Inhaltsverzeichnis/Table of Contents: Rudolf HALLER: Zwei Vorworte in einem. Evelyn DÖLLING: Alexius Meinong: "Der blinde Seher Theiresias". Jaakko HINTIKKA: Meinong in a Long Perspective. Richard SYLVAN: Re-Exploring Item-Theory. Francesca MODENATO: Meinong's Theory of Objects: An Attempt at Overcoming Psychologism. Jan WOLE??N??SKI: Ways of Dealing with Non-existence. Karel LAMBERT: Substitution and the Expansion of the World. Terence PARSONS: Meinongian Semantics Generalized. Reinhardt GROSSMANN: Thoughts, Objectives and States of Affairs. Peter SIMONS: Meinong's Theory of Sense and Reference. Barry SMITH: More Things in (...) Heaven and Earth. Michele LENOCI: Meinongs unvollständige Gegenstände und das Universalienproblem. Maria E. REICHER: Gibt es unvollständige Gegenstände? Dale JACQUETTE: Meinong's Concept of Implexive Being and Nonbeing. Herbert HOCHBERG:s, Functions, Existence and Relations in the Russell-Meinong Dispute, the Bradley Paradox and the Realism-Nominalism Controversy. Jacek PA_NICZEK: Are Contradictions Still Lurking in Meinongian Theories of Objects? Marie-Luise SCHUBERT KALSI: Apriorische Elemente im Denken. Liliana ALBERTAZZI: Forms of Completion. Johann Ch. MAREK: Zwei Gegenstände und ein Inhalt. Zur Intentionalität bei Meinong. Wolfgang KÜNNE: Some Varieties of Thinking. Reflections on Meinong and Fodor. Alberto VOLTOLINI: Is Meaning Without Actually Existing Reference Naturalizable? Markus S. STEPANIANS: Russells Kritik an Meinongs Begriff des Annahmeschlusses. Nenad MIŠ_EVI_: Imagination and Necessity. R.D. ROLLINGER: Meinong on Perception: Two Questions Concerning Propositional Seeing. Wolfgang G. STOCK: Die Genese der Theorie der Vorstellungsproduktion der Grazer Schule. Rudolf HALLER: Über Meinongs Wissenschaftstheorie. Alfred SCHRAMM: Meinongs Wahrscheinlichkeit. Karl SCHUHMANN: Der Wertbegriff beim frühen Meinong. Wilhelm BAUMGARTNER: Wertpräsentation. Ursula ZEGLÉN: Meinong's Analysis of Lying. Seppo SAJAMA: Hitting Reality: France Veber's Concept of Zadevanje. Matja_ POTR_: Sensation According to Meinong and Veber. Róbert SOMOS: Zwei Schüler Brentanos: Ákos von Pauler und Meinong. J.C. NYÍRI: Palágyis Kritik an der Gegenstandstheorie. David M. ARMSTRONG: Reaction to Meinong. (shrink)

The authors of Austere Realism describe and defend a provocative ontological-cum-semantic position, asserting that the right ontology is minimal or austere, in that it excludes numerous common-sense posits, and that statements employing such posits are nonetheless true, when truth is understood to be semantic correctness under contextually operative semantic standards. Terence Horgan and Matjaz [hacek over z] Potrc [hacek over c] argue that austere realism emerges naturally from consideration of the deep problems within the naive common-sense approach to truth and (...) ontology. They offer an account of truth that confronts these deep internal problems and is independently plausible: contextual semantics, which asserts that truth is semantically correct affirmability. Under contextual semantics, much ordinary and scientific thought and discourse is true because its truth is indirect correspondence to the world. After offering further arguments for austere realism and addressing objections to it, Horgan and Potrc [hacek over c] consider various alternative austere ontologies. They advance a specific version they call "blobjectivism"--the view that the right ontology includes only one concrete particular, the entire cosmos, which, although it has enormous local spatiotemporal variability, does not have any proper parts. The arguments in Austere Realism are powerfully made and concisely and lucidly set out. The authors' contentions and their methodological approach--products of a decade-long collaboration--will generate lively debate among scholars in metaphysics, ontology, and philosophy. Terence E. Horgan is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Arizona. Matjaz [hacek over z] Potrc [hacek over c] is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana. (shrink)

What is real? Less than you might think. We advocate austere metaphysical realism---a form of metaphysical realism claiming that a correct ontological theory will repudiate numerous putative entities and properties that are posited in everyday thought and discourse, and also will even repudiate numerous putative objects and properties that are posited by well confirmed scientific theories. We have lately defended a specific version of austere metaphysical realism which asserts that there is really only one concrete particular, viz., the entire cosmos (...) (see Horgan and Potr (2000, 2002), Potr (2003)). But there are various potential versions of the generic position we are here calling austere metaphysical realism; and it is the generic view that constitutes the ontological part of the overall approach to realism and truth that we will describe here. What is true? More than you might think, given our austere metaphysical realism. We maintain that truth is semantically correct affirmability, under contextually operative semantic standards. We also maintain that most of the time, the contextually operative semantic standards work in such a way that semantic correctness (i.e., truth) is a matter of indirect correspondence rather than direct correspondence between thought or language on the one hand, and the world on the other.1 When correspondence is indirect rather than direct, a given statement (or thought) can be true even if the correct ontology does not include items answering to all the referential commitments (as we will here call them) of the statement. 2 This means that even if a putative object is repudiated by a correct ontological theory, ordinary statements that are putatively about that object may still be true. For instance, the statement “The University of St. Andrews is in Scotland” can be semantically correct (i.e., true) even if the right ontology does not include any entity answering to the referring term ‘The University of St. Andrews’, or any entity... (shrink)

Cílem článku je podat kritický rozbor predikcí týkajících se budoucnosti sociálních věd, jak je formuluje Ladislav Kvasz pod záštitou svého projektu „formální epistemologie". Modelem dynamiky vztahů mezi obory na vědeckém poli nabízí Kvasz v otázce střídání paradigmat alternativu ke Kuhnově teorii vědeckých revolucí. Text zkoumá, na jakých základech je mechanismus změn u Kvasze vystavěn a co z toho plyne pro relevanci předpovědí z tohoto modelu vyvozených - především těch o sociálních vědách. K tomu slouží souběžné představení historické metody Michela Foucaulta, (...) který zdůrazňuje potřebu vyvarovat se zavádění falešných kontinuit ve zkoumání trajektorií vědeckých oborů, u kterých dochází ke zlomům v jejich epistemické struktuře. Zvláštní zřetel je kladen na souvislost predikcí s možnostmi odlišit epistemologicky a sociologicky uchopitelné prvky spojené s chodem vědy. Jako klíčový moment se tedy ukáže možnost práce se sociálně vědními obory pomocí jemných nástrojů, které Kvasz vyvinul na vědách exaktních. (shrink)

Il saggio si propone di analizzare criticamente la particolare comprensione di Dio che Rosenzweig elabora nel Libro Primo della Parte Prima del suo capolavoro filosofico, vale a dire, La Stella della Redenzione. Il Dio di cui si parla nel testo rosenzweighiano esaminato? il Dio mitico della tradizione greca. Esso costituisce la condizione?elementare? necessaria, ma non sufficiente, sulla quale potr? poi fondarsi il ben pi? complesso e articolato Dio della rivelazione biblica. Il Dio mitico presenta un profilo estremamente dinamico, contrassegnato (...) da due polarit? in tensione - la sua stessa natura e la sua libert? - chegli conferiscono una straordinaria vitalit?. La libert? divina e la natura divina, nel passaggio dal Dio mitico al Dio rivelato, produrranno, attraverso una complessa trasfigurazione del loro assetto polare originario, rispettivamente, da un lato, la creazione del mondo, e dall?altro, la relazione d?amore che lo stesso Dio rivelato intratterr? con l?uomo. Namera teksta je da kriticki analizira specificno razumevanje Boga koje Rozencvajg razvija u Prvoj knjizi Prvog dela svog, vredi istaci, remek dela, Zvezda izbavljenja. Bog o kojem je rec u Rozencvajgovom tekstu jeste mitski bog grckog predanja. On je nuzni ali ne i dovoljni?elementarni? uslov na osnovu kojeg se moze utemeljiti mnogo slozeniji i artikulisaniji Bog biblijskog otkrovenja. Mitski Bog predstavlja izuzetno dinamicki profil kojeg obelezavaju dva napeta polariteta - sama njegova priroda i njegova sloboda - obezbedjujuci time njegovu izuzetnu vitalnost. Bozanska sloboda i bozanska priroda ce u prelazu od mitskog Boga ka Bogu otkrovenja putem jedne slozene transfiguracije njihovih prvobitnih polarnih struktura proizvesti s jedne stra?ne stvaranje sveta, i s druge, ljubavni odnos koji ce isti Bog otkrovenja uspostaviti s covekom. (shrink)