1. v. A história da filosofia portuguesa desde o seu coméc̣o até ao final do século xvi (exceptuada a restaurac̣ão da escolástica).

Inhalt: L. Eley: Vorwort - K. Dusing: Endliche und absolute Subjektivitat - H. F. Fulda: Idee und vereinzeltes Subjekt in Hegels Enzyklopadie - U. Rameil: Die Phanomenologie des Geistes in Hegels Nurnberger Propadeutik - B. Tuschling: Hegels Philosophie des Geistes nach Erdmann (1827/28) - G. Schmidt: Die zweite Phanomenologie des Geistes als philosophiehistorische Kritik - M. J. Petry: Vernunft und Anschauung in Hegels Kantkritik - U. Claesges: Zum Problem der enzyklopadischen Phanomenologie - L. Siep: Leiblichkeit, Selbstgefuhl und Personalitat in Hegels (...) Philosophie des Geistes - B. Merker: Uber Gewohnheit - V. E. Dusing: Genesis des Selbstbewusstseins durch Anerkennung und Liebe - A. Peperzak: Selbstbewusstsein - Vernunft - Freiheit - Geist - J. Simon: Intersubjektivitat bei Kant und Hegel? - L. Eley: Was ist der systematische Ort des Kampfes des Anerkennens und der Unterwerfung unter einen Herrn in Hegels Theorie des Geistes der Enzyklopadie - Hegels Werke - Personenverzeichnis - Sachverzeichnis. (shrink)

Dieses Buch fiihrt den Titel: Der entlarvte Mensch.. Dieser Umstand diirfte keinen mit meinem sonstigen Werk Vertrauten wunder nehmen: so konnten Meine samtlichen friiheren V er~ offentlichungen gleichfalls heiBen. - Es galt, den in sich selbst so schwer sich irrenden und irren wollenden, den sich ver~ steckenden und verstellenden und so erbittert gegen die Auf~ deckung der eigentlich ihm einwohnenden Natur sich wehren~ den Menschen zu ertappen und zu entlarven. Der Mensch hat eine theologische Auffassung von sich als von einem (...) Gott, ahnlich wie von seinem Gott: er pratendiert, der Gute und der wissend Verstehende zu sein" und iiberallhin, auch zu seinesgleichen, geht sein Wille auf gebieterisches V er~ haltnis. Die grundstiirzende Lehre von den Geistigen und vom Yolk stoBt um und Macht unschadlich das traditionelle Bild aberglaubischer und unbandiger Einbildung und setzt an die Stelle dieses eitel~hochmiitigen, wahnhaften und triigerischen Selbstportrats das urheitlich getreue Bild von wirklich psycho~ logischem Wert. J a, es galt den Menschen zu entlarven und ihn zeigbar zu Machen so, wie er wirklich in sich aussieht: dazu war ich immer am Werk und glaube sagen zu diirfen: jetzt ist die Entlarvung vollendet, wie es der Titel des Werkes anzeigt. DER GOTT UND DER ABERGLAUBE YOM VERSTEHEN Wie der Mensch. sa ist sein Gatt; drum aus seinem Gatt der Mensch zu erraten. da ja der Mensch den Gatt nach seinem Ebenbilde macht. Alsa gleichst du deinem Gatt; Mann van Erde. du hast dir aus Erde den Gatt mit Ohren gemacht. (shrink)

The quantum mechanical description of the evolution of an unstable system defined initially as a state in a Hilbert space at a given time does not provide a semigroup (exponential) decay, law. The Wigner–Weisskopf survival amplitude, describing reversible quantum transitions, may be dominated by exponential type decay in pole approximation at times not too short or too long, but, in the two channel case, for example, the pole residues are not orthogonal, and the evolution does riot correspond to a semigroup (...) (experiments on the decay of the neutral K-meson system strongly support the semigroup evolution postulated, by Lee, Oehme and Yang, and Yang and Wu). The scattering theory of Lax and Phillips, originally developed for classical wave equations, has been recently extended to the description of the evolution of resonant states in the framework of quantum theory. The resulting evolution law of the unstable system is that of a semigroup, and the resonant state is a well-defined function in the Lax–Phillips Hilbert space. In this paper we apply this theory to a relativistically covariant quantum field theoretical form of the (soluble) Lee model. We construct the translation representations with the help of the wave operators, and show that the resulting Lax–Phillips S-matrix is an inner function (the Lax–Phillips theory is essentially a theory of translation invariant subspaces). In the special case that the S-matrix is a rational inner function, we obtain the resonant state explicitly and analyze its particle (V, N, θ) content. If there is an exponential bound, the general case differs only by a so-called trivial inner factor, which does not change the complex spectrum, but may affect the wave function of the resonant state. (shrink)

Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was the greatest mind in political philosophy in the twentieth century, and possibly in other centuries as well. That, I am well aware, is a judgment I share with very few, if any. So writes Harry V. Jaffa in his epilogue to this volume. Including an extensive unpublished essay entitled Straussian Geography: A Memoir and Commentary, Crisis of the Strauss Divided brings together a collection of Jaffa s published arguments defending and explaining that judgment, written (...) during the 40 years since Strauss s death.The volume includesarguments of those who have disagreed withJaffa about Strauss's teaching and about the nature of political philosophy. These wide ranging exchanges explore many of the great themes ofpolitical philosophyand, in particular, the implications of Strauss's thinking for America and modern civilization.". (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Book Reviews Bibliography on Plato's "'Laws, "" 1920-1970: With Additional Citations through May, 1975. By Trevor J. Saunders. (New York: Arno Press, 1976. Pp. i + 60. $15.00) The Penguin Classics translator of the non-Socratic Laws, as Leo Strauss called them, has here compiled in a most usable way a thorough bibliography of books and articles about the Laws or parts of them. The section "Texts, Translations, and (...) Commentaries" properly excludes translations not made directly from the Greek. In previous centuries this would, also properly, have excluded many a famous or popular translation, such as Thomas Taylor's or Victor Cousin's, worked out from the text of M. Ficino's "first edition" in Latin. Given the state of the Greek text and the practice, inaugurated by Ficino, of improving upon the Greek in the translatioias, some notation about the literalness of the translations cited would have been of additional value. Section B, in thirty pages, is the largest and also deliberately the most selective in striving to limit itself to work concerned exclusively or primarily with the Laws. But it cannot avoid including much material about some aspect of Plato in general rather than about the Laws; this is especially true of the subsection, B1, on comprehensive accounts. Section B2, on the text and its tradition, has overwhelmingly more citations about the indirect tradition than about the texts themselves, an interesting indication of the current state of this question. The next subsections, to B12, divide according to subject matter. BI3 lists studies on the influence of the Laws. The last section, in twenty-four pages, is most valuable. It lists, by Stephanus page number, an abundance of discussions of individual passages from Book I through Book XII wherever these discussions, bibliographically speaking, may have occurred. Students of the Laws will be well served by, and most grateful to, Professor Saunders for this bibliography. I can only second the intent of his parting epigraph that sends us back to the study of the Laws themselves. But I must add that more explicitly detailed work appears to be required both on the difficulties the text itself presents to students of Plato (one thinks of A. Boeckh's analyses of the prose in Books I through III) and on those which arise when the Laws is contrasted--from the point of view of design and intellectuality--with those of Plato's works that are comparable, if not in number of pages, at least in scale of conception and monumentality. V. TEJERA SUNY at Stony Brook Science and Philosophy in Aristotle's Biological Works. By Anthony Preus. (Hildesheim and New York: George Olms, 1975. Pp. ix + 404. DM.88) A reciprocal influence between Aristotle's philosophy and biology--if it could be demonstrated through step-by-step criticism and not merely asserted in generalities about functionalism--might help to explain both, and might also itself be philosophically interesting ; for it should clarify Aristotle's concepts of form, essence, universal, and species-concepts which have been mercilessly jumbled in the traditional interpretations. With the failure of Jaegerian developmental analyses, we can hardly now hope for help from detailed chronology. But a general dating of Aristotle's biological interest to the Assos-Mytilene period, when he was already aged forty, is accepted by most people (though not by Jaeger who [463]... (shrink)

The article is devoted to Leo Strauss’s critique of Hegel’s political philosophy. The author holds this topic relevant in the context of the crisis of modern political science. To understand the causes and nature of this crisis, it is necessary to pay attention to alternative philosophical and political theories of the XX century. Leo Strauss’s philosophy of politics is just such an alternative theory. Strauss made a radical critique of modern political philosophy, which he saw as an (...) important part of the project of modern civilization. Strauss stresses that Hegel became one of the most prominent philosophers who participated in the creation of modern science and the modern world. The author considers the main critical arguments of Strauss, evaluates their validity and their significance for the Straussian conservative revolution in philosophy. The author pays special attention to the question of Hegel’s role in the break with classical political philosophy. Strauss accused Hegel that he had taken all the major steps that led to this rupture. Hegel, according to Strauss, secularized political thinking, which led to the loss of universal Christian values. The consequence of this secularization was the dominance of positivism in political philosophy. Hegel’s philosophy of history, according to Strauss, is relativism. Hegel’s historicism and progressivism are contradictory and inconsistent. Strauss also accuses Hegel of abandoning the philosophical esoteric art of writing. The article draws attention to the fact that Strauss recognized the importance of Hegel as an outstanding thinker of his time. Strauss viewed Hegel’s philosophy as a kind of intermediate link between classical philosophy and modern positivism. The author concludes that for Strauss the critique of Hegel’s political philosophy became an important element of his project of restoration of classical political philosophy. The article uses little-known materials from Strauss’s lectures in 1958 and 1965. (shrink)

This book is of fundamental importance in political philosophy as well as in theology, philosophy itself, and history. The fact that it lacks an Index is unconscionable. The book consists of some one hundred six pages of precious correspondence between Strauss and Voegelin, plus a reprinting of Strauss's famous essays "Jerusalem and Athens" and "The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy," with Voegelin's "The Gospel and Culture" and "Immortality: Experience and Symbol." To complete these essays and letters are (...) perceptive, often brilliant, essays by James Wiser, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Stanley Rosen, Timothy Fuller, Ellis Sandoz, Thomas Pangle, and David Walsh. It would be difficult to find a more profound and stimulating book covering the whole history and understanding of faith and reason in Western intellectual history. (shrink)

Edwin Curley opens the “Introduction” of his new edition of Leviathan with the following assertion: “Hobbes has suffered a fate shared by many classic authors. His greatest work is more often quoted then carefully and thoroughly read.” Hobbes, it seems, has suffered additional indignities that many classic authors have not. A critical edition is underway which will be published by Clarendon Press at Oxford. So far, the Latin and English versions of De Cive have appeared. Before this undertaking, the last (...) critical edition of Hobbes' complete works was the excellent, but highly flawed English & Latin Works edited by W. Molesworthy in 1839-45. With the exception of the ever-present Leviathan, his works have gone in and out of availability in various editions of varied merit. The Molesworthy edition itself is most commonly found in a German reprint. The standards for textual criticism are being set by French scholars, and a complete, critical and up-to-date Hobbes will probably appear in French translation before it does in English and Latin. German political philosophers such as Ferdinand Tönnies, Leo Strauss, Carl Schmitt, Reinhart Koselleck, and Ernst Bloch have been actively engaged with Hobbes' claims, for obvious reasons, in a way that the Anglo-American literature is not. Hence it is a cause for rejoicing that this excellent “student edition” of Hobbes' “greatest” work has appeared. (shrink)

"מהדורה מוערת ומבוארת של ספר מגלה טמירין על פי דפוס ראשון, כתבי יד מפוזרים, והשוואה לנוסח הספר ביידיש. לספר נלווה כרך מיוחד של נספחים שנוגעים להתהוות הספר ולתכניו, וכלולים בו דיונים עקרוניים שקשורים לכמה סוגיות שעולות בו: מדרש השמות המוצפנים, מקורותיו החסידיים של המחבר, הנוסחים השונים בכתב-יד, והנוסח המיוחד של הספר ביידיש" -- מעטפת אחורית.

People v. Strauss-Kahn is an ideal lens through which to examine the operation of a criminal justice system that privileges the presumption of guilt, or, to use the words of the US Supreme Court in the 2012 decisions Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, has become “a system of pleas, not a system of trials.” It is both an excellent example of a transparent and objective invocation of the criminal sanction, and a sharp counterpoint to the vast majority (...) of cases where law enforcement conclusions are privileged and rarely second-guessed. As analyses of wrongful convictions have sadly but inevitably demonstrated, the screening methods of police and prosecutors are fallible. Moreover, the prevalence of “tunnel vision” once the decision to charge has been made means that few cases experience the kind of post-indictment investigation and reevaluation seen in the prosecution of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Stage by stage, the Strauss-Kahn case illustrates how to counterbalance the presumption of guilt and give expression to the presumption of innocence in the pretrial period through vigilantly-invoked and enforced due process protections. Drawing from this examination, the paper will then explore how to approach this model process in the more standard cases, which typically see a fraction of the judicial, law enforcement, and defense resources afforded Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The Strauss-Kahn prosecution offers several insights, three of which will be sketched at the paper’s conclusion: a requirement that prosecutorial decision-making be subject to a reasonable doubt standard; vigilant and early enforcement of the prosecutor’s obligation to disclose information that is favorable to the accused; and finally, a requirement that a prosecutor explain in writing any decision to dismiss the felony charges in indicted felony cases, so that the factual, legal and policy bases of these decisions (numbering almost one quarter of New York’s superior court felony cases annually) can be analyzed and publicized. (shrink)

Při výběru z teorií, které bychom mohli aplikovat na problém, jímž se zabýváme, je pro nás účinnost jejich použití jedním z nejdůležitějších kritérií. Jinými slovy, naše hodnocení teorií se odvíjí o jejich schopnosti řešit problémy. V tomto eseji nejprve ukáži, jaké druhy problémů jsou pro sociální vědy klíčové, a s pomocí strukturalistické kritiky funkcionalismu nabídnu ilustrace těchto problémů. Budu přitom tvrdit, že Lévi-Straussovy přísliby spojené s jeho metodou nebyly nikdy naplněny a že je strukturální antropologie neuspokojivá.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:ON LEO STRAUSS'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURAL LAW THEORY OF THOMAS AQUINAS * DOUGLAS KRIES Gonzaga University Spokane, Washington IN COMPOSING the introduction to Natural Right and History in the early 1950's, Leo Strauss described the situation in American social science as a division between two parties : the modern liberals of one persuasion or another, who had largely abandoned natural right altogether, and the students of (...) Thomas Aquinas.1 Since the fundamental goal of that book was a recovery of the classical or pre-modern theory of natural right, one might have anticipated that Strauss's work would have been received enthusiastically by the latter group. If nothing else, Strauss and the Thomists were natural allies because they shared the same modern enemies: namely, historicism (the view that all human thought is confined to the immediate historical horizon of the thinker) and positivism (the view that human thought cannot make value judgments, but only judgments about observable matters of fact). Beyond that, Strauss explored very seriously the issues of reason and revelation.and of religion and politics-both of which are crucial for Thomistic political thought. Yet, despite such favorable auguries, a congenial affiliation of *The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful criticisms he received in the preparation of this manuscript from David Calhoun of the Philosophy Department at Gonzaga University. 1 Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), pp. 2, 7. 215 216 DOUGLAS KRIES Straussians and Thomists was never formed.2 Many factors probably contributed to the losing of the opportunity,8 but presumably chief among them was the fact that, even though Strauss's view of Thomas was genuinely respectful, it was not unequivocally sympathetic. Strauss preferred classical natural right theory to modern natural right theory, and he came to the conclusion that Thomas's teaching on natural right-while certainly ' pre-modern ' 4-introduced novelties into the classical position which weakened it rather than improved it. The goal of this essay is to analyze Strauss's reservations about Thomas's statement of the problem of natural right. Such an analysis will, I hope, contribute to a more fruitful exchange between the students of Leo Strauss and those of Thomas Aquinas. I Perhaps the best way to initiate an explanation of Strauss's view of the differences between classical and Thomistic natural right is to contrast the starting points of the two theories. The classical approach begins with what is said about right, with the everyday opinions that are held about what is just. From such an immediate starting point the classical approach ascends toward true knowledge through the process of dialectics. Although all people have views about what is just, in fact such opinions, when examined through friendly disputation with a philosopher, are almost always found to be self-contradictory; however, the 2 This is not to suggest that Strauss was completely ignored and rejected by the Thomists. For an overview of the Thomistic literature which has considered Strauss, see James V. Schall, "Revelation, Reason and Politics: Catholic Reflexions on Strauss," Gregorianum 62 (1981), 349-365, 467-497. s See Ernest L. Fortin, "Rational Theologians and Irrational Philosophers: A Straussian Perspective," Interpretation 12 (1984), 349-350. 4 For Strauss, the fundamental division within the history of political philosophy was between the ancients and the moderns. He understood Thomas to be in the former camp and was critical of contemporary Thomists who, under pressure from the success of modern physics, had attempted to ' modernize ' Thomas by jettisoning his teleological view of nature. See Natural Right and History, pp. 7-8; What is Political Philosophy? (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1959), pp. 285-6. NATURAL LAW THEORY OF THOMAS AQUINAS 217 very fact that one comes to realize that contradiction and seeks to rectify it points to the fact that human beings realize that a more comprehensive, non-contradictory view might be possible. The contradictions thus force one to ascend beyond the opinions that are at best only partially true toward an ever more consistent view, a view based on nature; if such a process could reach culmination, the culmination would constitute a statement of what is right by nature.5 The starting... (shrink)

Harry V. Jaffa (1918-2015), professor at Claremont McKenna College and Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute, was one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century. His hundreds of students have reached positions of power and prestige throughout the intellectual and political world, including the Supreme Court and the Trump White House. Jaffa authored Barry Goldwater's famous 1964 Republican Convention speech which declared, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is (...) no virtue." William F. Buckley, Jaffa's close friend and a key figure in shaping the modern conservative movement, wrote, "If you think it is hard arguing with Harry Jaffa, try agreeing with him." His widely acclaimed book Crisis of the House Divided: An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (1959), was the first scholarly work to treat Abraham Lincoln as a serious philosophic thinker. As the earliest protégé of the controversial scholar Leo Strauss, Jaffa turned his theoretical insights to understanding the United States as the "best regime" in principle. He saw the American Revolution and the Civil War as world-historical events that revealed the true nature of politics. Statesmanship, constitutional government, and the virtues of republican citizenship are keys to unlocking the most important truths of political philosophy. Jaffa's student, Glenn Ellmers, was given complete access to Jaffa's private papers at Hillsdale College to produce the first comprehensive examination of his teacher's vast body of work. In addition to Lincoln and the founding fathers, the book shares Jaffa's profound insights into Aristotle, Shakespeare, Winston Churchill, and more. (shrink)

The study discusses the philosophy of Finnish philosopher J.V. Snellman (1806–81). The focus is on Snellman's so-called philosophy of personality, which he presented in his work "Essay on the speculative Development of the Idea of Personality" (Tübingen, 1841). Besides this work he addressed his philosophy of personality in his other works and in his public lectures. -/- In his philosophy of personality Snellman develops the concept of personality within the framework of G.W.F. Hegel's (1770–1831) philosophy. The concept of personality serves (...) as a basis for Hegel's philosophy of right, and it plays an important role also in other parts of Hegel's system. However, he never provided a comprehensive definition of this concept. The essence of personality was debated among Hegelians after Hegel's death in 1831. In the course of the debate the Hegelian school split into two groups. At the time of publication of "The Idea of Personality" there was a serious rift between the Right- and the Left-Hegelians. -/- The study analyzes Snellman's philosophy of personality in respect of Hegel's philosophy and in respect of the views of other Hegelians – mainly D.F. Strauss (1808–74), L. Feuerbach (1804–72) and C.F. Göschel (1781–1861). I also attend to some contemporaries outside the Hegelian School like F.W.J. Schelling (1775–1854) and I.H. Fichte (1796–1879). -/- The study is divided into six sections (A–F). The first comprises an introduction and an outline of the structure of the study. The second section (B) discusses the historical context of Snellman's philosophy. The first subsection focuses on the Central European debate on Hegel's legacy. The second subsection deals with Snellman's life and his work on philosophy. The systematic part of the study comprises three sections (C–E), which consider the dialectic of Snellman's work of 1841. This dialectic follows the outline of Hegel's philosophy of subjective spirit and culminates in the definition of personality. Snellman, however, exceeds the realm of the philosophy of subjective spirit, as he discusses e.g. the philosophy of religion. He also comments on the debate among Hegelians. According to Snellman, neither Right- nor Left-Hegelians are true to Hegel's philosophy. In effect, his own standpoint in the debate, as I will argue, comes close to that of the Left-Hegelians. The study concludes with a summary (F). (shrink)

This book is intended to serve as an introduction to the thought of James V. Schall, arguably one of the best, perhaps even the only, authentically Thomistic political scientist writing today. In contrast to main currents in contemporary Thomism, Schall remains conversant with the great tradition of political philosophy and therefore appreciates the complex and relatively imprecise nature of political reflection. In this book, the distinguished theorist addresses a wide range of subjects, including the question of overpopulation, the thought of (...) Charles McCoy and Leo Strauss, the role of Christianity in political philosophy, and the challenges that the democratic project pose to human beings' perception of the truth. As a meditation on practical and theoretical political questions, self-consciously proceeding from the perspectives of both nature and grace, the book provides a unique picture of what a genuine Thomistic political science might look like. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 12.3 (2005) 195-198 [Access article in PDF] Implicit and Explicit Temporality Thomas Fuchs Keywords implicit/explicit temporality, embodiment, intersubjectivity, desynchronization, melancholia, schizophrenia Since Minkowski (1970), Strauss (1966), v. Gebsattel (1954), and Tellenbach (1980), temporality has been a main subject of phenomenological psychiatry. Drawing on philosophical concepts of Bergson, Husserl, and Heidegger, these authors have analyzed psychopathologic deviations of time experience, mainly from an individual point (...) of view, for example, as a slowing down or inhibition of lived time in depression or obsessive–compulsive disorder. Their analyses are still most valuable today, but may be carried further by introducing concepts such as embodied and intersubjective temporality into psychopathology. Martin Wyllie (2005), by opening up a wide scope of temporal phenomena and related concepts, makes a laudable effort to contribute to such a progress.In my commentary, I would like to propose a distinction that is suggested by much of Wyllie's analysis and may shed further light on psychopathology, namely between implicit and explicit temporality. If we look at a child while obliviously playing with his toys, lost to the world, we may assume that there is no sense of the time passing. Lived time runs with the movement of life, implicit in the child's experience of being engaged in his play and directed toward his goals. It "unfolds through the processes of bodily activity" (Wyllie 2005). Future and past do not stand out against the pure presence of "becoming." This implicit mode of temporality is retrieved every time that we are absorbed in what we are doing, and may even reach the climax of "flow experiences" (Csikszentmihalyi 1988) where the sense of time is lost in unimpeded, fluent performance.However, this changes when a gap arises between need and satisfaction, desire and fulfillment, or plan and execution. Now the future appears as a "not yet" or "yet to come," experienced as the temporality of awaiting, striving, or longing for. Time is felt as passing by and refusing the desired fulfillment; it becomes conscious or explicit. A similar gap arises between the present and something irretrievably lost, bringing the past to consciousness as a "no more." Again time is experienced explicitly, but now as moving on relentlessly and separating us from the lost object. The gap to the past may not be bridged any more: this is the temporality of missing or mourning. In both cases, explicit time arises as a negation of implicit or lived time (here my use of the term is a bit divergent from Wyllie's); it is experienced as a "not yet" or "no more," often with a component of displeasure or suffering (Fuchs 2001a, 2003)."Implicit" versus "explicit time" thus come near to another distinction well known in phenomenology, namely between the "lived" and [End Page 195] the "corporal body" (Leib versus Koerper). The first term refers to the body functioning in the tacit mode, as the medium of everyday performance. The second term points to the body as turning into the object of attention, for example, when it puts up resistance to our purposes, or is used as an instrument deliberately (Fuchs 2001b). In fact, implicit temporality and tacit performance of the body are nearly synonymous: Lived time may be regarded as a function of the lived body, opened up by its potentiality and capability. The more we are engaged in our tasks, the more we forget time as well as the body; we are, as it were, "inside time." On the other hand, in explicit temporality the body often appears in the corporal or explicit mode as well. For example, when falling ill, we experience our body no more as a tacit medium but rather as an object or obstacle, while we notice the slowing down of time and may even feel excluded from the movement of life. Thus, embodiment and temporality have a parallel background–foreground structure.I now try to carry these considerations further by including the intersubjective dimension of time. In an earlier paper, I describe the attunement of the living being to its environment as a continuous synchronization on the biological as... (shrink)

This book explores the dynamics of interaction between pragmatism and spirituality in the constitution and working of consciousness, freedom and solidarity. This book is cross-cultural and transdisciplinary in nature and brings critical and transformative perspectives from different philosophical and spiritual traditions of the world. It discusses the works of seminal thinkers such as William James, Rudolf Steiner, John Dewey, Swami Vivekananda, Martin Heidegger, Claude Levi-Strauss, Jordan Peterson, Slavos Zizek, Paul Valeri and O.V. Vijayan. It also explores dialogues between pragmatism (...) and other philosophical and intellectual traditions such as Semiotics, Saiva Siddhanta, Vedanta, Trika Shaivism and Tantra. It explores themes such as pragmatism and belief, evolution of consciousness and happiness, spiritual pragmatism and economics of solidarity, value levels democracy, the perforamtive as an aspect of spirituality and transformation of political theology from Kingdom of God to Gardens of God. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Die Philosophische Logik Gottlob Freges. Ein Kommentar, mit den Texten des Vorworts zu Grundgesetze der Arithmetik und der Logischen Untersuchungen I–IVLeila HaaparantaWolfgang Künne. Die Philosophische Logik Gottlob Freges. Ein Kommentar, mit den Texten des Vorworts zu Grundgesetze der Arithmetik und der Logischen Untersuchungen I–IV. RoteReihe 30. Frankfurt: V. Klostermann, 2010. Pp. 840. Paper, €29.80.Frege’s thought has been a permanent point of interest among philosophers for several decades. In (...) the late sixties a few philosophers, such as Christian Thiel and Ignacio Angelelli, published studies on Frege’s logic, semantics, and metaphysics. In 1973 Michael Dummett’s work on Frege’s philosophy of language appeared, which held the stage for a long time. It presented Frege as a predecessor, even as a representative, of the analytic tradition. New approaches came up in the late 1970s and early 1980s, such as Hans Sluga’s work in 1980 and other studies, which paid special attention to Frege’s German background, where Kant played a significant role. Several scholars, including Michael Dummett, started to dig into Frege’s background. Positions varied; some studied Frege’s background in order to show that there is nothing that could help us understand his philosophical insights; others found the origins of his philosophical and logical ideas precisely in his background and philosophical environment, in such philosophers as Leibniz, Kant, Trendelenburg, and Lotze.After a few somewhat more quiet years, Frege scholarship expanded after 2000. A number of books have appeared that discuss Frege in the analytic context and also seek [End Page 507] to find more details about his philosophical sources. Wolfgang Künne’s work is a most welcome contribution to contemporary scholarship in the field. Lothar Kreiser’s Gottlob Frege: Leben—Werk—Zeit (2001) has already been available, and interpretations of Frege’s philosophy as well as editions and translations of his books contain short biographies. Still, because of its special composition, Künne’s work serves to fill a gap in the scholarship and significantly contributes to what is known about Frege’s logic and philosophy.The volume consists of three parts. First, there is an extensive biography (about 50 pages) of Frege that places Frege’s thought in its historical context and also contextualizes those of his articles that are included in the work. The main projects Frege pursued, most notably the project of logicism, receive proper attention in the first part of the volume. The four texts that are included in the volume are the Preface of the Grundgesetze der Arithmetik I (1893) and the three logical investigations that were published during Frege’s lifetime, namely “Der Gedanke” (1918), “Die Verneinung” (1919), and “Gedankengefüge” (1923), which were originally published in Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus. Künne has also included a posthumously published text, “Logische Allgemeinheit,” in the volume, as that fragment, which was not written before 1923, was intended to be a fourth logical investigation. The five texts written by Frege that are included in the edition discuss topics that we would now call philosophical logic, such as meaning, reference, and truth, although they also study themes that we would include in ontology and the philosophy of mind. The title of the volume is thus sufficiently motivated.Frege’s texts take up about 100 pages of the volume, while the commentary is about 600 pages. The book also contains an appendix on Bolzano and Frege, where Künne pays attention to similarities between the two logicians and philosophers but also shows his skepticism about the thesis that Frege had read Bolzano. Apart from this position, Künne prefers to read Frege’s texts closely and inform his reader of historical and philological matters rather than take part in any heated debates concerning interpretations; his own positions become visible only indirectly, through the extensive footnotes. The work also contains a very useful bibliography and indexes of names and subjects.The book is extremely rich. If one, for example, wishes to know more about the views of Frege’s German contemporaries, about the standpoints that Russell or Wittgenstein had on Fregean topics, or about the arguments of Frege scholars, one can find... (shrink)

This paper concerns modal logics of provability — Gödel-Löb systemGL and Solovay logicS — the smallest and the greatest representation of arithmetical theories in propositional logic respectively. We prove that the decision problem for admissibility of rules (with or without parameters) inGL andS is decidable. Then we get a positive solution to Friedman''s problem forGL andS. We also show that A. V. Kuznetsov''s problem of the existence of finite basis for admissible rules forGL andS has a negative solution. Afterwards we (...) give an algorithm deciding the solvability of logical equations inGL andS and constructing some solutions. (shrink)

My dear Aleksandr!I have finally found some quiet time for a slow and attentive read of your article “The Beginning of the Black Notebooks.”1 I very much liked the article, especially for your trul...

We consider structural completeness in modal logics. The main result is the necessary and sufficient condition for modal logics over K4 to be hereditarily structurally complete: a modal logic λ is hereditarily structurally complete $\operatorname{iff} \lambda$ is not included in any logic from the list of twenty special tabular logics. Hence there are exactly twenty maximal structurally incomplete modal logics above K4 and they are all tabular.

The Great Philosophers, From Thales of Miletus (ca. 620-540 b.c.), "The first natural scientist and analytical philosopher in Western intellectual history," to W.V.O. Quine (1908-2000): "Only science can tell us the truth about the world" Philosophy is a thorough and accessible introduction to the Western intellectual tradition, covering philosophical, scientific, and religious thought over a period of 2,500 years. Offering brief summaries of the work of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as Copernicus, Machiavelli, Galileo, Spinoza, Voltaire, Adam Smith, Mary (...) Wollstonecraft, Thomas Paine, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Simone de Beauvoir, Levi-Strauss, and Einstein, to name just a few, this book will serve as an invaluable guide for those seeking a clear introduction to the work of individual philosophers. A lucid and engaging book, Philosophy is sure to stimulate and absorb students and laymen alike. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Book Reviews Bibliography on Plato's "'Laws, "" 1920-1970: With Additional Citations through May, 1975. By Trevor J. Saunders. (New York: Arno Press, 1976. Pp. i + 60. $15.00) The Penguin Classics translator of the non-Socratic Laws, as Leo Strauss called them, has here compiled in a most usable way a thorough bibliography of books and articles about the Laws or parts of them. The section "Texts, Translations, and (...) Commentaries" properly excludes translations not made directly from the Greek. In previous centuries this would, also properly, have excluded many a famous or popular translation, such as Thomas Taylor's or Victor Cousin's, worked out from the text of M. Ficino's "first edition" in Latin. Given the state of the Greek text and the practice, inaugurated by Ficino, of improving upon the Greek in the translatioias, some notation about the literalness of the translations cited would have been of additional value. Section B, in thirty pages, is the largest and also deliberately the most selective in striving to limit itself to work concerned exclusively or primarily with the Laws. But it cannot avoid including much material about some aspect of Plato in general rather than about the Laws; this is especially true of the subsection, B1, on comprehensive accounts. Section B2, on the text and its tradition, has overwhelmingly more citations about the indirect tradition than about the texts themselves, an interesting indication of the current state of this question. The next subsections, to B12, divide according to subject matter. BI3 lists studies on the influence of the Laws. The last section, in twenty-four pages, is most valuable. It lists, by Stephanus page number, an abundance of discussions of individual passages from Book I through Book XII wherever these discussions, bibliographically speaking, may have occurred. Students of the Laws will be well served by, and most grateful to, Professor Saunders for this bibliography. I can only second the intent of his parting epigraph that sends us back to the study of the Laws themselves. But I must add that more explicitly detailed work appears to be required both on the difficulties the text itself presents to students of Plato (one thinks of A. Boeckh's analyses of the prose in Books I through III) and on those which arise when the Laws is contrasted--from the point of view of design and intellectuality--with those of Plato's works that are comparable, if not in number of pages, at least in scale of conception and monumentality. V. TEJERA SUNY at Stony Brook Science and Philosophy in Aristotle's Biological Works. By Anthony Preus. (Hildesheim and New York: George Olms, 1975. Pp. ix + 404. DM.88) A reciprocal influence between Aristotle's philosophy and biology--if it could be demonstrated through step-by-step criticism and not merely asserted in generalities about functionalism--might help to explain both, and might also itself be philosophically interesting ; for it should clarify Aristotle's concepts of form, essence, universal, and species-concepts which have been mercilessly jumbled in the traditional interpretations. With the failure of Jaegerian developmental analyses, we can hardly now hope for help from detailed chronology. But a general dating of Aristotle's biological interest to the Assos-Mytilene period, when he was already aged forty, is accepted by most people (though not by Jaeger who [463] 464 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY put it at the end, nor by Ryle who put it at the beginning of Aristotle's career) and is the basis of Anthony Preus's contention in this book. For if Aristotle began serious biology only in middle life we could expect a tension between the antiphenomenal metaphysics of the Academy, which he had just left after twenty years there, and the kind of philosophizing and explaining that might seem demanded by living concrete organisms. Preus sets out to show such a tension, claiming on page 1 that "in P. A. and G. A. sometimes the philosophical position is bent to fit the observed facts, and sometimes the observations are adjusted to fit the philosophical position." The reader may be assured at once that this appalling accusation (which is repeated in the publisher's blurb) is not... (shrink)