzipien -- 2. Typen ethischer Theorien -- 3. Nichtkognitivistische Theorien -- 4. Subjektivistische Theorien -- 5. Objektivistische Theorien -- 6. Werterfahrung -- 7. Materiale Fragen der Ethik -- Literatur -- Namen -- Stichwörter -- Backmatter.

As cause we often specify an event the occurrence of which first guaranteed that of the effect. This notion is explicated in a framework of branching worlds in Sections I to V. VI and VII point out its close relations to the concept of an agent's bringing about an event. The topic of the last two sections is the distinction between causes and necessary circumstances. For this purpose conditionals are used, interpreted with respect to branching worlds without a similarity relation (...) between them. (shrink)

As cause we often specify an event the occurrence of which first guaranteed that of the effect. This notion is explicated in a framework of branching worlds in Sections I to V. VI and VII point out its close relations to the concept of an agent's bringing about an event. The topic of the last two sections is the distinction between causes and necessary circumstances. For this purpose conditionals are used, interpreted with respect to branching worlds without a similarity relation (...) between them. (shrink)

T × W logic is a combination of tense and modal logic for worlds or histories with the same time order. It is the basis for logics of causation, agency and conditionals, and therefore an important tool for philosophical logic. Semantically it has been defined, among others, by R. H. Thomason. Using an operator expressing truth in all worlds, first discussed by C. M. Di Maio and A. Zanardo, an axiomatization is given and its completeness proved via D. Gabbay’s irreflexivity (...) lemma. Given this lemma the proof is more or less straight forward. At the end an alternative axiomatization is sketched in which Di Maio’s and Zanardo’s operator is replaced by a version of “actually”. (shrink)

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Die falsche Objektivität" verfügbar.

Dieses Buch ist aus diesen Vorlesungen entstanden und wendet sichprimär an Studenten. Sein Ziel ist es, ihnen das Werk Freges zu erschließen und sie zum Studium der Originaltexte anzuregen.

In der Diskussion metaethischer Fragen spielt das Humesche Gesetz eine wichtige Rolle, nach dem normative Aussagen, d.h. Aussagen über Gebote oder Werte, sich nicht aus deskriptiven Aussagen ableiten lassen. In dieser Arbeit wird das Gesetz präzise formuliert und bewiesen, und es wird seine Relevanz für eine Kritik naturalistischer ethischer Theorien erörtert.

This book has arisen out of lectures I gave in recent years at the Uni versities of Munich and Regensburg, and it is intended to serve as a textbook for courses in the Philosophy of Language. In my lectures I was able to presuppose that the students had taken an introductory course in logic. Some knowledge of logic will also be helpful in studying this book - as it is almost everywhere else in philosophy -, especially in Section 3. 2, (...) but it is no prerequisite. I would like to give my sincere thanks to Prof. Terrell for his excellent translation of the book, which is based on the second, revised and en larged German edition. Regensburg, May 1975 FRANZ VON KUTSCHERA INTRODUCTION Language has become one of philosophy's most important and pressing themes during this century. This preoccupation with language has its ori gins in the most diverse areas of philosophical inquiry. (shrink)

In der Diskussion metaethischer Fragen spielt das Humesche Gesetz eine wichtige Rolle, nach dem normative Aussagen, d.h. Aussagen über Gebote oder Werte, sich nicht aus deskriptiven Aussagen ableiten lassen. In dieser Arbeit wird das Gesetz präzise formuliert und bewiesen, und es wird seine Relevanz für eine Kritik naturalistischer ethischer Theorien erörtert.

The aim of the paper is to show that claims of supervenience of the mental upon the physical do not define substantial forms of materialism. While weak supervenience holds trivially, even strong supervenience does not justify a claim of identity, dependence or determination; it is only a relation between classifications of persons by psychological and physical properties.

Global supervenience of beliefs about physical states of affairs on such states has strongly counter-intuitive consequences about what beliefs we can nomologically hold. This is an argument against a global supervenience of all mental properties on physical ones, and, since that is implied by strong supervenience, also against that as the preferred materialist thesis.