Writing firmly in the Reformed tradition, Professor Shao Kai Tseng presents a reinterpretation and critical appreciation of Kant-whose complex philosophy gave rise to the secularization of modern society.

If philosophy has anything to do with wisdom there's certainly not a grain of that in Mind, & quite often a grain of that in the detective stories.This special issue of Philosophy East and West is dedicated to the topic of wisdom. It might appear to be a paradoxical endeavor to think about wisdom on the pages of an academic journal. As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out a long time ago in his somewhat peculiar, quixotic style, philosophers in the setting of (...) modern academia are not necessarily in the best position to make meaningful contributions to the question of what it means to be wise. We do not really know what was going on in Plato's academy, or whether the conversations there had much, if anything, to do with... (shrink)

In book X of the Republic, Plato famously reports “a quarrel between poetry and philosophy.” The present essay examines this quarrel in book X, along with other relevant parts of the Republic, by understanding “philosophy” and “poetry” as rival ways of life and rival ways of discourse. The essay first explains why, in Plato’s view, poetic discourse weakens one’s power to reason and is at odds with philosophic discourse. Then it shows how poetic discourse is bound up with a way (...) of life that champions the value of freedom. Such a life forms a contrast with the philosophic life, which is marked more by stability and unity than by freedom. The quarrel, however, is not a simple antagonism. The essay hence concludes by discussing why, despite the opposition between the two, philosophy cannot do without poetry. (shrink)

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has been regarded as a public health emergency that caused a considerable degree of public panic during its early stage. Some irrational behaviors were also triggered as a result of such panic. Although there has been plenty of news coverage on public panic due to the outbreak, research on this phenomenon has been limited. Since panic is the main psychological reaction in the early stage of the pandemic, which largely determines the level of psychological adaptation, (...) time of psychological recovery, and the incidence of PTSD, there exists a demand to conduct investigation on it. From a public governance perspective, the government’s assessment of public panic may affect the efficiency and effectiveness of pandemic prevention and control. Therefore, it is of obvious practical significance to investigate public panic during the COVID-19 pandemic and analyze its influential factors. The self-compiled COVID-19 Social Mentality Questionnaire was used to collect data from a total of 16,616 participants online, and 13,511 valid responses were received. The results from the chi-square test showed that there were differences in gender, educational level, age, pandemic-related knowledge, self-efficacy, risk level, and objective social support. Furthermore, multiple linear regression analysis results showed that self-efficacy, gender, educational level, age, risk level, pandemic-related knowledge, and objective social support were significant predictors of public panic. Among the research variables, self-efficacy, gender, educational level, and age were negative predictors of panic while risk level, pandemic-related knowledge, and objective social support were positive predictors of panic. (shrink)

This volume offers a comprehensive overview of architectures, languages, methods, and techniques for analysing, modelling, and constructing information systems in organisations. Numerous approaches are surveyed coming from computer science, information systems, and business administration among others. With more than 30 contributions, the book is an authoritative source of information for professional researchers and graduate students. It also provides a reference source for problem solvers in business, industry, and government.

To do theology in the twenty-first century, we must understand Hegel. In this accessible introduction, Tseng examines the philosopher's significant influence on European thought in general and Protestant theology in particular.

I thought the paper by Kai-yee Wong and Chris Fraser was fascinating and insightful. Two things I especially appreciated are the clarity with which they summarize my views. I think they are quite fair and accurate. Second, I appreciate their suggestion that the way to deal with the practical problem of weakness of will has much to do with the role of the Background in shaping our actions. I think they are especially on the right track when they say that (...) the improvement of Background skills may actually narrow the range of real options for action, (p. 21) nonetheless, they do not decrease freedom. As they say, “It is a process of strengthening the self, and the agent is likely to experience the concomitant restriction of ‘live’ options not as a limitation but as strength of character.” (p. 21). That seems to me very much on the right track. What they are suggesting, and it is a powerful addition to my own writings, is that we should not just think of the Background as facilitating languages, games and social practices generally, but for morality as well (p. 23). (shrink)

Metaphilosophy is itself philosophy about philosophy. It is not something before or independent of philosophy. Both Kai Nielsen and Richard Rorty are deeply concerned (someone might say obsessively preoccupied) with metaphilosophy. They both are thoroughly historicist and contextualist resolutely rejecting any form of a transcendental or metaphysical turn. They argue against claims to absolute validity (as well as against absolutism in any form) and a natural order of reasons: some 'Reason' to which any rational agent must be committed. They both (...) see philosophy as a transitional genre first (historically speaking) from religion then metaphysics and more latterly from scientistic conceptions of the world. But they differ about what philosophy is transitional to. For Rorty it is historical narrative and utopian proposals; for Nielsen it is critical theory. Rorty claims this, Nielsen's intentions to the contrary notwithstanding, commits him to enlightenment rationalism. Nielsen replies that his form of critical theory is deeply historicist and contextual without being resolutely atheoretical. This plays out in political orientation to Nielsen's being a socialist while Rorty is a social democrat. (shrink)

The present article purports to answer the old question of whether the concept (and the method) of Hegelian dialectic can be clarified. Three arguments are advanced in defence of the claim that Hegel's conception is not in fact intelligible. The first argument shows that dialectical negation leads to an infinite regress. The second argument analyses Hegel's claim that the dialectical method yields a positive result and demonstrates that this claim remains completely unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable. The third argument comes to the (...) conclusion that Hegelian dialectic cannot pretend to be an acceptable explication of the “intuitive” understanding of negation. An APPENDIX examines critically a new attempt by D. Wandschneider of reconstructing the first steps of Hegelian dialectical logic by displaying “antinomic structures” and by employing (at least to a limited extent) the techniques of formal logic. (shrink)

"Presents, and in part develops, a systematic philosophy as the universal science, or the theorization of the unrestricted universe of discourse, explicitly including being as such and as a whole. Argues that complete exploration of the theoretical domain requires such a science"--Provided by publisher.

Ch. 1: Inadequate approaches to the question of God -- 1.1. Initial clarifications -- 1.2 Wholly unsystematic direct approaches -- 1.3. Semi-systematic indirect approaches -- 1.4. A wholly anti-systematic, anti-theoretical, and direct approach: Ludwig Wittgenstein -- 1.5. A characteristic example of a failed critique: Thomas Nagel's objections to God as "last point" -- Ch. 2. Heidegger's thinking of Being: the flawed development of a significant approach -- 2.1. Heidegger's failed and distorting interpretation and critique of the Christian metaphysics of Being (...) -- 2.2. Heidegger's four approaches to "retrieving" the "question of being" -- 2.3. What is unthought in Heidegger's thinking of Being I: Being-as-Ereignis -- 2.4. What is unthought in Heidegger's "thinking of Being" II: Being and being(s)- Ereignis and Ereignete(s) -- 2.5. The "overcoming [Überwinding] of metaphysics" as "transformational recovering [Verwindung]" of metaphysics and "the end of the history of Being" -- 2.6. The status of Heideggerian thinking I: thinking of Being as thinking within Ereignis, thinking that reaches its destination with Ereignis (Denken, das in das Ereignis einkehrt) -- 2.7. The status of Heideggerian thinking II: absolute claim, provisionality, the poverty of language, the language of thinking, the finitude of thinking -- 2.8. Heidegger's thinking and the topic "God" -- 2.9. Heidegger's "thinking": a fundamentally deficient and confused form of thinking -- Ch. 3:The structural-systematic approach to a theory of Being and God -- 3.1. The systematic context: the theoretical framework of the structural-systematic philosophy -- 3.2. The unrestricted universe of discourse as the universal dimension of primordial Being -- 3.3. Explication of the dimension of Being I: theory of Being as such -- 3.4. Explication of the dimension of Being II: theory of Being as a whole -- 3.5. Explication of the relation between absolutely necessary Being and the contingent dimension of Being as key to a conception of absolutely necessary Being as minded (as personal) -- 3.6. Absolutely necessary minded (personal) Being as creator of the world (as absolute creating) -- 3.7. The clarified relation between Being and God and the task of developing an integral theory about God -- Ch. 4: Critical examination of two counterpositions: Emmanuel Levinas and Jean-Luc Marion -- 4.1. Levinas's misguided conception of transcendence "beyond B/being" -- 4.2. Jean-Luc Marion's failed conception of "radical and non-metaphysical transcendence" and of "God without Being". (shrink)

Papers presented cover: new approaches to evolutionary epistemology, new applications, critical evaluations, and the nature of the mind. Paper edition (unseen), $25.50. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.

Kai Nielsen is one of Canada's most distinguished political philosophers. In a career spanning over 40 years, he has published more than 400 papers in political philosophy, ethics, meta-philosophy, and philosophy of religion. Pessimism of the Intellect presents a thoughtful collection of Nielsen's essays complemented by an extended reflective interview with Nielsen. This collection allows the reader to grasp the systematic scope of his thought and methodology.

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Grundlagen einer Theorie der Wahrheit" verfügbar.

Die "Gottesfrage" ist anerkanntermaßen eine äußerst komplexe, vieldeutige und obskure Frage. In ausführlicher Auseinandersetzung mit Heidegger, in dessen Schriften eine sehr einflussreiche einseitige und entstellende Interpretation und Kritik der großen metaphysischen Tradition immer wieder präsentiert wird, zeigt Lorenz B. Puntel, dass die Gottesfrage klar, rational und argumentativ, kurz: mit theoretischer Rigorosität, behandelt werden kann. Dies aber setzt einen umfassenden philosophischen Theorierahmen voraus, der die Entfaltung einer systematischen Konzeption des Seins als solchen und im Ganzen ermöglicht und in nuce enthält. (...) Anschließend wird eine solche Konzeption im Grundriss zur Darstellung gebracht. In einem ausführlichen Kapitel werden die Positionen von É. Lévinas und J.-L. Marion, den zwei wohl radikalsten postmodernen Kritikern und Gegnern jeder Form eines positiven Verhältnisses zwischen dem "Sein" und "Gott", eingehend analysiert und deren radikale Unhaltbarkeit demonstriert. (shrink)

Mit dem vorliegenden Werk schliesst Lorenz B. Puntel seine Seinstrilogie ab; die beiden vorherigen Bande sind unter dem Titel Struktur und Sein (2006) und Sein und Gott (2010) erschienen. Der neue Band fuhrt das in den anderen Banden nur inchoativ formulierte gesamtsystematische philosophische Programm aus. Lorenz B. Puntel betrachtet das Thema Sein und Nichts als das ursprungliche Thema der Philosophie und stellt daruber eine umfassende Theorie auf. Diese Theorie nennt er Seinstheorie; sie besteht aus den beiden Subtheorien: Ontologie (...) als Theorie (des Seins) der Seienden und Einailogie als Theorie des Seins selbst oder als solchen. Ausgangspunkt ist die von Heidegger eingefuhrte ontologische Differenz, die Unterscheidung von Sein und Seienden. In eingehenden, auf den einschlagigen Originaltexten der wichtigsten Philosophen basierenden Ausfuhrungen wird der Nachweis gefuhrt, dass der in der Philosophiegeschichte feststellbare Grundmangel in der haufigen totalen und in sehr wenigen Fallen partiellen Ignorierung der grossen Seinsfrage besteht; nirgends wird diese in adaquater Weise thematisiert. In Teil II arbeitet der Autor die Grundzuge sowohl der allgemeinen Ontologie als auch der Einailogie heraus. Zwei grundlegende Thesen werden bewiesen: die Moglichkeit des relativen Nichts, d. h. des Verschwindens aller Seienden auf der Basis ihrer Kontingenz, und die Unmoglichkeit des absoluten Nichts, d. h. des Verschwindens des Seins selbst auf der Basis seines notwendigen Status. Gezeigt wird schliesslich, dass dem Sein selbst eine geistige Verfasstheit innewohnt, die aus Intelligenz/Denken, Wille und Freiheit besteht, womit die Moglichkeit eroffnet wird, dass das notwendige geistig verfasste und damit freie Sein sich weiter offenbaren kann. Dem nachzugehen, setzt aber eine grundlegende methodische und thematische Zasur voraus. (shrink)

I have frequently mentioned objective problems and topics in the preceding sections. But what exactly is the force of ‘objective’ here? As my remarks should have made clear I have been using ‘objective’ to contrast with ‘purely historical’. A ‘purely historical’ approach never gets beyond reproduction, commentary, and interpretation. I call an approach ‘objective’ when it involves a philosopher who advances his own theses and claims. This minimal understanding of ‘objectivity’ (in the context of my remarks in this paper) by (...) no means implies that there are problems and topics, systems of concepts, methods, and similar factors that are ‘eternal’, completely independent of the contingencies of history (of philosophy, of the sciences), that are not relative to a language, to a logic, to a model, etc. Indeed whether there are problems, etc., in just this absolute, atemporal sense is itself a question for systematic philosophy. It seems clear that the formulation of a problem can only take place against a cognitive background of some sort and within some ‘conceptual scheme’. 34 Such an assumption is made by most if not all analytic philosophers. But the fact that a philosophical tradition recognizes ‘conceptual schemes’ does not make it a ‘purely historical’, non-objective philosophy, in the sense already introduced and described. A philosopher who explicitly accepts a certain ‘conceptual scheme’ proceeds in an entirely objective and systematic (and not purely historical) manner when, within this framework, he formulates his own theses. (shrink)

In §93 of The Principles of Mathematics, Bertrand Russell observes that “the variable is a very complicated logical entity, by no means easy to analyze correctly”. This assessment is borne out by the fact that even now we have no fully satisfactory understanding of the role of variables in a compositional semantics for first-order logic. In standard Tarskian semantics, variables are treated as meaning-bearing entities; moreover, they serve as the basic building blocks of all meanings, which are constructed out of (...) variable assignments. But this has disquieting consequences, including Fine’s antinomy of the variable and an undue dependence of meanings on language. Here I develop an alternative, Fregean version of predicate logic that uses the traditional quantifier–variable apparatus for the expression of generality, possesses a fully compositional, non-representational semantics, and is not subject to the antinomy of the variable. The advantages of Fregean over Tarskian predicate logic are due to the former’s treating variables not as meaningful lexical items, but as mere marks of punctuation, similar to parentheses. I submit that this is indeed how the variables of predicate logic should be construed. (shrink)

Evangelization in the present contemporary context, transmission of faith, and the new architecture of communication are this article’s central axes. Just as interconnected cogwheels, they need to function together to hand on faith appropriately in today’s world. Our society, marked by unprecedented experiences in the field of digital culture, gave rise to a “new person”, who lives and relates within a new architecture of communication altogether. In the communicative process of digital culture, the modality of communication has changed from a (...) unilinear mode of transmission to networked, interactive, collaborative forms of interaction. Based on the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, and in an effort to rethink the present modalities of faith transmission, this study concerns both the convergence and continuity of the Magisterium of the Church on evangelization and the urgency for her to engage in a dialogue between faith and culture. This requires an attitude of courage to consider more deeply the relation between faith, Church life, and the current transformations as experienced today. For in the digital culture, a new perception and understanding of faith has grown and developed. New languages have challenged conventional paradigms and prompted us into a change of mentality and pastoral practice. (shrink)

The article aims to show that current understandings and developments of “metaphysics,” in both analytic and continental philosophy, fail to do justice both to the metaphysical tradition as a whole and to the potentialities inherent in that tradition’s mode and aim of thinking. The root failure is the failure to recognize that Thomas Aquinas, by distinguishing between ens and esse, reveals that metaphysics must thematize Being (esse) as well as being(s) (ens/entia). To be sure, Aquinas’s understanding of Being solely as (...) actus essendi is fundamentally inadequate, but Being is not even a topic for analytic philosophy, for which metaphysical questions concern only being(s). The article takes seriously Heidegger’s (only partially correct) charge that an “oblivion of Being” pervades metaphysics and, against Heidegger, shows how to conceive of and develop an adequate theory of Being. (shrink)

Currently, the repetition of a critical way of speaking results in a stagnating tendency in educational debates. This had led to the endeavour of developing a ‘post-critical pedagogy’. This paper employs Rortyan and Latourian language in order to tackle the question of how such a post-critical pedagogy should deal with critique. It argues that if one takes critique as what Latour calls a debunking activity, then post-critical pedagogy should leave critique behind. If however critique means simply to say how something (...) should not be, then post-critical pedagogy should remain critical. In addition, however, there is a need for enriching the critical vocabulary with more affirmative language. For accomplishing this need, in contrast to recent suggestions to go back to ontology, the paper suggests that new propositions developed by literary theorists like Sedgwick and Felski are more promising. All these arguments are framed by Rorty’s notion of philosophy as cultural politics. (shrink)

In this paper, I consider two curious subsystems ofFrege's Grundgesetze der Arithmetik: Richard Heck's predicative fragment H, consisting of schema V together with predicative second-order comprehension (in a language containing a syntactical abstraction operator), and a theory T in monadic second-order logic, consisting of axiom V and 1 1-comprehension (in a language containing anabstraction function). I provide a consistency proof for the latter theory, thereby refuting a version of a conjecture by Heck. It is shown that both Heck and T (...) prove the existence of infinitely many non-logical objects (T deriving,moreover, the nonexistence of the value-range concept). Some implications concerning the interpretation of Frege's proof of referentiality and the possibility of classifying any of these subsystems as logicist are discussed. Finally, I explore the relation of T toCantor's theorem which is somewhat surprising. (shrink)

In 'A Constitution of Many Minds' Cass Sunstein argues that the three major approaches to constitutional interpretation – Traditionalism, Populism and Cosmopolitanism – all rely on some variation of a ‘many-minds’ argument. Here we assess each of these claims through the lens of the Condorcet Jury Theorem. In regard to the first two approaches we explore the implications of sequential influence among courts (past and foreign, respectively). In regard to the Populist approach, we consider the influence of opinion leaders.

The purpose of the present paper is to challenge some received assumptions about the logical analysis of modal English, and to show that these assumptions are crucial to certain debates in current philosophy of language. Specifically, I will argue that the standard analysis in terms of quantified modal logic mistakenly fudges important grammatical distinctions, and that the validity of Kripke's modal argument against description theories of proper names crucially depends on ensuing equivocations.

Propósito deste ensaio é apresentar uma nova abordagem ao velho problema que é o acesso filosófico ao Deus cristão. Isto acontece dentro do esquema de uma nova metafísica cujo ponto de partida é a capacidade que a mente tem de percepcionar a totalidade do ser, facto este que o artigo apresenta como sendo justamente uma estrutura central do intelecto. Dado que as distinções entre intelecto e mundo, conceitos e realidade, sujeito e objecto, etc., já pressupõem a totalidade do ser dada (...) perceptivamente e nela está baseada, esta totalidade, assim concebida, torna-se mais fundamental que todas aquelas famosas distinções. A tarefa dessa nova metafísica aqui em questão consiste em explicitar uma explicação desta totalidade. No presente artigo, esta explicação é desenvolvida apenas numa direcção, a saber, a explicação no sentido de como proceder da totalidade do ser para o Deus cristão. Neste sentido, uma distinção fundamental é feita entre "o Absoluto" e "Deus ". A filosofia tradicional acreditou frequentemente que a filosofia só poderia explicitar a "determinação" do absoluto como criador do universo finito. O autor do artigo visa justamente demonstrar que outras determinações do Absoluto podem ser filosoficamente alcançadas; mas isto pressupõe que a história da liberdade do Absoluto seja radicalmente tomada em consideração. Ora isto, por sua vez, significa que a história e interpretação da religião - especialmente da religião segundo a tradição judaico-cristã - tem de ser vista como um tópico filosófico verdadeiramente central. Assim compreendido, o Absoluto é apropriadamente designado por "Deus ". Segue-se que uma das consequências desta abordagem é a de que uma vincada distinção entre filosofia tradicional e teologia tradicional cristã deve ser abandonada. /// The purpose of this essay is to present a new approach to the old problem of philosophical access to the Christian God. This is done within the frame of a new metaphysics whose starting point is the mind's perception of the totality of being which is shown to be a central structural feature of the mind as such. Since the distinctions between mind and world, concepts and reality, subject and object, and the like, already presuppose the perceptually given totality of being and are based on it, this totality, so concei-ved, is more fundamental than all those famous distinctions. The task of the envisaged new metaphysics consists in working out an explication of this totality. In this paper this explication is developed only in one direction: the explication in the sense of how to proceed from the totality of being to the Christian God. To this effect, a fundamental distinction is made between "the Absolute" and " God". Traditional philosophy had constantly believed that philosophy could only work out the "determination "of the Absolute as the creator of the finite universe. The paper endeavours to demonstrate that further determinations of the Absolute can be philosophically reached; but this presupposes that the history of the freedom of the Absolute is radically taken into account. And this, in turn, amounts to the claim that the history and interpretation of religion - most especially according to the Judaic-Christian tradition -must be seen as a central philosophical topic. Thus understood, the Absolute is appropriately called " God". One of the consequences of this approach is that the sharp distinction between traditional philosophy and traditional Christian theology should be abandoned. (shrink)

O tema da pluralidade de correntes filosóficas sempre ocupou a filosofia desde seu início. Hoje ele tem uma atualidade extraordinária devido ao fato inegável de que a filosofia está presente em todos os países dotados de uma cultura e língua com caráter suprarregional. Com exceção de alguns exímios filósofos como Hegel e Heidegger, o tópico foi em geral ignorado e/ou é apenas parcial e inadequadamente abordado. O presente ensaio propõe-se elaborar as grandes linhas de uma tematização sistemática deste complexo fenômeno. (...) Na seção 1 é apresentada uma breve caracterização das mais importantes posturas na filosofia atual a respeito da pluralidade de correntes filosóficas. As três posturas, às quais todos os posicionamentos vigentes podem ser reduzidos, são as indicadas no título do ensaio. O resultado de uma consideração crítica destas posturas consiste na tese de que somente a terceira postura, segundo a qual a unidade da filosofia em meio à pluralidade de correntes filosóficas representa um problema solúvel ou insolúvel, pode ser considerada uma concepção coerente e bem fundada. Tal posicionameno, porém, não exclui a aceitação de certos elementos da primeira e da segunda pos­turas. Na seção 2 são delineados os fundamentos para uma solução positiva do problema. Estes se centralizam no conceito de quadro referencial teórico com a tese subsequente de que existe uma pluralidade de quadros referenciais teóricos. Na seção 3 vem exposto o esboço de uma solução positiva, resultado da tematização das relações entre os diferentes quadros referenciais teóricos. São apresentadas e fundamentadas três teses. A primeira recorre ao conceito de verdade elaborado na filosofia estrutural sistemática e, nesta base, adquire a seguinte formulação: a cada quadro teórico bem formado e constituído corresponde um determinado grau de verdade. A segunda tese reza: quadros referenciais teóricos bem forma­dos e constituídos formam uma hierarquia a partir dos critérios de teoricidade, inteligibilidade, coerência, abertura temática ilimitada e rigor expositivo. Por fim, a terceira tese articula uma consequência metódica e programática de longo alcan­ce: uma tarefa preliminar e essencial da filosofia consiste em elaborar o quadro teórico de maior rigor teórico, mais inteligível, mais coerente e de maior abertura temática possível. O resultado não consiste na pretensão ingênua de elaborar um quadro teórico supremo e absoluto, nem mesmo o de atingir uma verdade cabal e definitiva. Este não é o ideal da filosofia. Na conclusão, resume-se brevemente o corolário geral das considerações feitas no ensaio: a unidade da filosofia não é uma grandeza fixa, estática e abstrata; ao contrário, constitui uma grandeza dinâ­mica e processual; além disso, o caráter real da filosofia dá-se somente como um processo de autodeterminação através das suas fases históricas concretizadas nas figuras chamadas de correntes filosóficas. (shrink)