The conditions are examined under which one theory is said to be replaceable by another, while preserving those features of the original theory which made it serviceable for a given purpose. Among such replacements, special attention is given to ones which qualify as so-called reductions of a theory, and some theorems are proved concerning the notion of a reduction.

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Sprache und Wirklichkeit in Wittgensteins Tractatus" verfügbar.

The object of this essay is to discuss two problems and to present solutions to them, which do not quite agree with what is generally said of them. The first problem concerns the history of methods for reaching firm historical knowledge. In three methodological manuals for historians, written by J. G. Droysen, E. Bernheim, and C.-V. Langlois and C. Seignobos and first published in the late nineteenth century, the task of the historian was said to be how to obtain firm (...) knowledge about history. The question is how this message should be understood. The second problem concerns the differences between the three manuals. If their common goal is firm historical knowledge, are there any major differences of opinion? The answer given in this article is yes, and the ground is sought in their theories of truth. (shrink)

Ever since antiquity, philosophy has continuously striven to grasp the phenomenon of humor and laughter, while, in modern times, Bergson certainly holds a special place,\ with his interpretation of laughter, and particularly “humor”, as a form of social sanction. However, such an analysis neglects the fact that the ability to laugh is actually grounded in a primordial sphere of life-affection as such, so that, starting from here, we could understand laughter, in connection with the radical-phenomenological essence of life itself, as (...) being essentially joy. (shrink)

It is pointed out against the two critics (a) that an identity or partial identity of meanings and facts is logically impossible, (b) that the logical grammar of ?identify? and ?explain? is different from that of ?understand? and that hence understanding can never be an operation of identifying or explaining, and (c) that rational understanding does not involve a ?reproduction? of the subject matter in any controversial sense.

In order to be successful in philosophy, you must have the right kind of followers. Ideally, they should be able to perform either or both of these tasks: to translate your teachings into an idiom that is accessible to an audience coming from different intellectual backgrounds, and/or to integrate your philosophical message into a contemporary discourse in such a way that it proves to be productively connectable to what is discussed there. Kant was lucky enough to have had such ideal (...) followers in abundance, both as exegetical interpreters and as modernizers of his ideas. They stretch from the post-Kantian idealists via the Neo-Kantians to twentieth-century epistemologists, moral philosophers, and... (shrink)

According to the customary view, logic is a mere subdiscipline or ad junct of philosophy in so far as it is relevant to philosophy at all, and a sub discipline of mathematics to the extent that it is not. Thus, philosophy is taken to have traditional proprietary rights on "its" logic. I would like to examine here the reverse proprietary attitude, according to which philosophy is a branch of logic.

Upon his death in 1895, Carl Schorlemmer, professor of chemistry at the Victoria University in Manchester/GB, left an extensive but unfinished and unpublished manuscript, which is now stored in the John Rylands University Library of Manchester. It covers about 1100 pages and deals with the history of chemistry from antiquity to the second third of the 17th century. Based on a several years' study of this paper, an evaluation of its main parts (Chemical knowledge of antiquity/The age of alchemy/The age (...) of medical chemistry) is given. As compared with his bookThe Rise and Development of Organic Chemistry (Manchester/London 1879) Schorlemmer seemes to have overstepped the summit of scientific-historical efficiency in the „Contributions... . Some authors believe that he intended to write an universal history of chemistry from the Marxist point of view but this presumption cannot be supported. (shrink)

In this paper, I present a philosophical analysis of interdisciplinary scientific activities. I suggest that it is a fruitful approach to view interdisciplinarity in light of the recent literature on scientific representations. For this purpose I develop a meta-representational model in which interdisciplinarity is viewed in part as a process of integrating distinct scientific representational approaches. The analysis suggests that present methods for the evaluation of interdisciplinary projects places too much emphasis non-epistemic aspects of disciplinary integrations while more or less (...) ignoring whether specific interdisciplinary collaborations puts us in a better, or worse, epistemic position. This leads to the conclusion that there are very good reasons for recommending a more cautious, systematic, and stringent approach to the development, evaluation, and execution of interdisciplinary science. (shrink)

Neural organization has many facets; multiple descriptive levels and multiple analytical strategies coexist. Although most neuroscientists agree that a multidisciplinary, multistrategic approach is necessary to understand neural organization, diverse individual approaches make it difficult to find the optimal mixture and priority list.

Costa de Beauregard has criticized the notion of reversible computation, invented by Charles Bennett and expounded by this author. Costa de Beauregard states that my work includes fantastic claims. This is a rebuttal.

ZusammenfassungDer Text versucht in Auseinandersetzung mit den Ansätzen von Jürgen Moltmann, Johann Baptist Metz und Odo Marquard und im Anschluss an lutherische Theologie zu einer Verhältnisbestimmung von Theodizeefrage und Kreuzestheologie zu gelangen. Dabei wird Luthers Einsicht fruchtbar gemacht, dass Gott verborgen im Leiden wirkt, das Leiden aber nicht zu seiner Wesenseigenschaft wird. Vielmehr eröffnet sich in der Klage des leidenden Menschen die Möglichkeit, das Leiden an Gott zu beenden und gegen Gott zu Gott zu fliehen. Von Luthers Kreuzestheologie her ist (...) eine gegenseitige Durchdringung von Theodizeefrage, Hamartiologie, Kreuzestheologie und Eschatologie anzumahnen. Gleichzeitig verhelfen Klage und Anklage dazu, sich aufgrund von erfahrenen Leiden nicht in sich selbst zu verschließen, sondern kontrafaktisch an Gott festzuhalten.SummaryDiscussing the thoughts of J. Moltmann, J. B. Metz and O. Marquard the essay attempts – whilst following Martin Luther's theologia crucis – to find a relation between the theodicy-question and the theology of the cross. For this concern it refers to the aspect that God acts in suffering in a hidden way but does not posses suffering as an intrinsic characteristic. Rather, the lament of suffering people address to God, as we find it in the Psalms, gives the opportunity of bringing suffering from God's hiddenness to an end and to “flee from God to God”. Returning to Luther's theologia crucis should lead to further reflections on theodicy, sin, theology of the cross and eschatology. At the same time, lamentation as bringing human suffering before God provides an aid for suffering people not to lock their suffering in themselves, but to maintain the relationship to God – even against the supposedly factual evidence of the experience of suffering. (shrink)

ZUSAMMENFASSUNGIm Rekurs auf Luthers Verständnis der communicatio idiomatum, also der gegenseitigen Mitteilung und Partizipation von Göttlichem und Menschlichem in der Person Jesu Christi, versucht der Text eine Annäherung zu leisten an eine kommunikative theologische Anthropologie innerhalb einer relationalen und kommunikativen Ontologie. Mit einem solchen Konzept erscheint es als möglich, innerhalb der Debatte um Leib und Seele beziehungsweise Gehirn und Geist, die in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten aufgrund der Forschungsergebnisse der Neurowissenschaften von neuem in die öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit gerückt ist, zu einer Klärung (...) zu gelangen und sowohl einen Leib-Seele-Dualismus als auch eine naturalistische Reduzierung mentaler Prozesse auf rein physische Vorgänge zu vermeiden. Luthers Modell der communicatio idiomatum dient in diesem Zusammenhang als Strukturmodell für die Kommunikation von Mensch und Gott im Glauben und für die leib-seelische Existenz des Menschen selbst.SUMMARYThe article tries – in referring to Martin Luther's understanding of communicatio idiomatum, thus the communication of divine and human nature in the person of Jesus Christ – to outline a communicative anthropology and ontology, in order to help to clarify the body-mind-problem and to overcome both the body-mind-dualism and a naturalistic approach currently favoured by several neuroscientist concepts. In comparing Luther's view of the communication of immaterial and material processes within the person of Jesus Christ and his concept of communication that takes place between Christ and the believer, the essay concludes that Luther seems to conceive a constitutively relationally structured view of man. In taking this approach seriously, there could be a way for Christian theology to appropriately deal with the challenges caused by the contemporary neuroscientist debate. Following Luther's concept of communication within the person of Jesus Christ, of Christ and man and within man himself, this communicative concept could turn out to be helpful in outlining a relational and communicational theological anthropology. (shrink)

This article notes differences in legislation in Germany and Great Britain regarding human embryo research and looks for an explanation in their divergent intellectual traditions. Whereas the German Stem Cell Act invokes an anthropological concept of human dignity to ground its ban on using embryos for research, there is no definition of what it means to be human in either the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act or in the advisory Warnock-Report. After studying the differences and providing some philosophical background, (...) the essay distinguishes two notions that are significant for understanding human dignity. It then proposes from a theological point of view a basic understanding within a relational anthropology, and comes to the conclusion that because of continuity in development and their relational constitution, humans embryos should be accepted as human from the moment of conception. (shrink)

The author, a noted literary critic, presents a selection of his thought on Balzac, Valery, Dickens, Goethe, Heine, Hoelderlin, lyric poetry, realism, the essay and the contemporary novel.