Selected papers from the sections of the eighth international conference organized by the Society for Analytic Philosophy (GAP), Constance, Germany, September 17-20, 2012. The overall theme of the conference was "What may we believe? What ought we to do?", but the papers published here address a wide variety of questions from many fields of philosophy.

The papers in this collection were presented at a workshop on Bayesian Epistemology at the 26th International Wittgenstein Symposium in Kirchberg, Austria (August 4–7, 2003), at a workshop on Philosophy and Probability at the conference GAP5 in Bielefeld, Germany (September 20–22, 2003), at a workshop on Bayesian Epistemology at the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics and Political Science in London, UK (June 28, 2004), or at the seminar of the research group Philosophy, Probability (...) and Modeling, Center for Junior Research Fellows, University of Konstanz, Germany. We acknowledge the generous support for these events by the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society, the Gesellschaft für analytische Philosophie e.V., the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Program for the Investment in the Future (ZIP) of the German Government through a Sofja Kovalevskaja Award. We thank the organizers of the conferences in Kirchberg and Bielefeld for their support, the authors and referees of the papers for their work, and John Symons for his interest in dedicating a special issue of this journal to Bayesian Epistemology. (shrink)

In everyday life, as well as in science, we have to deal with and act on the basis of partial (i.e. incomplete, uncertain, or even inconsistent) information. This observation is the source of a broad research activity from which a number of competing approaches have arisen. There is some disagreement concerning the way in which partial or full ignorance is and should be handled. The most successful approaches include both quantitative aspects (by means of probability theory) and qualitative aspect (by (...) means of graphical or causal models or logic). Some of these approaches have important impacts on various disciplines including philosophy, computer science, statistics, mathematics, physics, and social science. Most notably, the relation between causal and probabilistic information is a topic of interest in all of these fields. The general question of how uncertainty is related to ignorance, and the connection thereof to causality, have been the key topics of the international summer school at the University of Konstanz, Germany, in August 2004. This was the third event in a series of summer schools organized by the interdisciplinary research group “Philosophy, Probability, and Modeling”. The group was in operation from September 1st, 2001, until August 31, 2005. The first summer school, held in September 2002, focused on the application of probability theory to topics of philosophical interest. Problems and questions that arise when probabilistic models and techniques are being applied in the special sciences were then discussed during the second summer school, held in July 2003. The fourth and final event in the series, in August 2005, was devoted to philosophical questions related to the application and interpretation of probabilities in physics. Each of the four summer schools attracted 40–50 people from many different countries. It was an inspiring forum for an interdisciplinary discussion among researchers and students from many different areas. This special issue collects a selection of the invited and contributed papers presented at the summer school in 2004. We acknowledge the generous support of the Center for Junior Research Fellows at the University of Konstanz, the Gesellschaft für analytische Philosophie e.V., the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science at the London School of Economics, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Program for the Investment in the Future (ZIP) of the German Government through a Sofja Kovalevskaja Award. We thank the referees of the papers for their work, and James Moor for his interest in dedicating a special issue of this journal to Causality, Uncertainty and Ignorance. (shrink)

Inhalt: TEIL I Dominik SCHMIDIG: Sprachliche Vermittlung philosophischer Einsichten nach Fichtes Frühphilosophie. Thomas Sören HOFFMANN: Die Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre und das Problem der Sprache bei Fichte. Jere Paul SURBER: Fichtes Sprachphilosophie und der Begriff einer Wissenschaftslehre. Holger JERGIUS: Fichtes »geometrische« Semantik. TEIL II Günter MECKENSTOCK: Beobachtungen zur Methodik in Fichtes Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre. Hartmut TRAUB: Wege zur Wahrheit. Zur Bedeutung von Fichtes wissenschaftlich- und populär-philosophischer Methode. Jürgen STAHL: System und Methode - Zur methodologischen Begründung transzendentalen Philosophierens in Fichtes (...) »Begriffsschrift«. Kunihiko NAGASAWA: Eine neue Möglichkeit der Philosophie nach der Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre. Teil III Katsuaki OKADA: Der erste Grundsatz und die Bildlehre. Hisang RYUE: Die Differenz zwischen »Ich bin« und «Ich bin Ich«. Christian KLOTZ: Der Ichbegriff in Fichtes Erörterung der Substantialität. Alois K. SOLLER: Fichtes Lehre vom Anstoß. Nicht-Ich und Ding an sich in der Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre. Eine kritische Erörterung. Heinz EIDAM: Fichtes Anstoß. Anmerkungen zu einem Begriff der Wissenschaftslehre von 1794. Virginia LÓPEZ-DOMÍNGUEZ: Die Deduktion des Gefühls in der Grundlage der gesammten Wissenschaftslehre. Reinhard LOOCK: Gefühl und Realität. Fichtes Auseinandersetzung mit Jacobi in der Grundlage der Wissenschaft des Praktischen. TEIL IV Marek SIEMEK: Wissen und Tun. Zur Handlungsweise der transzendentalen Subjektivität in der ersten Wissenschaftslehre Fichtes. Daniel BREAZEALE: Der fragwürdige »Primat der praktischen Vernunft« in Fichtes Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre. Marcin POREBA: Das Problem der transzendentalen Freiheit in semantischer Formulierung. Giuseppe DUSO: Absolutheit und Widerspruch in der Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre. Manuel JIMÉNEZ-REDONDO: Der Begriff des Grundes in Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre. TEIL V Helmut GIRNDT: Das »Ich« des ersten Grundsatzes der Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre in der Sicht der Wissenschaftslehre von 18042. Josef BEELER-PORT: Zum Stellenwert der Grundlage aus der Sicht von 1804. Eine Interpretation des Wechsels von analytisch-synthetischer und genetischer Methode in 5 der Grundlage. (shrink)

The specificity of different perceptions must correspond to the metaphysical lines of the world. The metaphysical fault lines of being find expression in the peculiarities of the psychological structure of our experience. Ontologically, one would say: metaphysics produces psychology; psychologically, one would say the opposite: psychology determines our metaphysical structures. But symbolically, we will say, as we have said already: the metaphysical is expressed in the psychological, the psychological expresses metaphysics.

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Geschichte der antiken Philosophie" verfügbar.

In this paper, I analyzed the discussion on the principle of universalizability which took place in moral philosophy in 1970–1980s. In short, I see two main problems that attracted more attention than others. The first problem is an opposition of universalizability and generalization. M.G. Singer argued for generalization argument, and R.M. Hare defended universalizability thesis. Hare tried to refute Singer’s position, using methods of ordinary language philosophy, and claimed that in ethics generalization is useless and misleading. I have examined Singer’s (...) defense and concluded that he was right and Hare was mistaken. Consequently, generalization argument is better in clarification of the relationship between universality and morality than Hare’s doctrine of universalizability, and hence the universality of moral principles is not incompatible with the existence of exclusions. The second problem is the substantiation of the application of categorical imperative in the theory of relevant act descriptions and accurate understanding of the difference between maxims and non-maxims. In Generalization in Ethics, Singer drew attention to this theme and philosophers have proposed some suggestions to solve this problem. I describe ideas of H.J. Paton, H. Potter, O. O’Neill and M. Timmons. Paton coined the teleological-law theory. According to Potter, the best criterion for the relevant act descriptions is causal one. O’N eill suggested the inconsistency-of-intention theory. Timmons defended the causal-law theory. My claim is that the teleological-law theory and the causal-law theory fail to solve the relevant act descriptions problem and the causal criterion and the inconsistency-of-intention theory have their limits. From this, I conclude that these approaches cannot be the basis for clarifying the connection between universality and morality, in contrast to Singer’s approach, which, therefore, is better than others to clarify the nature of universality in morality. (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.

A generous and articulate work, written for students beginning a study of philosophy, as well as for the general public. Its author, Professor at Northampton College of Advanced Technology in London, argues that "the impulse to philosophize springs from human perplexities and these are illuminated by the tradition of philosophy." The book is reminiscent of John MacMurray in content, though in style it is warmer and less polemical.—T. E. V.

Beitrage von Ludwig Nagl, Richard Heinrich, Arthur C. Danto, Barry Stroud, Peter F. Strawson, Herbert Hrachovec, Richard Rorty, Stanley Cavell, Hubert L. Dreyfus und Stuar E. Dreyfus, Kurt R. Fischer und Franz M. Wimmer.

Desde el punto de vista temático, el libro abarca prácticamente todo lo que se incluye bajo el llamado problema de la filosofía latinoamericana: su posibilidad, especificidad, autenticidad, sus orígenes, rasgos esenciales, etc. En cuanto a autores, se exponen con mayor extensión los postpositivistas Korn y Vaz Ferreira y, entre los más actuales, José Gaos, Leopoldo Zea, Arturo A. Roig, Enrique Dussel, y Marquínez Argote. Se plantea la cuestión del método de la investigación histórico-filosófica. Se critican las posiciones de la CEPAL. (...) Por último, el libro dedica extensa atención a la filosofía de la liberación, sus orígenes y los problemas que actualmente se le plantean. Toda la temática está abordada en sintonía con el latinoamericanismo filosófico actual"--Handbook of Latin American Studies, v. 58. (shrink)

Among the many names violently consigned to oblivion, one cannot omit mentioning the name of Gustav Gustavovich Shpet, a scholar who made a substantial contribution to our country's philosophy, psychology, aesthetics, and linguistics. His rehabilitation in 1956 was not enough to restore his memory in public consciousness, paralyzed by the inertia and fears of the Stalinist years, and the freeze that began soon after, of the sprouts that had just been summoned to life, had its impact in an abrogation of (...) agreements, cessation of publications, and in a number of cases removal of references to the philosopher. And the further thirty years of oblivion that followed were one more period of unjust punishment and a new ordeal in the terrible fate of the scholar and his ideas. His writings, which should have been a new word in science, should have given direction to further investigations, became effectively inaccessible to subsequent generations. References to Shpet in the works of Viach. Vs. Ivanov, Iu. M. Lotman, D. S. Likhachev, A. P. Chudakov, and others, and the article in Philosophical Encyclopedia [Filosofskaia entsiklopediia] written by V. S. Asmus aroused interest in Shpet's writings in Hungary and Germany. In the summer of 1986, an international conference on Shpet was held in Bochum, and his books are being translated. Unfortunately, in his own country the level of research on the philosopher's writings and thoughts is still almost at point zero, but we may hope that interest in Shpet's ideas will grow considerably in connection with the publication of the series From the History of Russian Philosophical Thought [Iz istorii otechestvennoi filosofskoi mysli] and a number of other publications. (shrink)

В монографии представлена попытка системного анализа и уточнения философского языка Аристотеля, касающегося всех основных частей его философии.