The question of the animal is one of the most intensely debated in the contemporary philosophical arena. The present article makes the case that Husserl’s phenomenological approach offers a stimulating and open-ended perspective on this discussion. The animal, indeed, is an instance of extreme otherness, which pushes phenomenology to its limits. The paper opens with an outline of the methodological issues raised by the question of the animal. It then examines what the animal—at this point, taken as a whole—and the (...) human being have in common and what Husserl sees as the main differences between them. A critical aspect here is the question of personhood. Finally, Sect. 3 traces Husserl’s progression from a general concept of animality to detailed and nuanced phenomenological descriptions of different animals and their intra- and inter-specific relationships. Husserl understands that the threshold that joins and divides human beings and animals is difficult to pin down, because there is more than one threshold: it is plural. (shrink)

The article aims at analyzing and connecting the ideas of justice and generations in a phenomenological perspective beyond the classical approaches. It suggests a shift from the concept of generations to those of generating and generativity in a phenomenological sense. The debate involves different philosophical positions about the main distinction ‘contemporaneity/not-contemporaneity’. At the end, the essay proposes a confrontation between phenomenology and philosophies of the otherness, discussing three basic ideas: temporalization, historicity and generating of generations.

ZusammenfassungHumes Enquiry concerning Human Understanding entfaltet eine Konzeption von Freiheit und Verantwortlichkeit, der zufolge beides mit der These der »Notwendigkeit« vereinbar ist. Hume wirft dabei die Frage auf, ob ein Mensch oder Gott für moralisch böses Handeln dieses Menschen verantwortlich ist, wenn Gott existiert und als Schöpfer der Welt auch das Handeln von Menschen bestimmt. Der Aufsatz untersucht, welche Antwort Hume auf diese Frage gibt und welche Folgen sich aus seiner Antwort für eine angemessene Konzeption von menschlicher Freiheit und Verantwortlichkeit (...) ergeben. Wie deutlich wird, legt Hume sich darauf fest, dass in dem Fall, den er beschreibt, sowohl der Mensch als auch Gott frei und verantwortlich Handelnde sind. Wenn das zutrifft, müssen die Kriterien für Freiheit und Verantwortlichkeit grundsätzlich anders aufzufassen sein, als es der Forderung nach einem »ersten« oder »absoluten« Anfang oder einer »letzten« oder »wahren« Verantwortlichkeit entspricht. Humes Diskussion verdeutlicht, dass wir diese Forderung in Frage stellen sollten. (shrink)

The fact diat die first formal recognition of die crime of genocide (crimen lesae humanitatis) took place at Nuremberg in 1945 is extremely significant. Those who, to quote Adorno, record the extermination camps as “working incidents” in the victorious advance of civilization, or see “the martyrdom of die Jews as an irrelevant episode in the context of universal history,” fail to grasp die dominating trait of twentieth century atrocities: the perverse secularization of die religious motivations of genocide in modern totalitarian (...) political ideologies. The Nazi regime, with its dystopian vision of a hierarchy of races and societies under German hegemony, represented the most complete expression of diis process of total conditioning of the existence of individuals, with all its genocidal potentials. (shrink)

Resumen: Este texto consiste básicamente en una presentación general de la corriente filosófica del nuevo realismo surgida en 2007 y en la que participan autores europeos y norteamericanos. Un punto en común de las diversas posiciones dentro de esta corriente es el deslinde crítico frente a la filosofía posmoderna y a la filosofía moderna en general. Explico esta crítica y sus implicaciones para la posibilidad de un restablecimiento en la filosofía contemporánea del pensamiento metafísico.: This text is basically an overview (...) of philosophical new realism which emerged in 2007 and involves European and American authors. A common point to the various positions within this current is a critical detachment from postmodern philosophy and modern philosophy in general. i explain this criticism and its implications for the possibility of a restoration in contemporary philosophy of metaphysical thought. (shrink)

Resumen En este ensayo ofrezco una comparación entre la filosofía del pensador marxista alemán Ernst Bloch y la del pensador francés Quentin Meillassoux a propósito del hecho de que ambos plantean una fundamentación ontológica de la esperanza y de una política de la esperanza. En el primer apartado, presento el concepto religioso de esperanza que critican los filósofos mencionados; en el segundo, abordo la concepción dialéctico-materialista de Bloch; en el tercer apartado, expongo la concepción de Meillassoux, que interpreto como una (...) radicalización crítica de una filosofía inmanente y materialista de la esperanza. A lo largo del ensayo y en la breve conclusión, muestro las semejanzas y diferencias entre las concepciones de ambos pensadores y apuesto por la superioridad, por su mayor consistencia teórica, de la perspectiva de Meillassoux.In this essay I offer a comparison between the philosophy of the German Marxist thinker Ernst Bloch and that of the French thinker Quentin Meillassoux apropos of the fact that both put forward an ontological foundation of hope and a politics of hope. In the first section I present the religious concept -criticized by Bloch and Meillassoux- of hope; in the second I explore the dialectical-materialist conception of Bloch, and in the third section I present the conception of Meillassoux, which I interpret as a critical radicalization of an immanent and materialist philosophy of hope. Throughout the essay and in the brief conclusion I show the similarities and differences between the conceptions of both thinkers and, due to its greater theoretical consistency, favor the perspective of Meillassoux. (shrink)

Neuroeconomics is a science pledged to tracing the neurobiological correlates involved in decision-making, especially in the case of economic decisions. Despite representing a recent research field that is still identifying its research objects, tools and methods, its epistemological scope and scientific relevance have already been openly questioned by several authors. Among these critics, the most influential names in the debate have been those of Faruk Gul and Wolfgang Pesendorfer, who claim that the data on neural activity cannot find place in (...) economic models, which should on the contrary be solely based on the data produced by choices. This paper aims at countering the gloomy and unsubstantiated claims of these two authors and those who believe that neuroscience cannot provide new and useful insights to the established knowledge of standard economics. The main point stressed here is that this perception is the product of a general misunderstanding of the advances made by neuroscience, which are incidentally of crucial importance. (shrink)

This text was published in n. 1/1987 of «Filosofia politica». We thank the authors, the director of the journal and the editor il Mulino for giving permission to republish it.

Against certain positivistic and neopositivistic strictures still rooted in our society, Agazzi argues that knowing the invisible is possible, not just in science, but also in metaphysics, in morals, in aesthetics, and in other areas, including, in a sense, religion. The book also examines many examples of such knowledge, surveying not only the great classics of philosophy, but various immortal masterpieces of art, music and literature. It is not just a treatise in epistemology, but a book of philosophy in the (...) most complete and traditional sense, for it discusses knowledge not only for its own sake, but also as a guide to culture, morality, happiness and to the sense of life. Thus, it also provides some important suggestions on how to face our time of crisis and an uncertain future. Despite Agazzi’s proverbial rigor and clarity, his project is so momentous and demanding that I discuss certain points which might deserve further explication and argumentation. (shrink)

The notion of a hypothesis being deployed essentially in the derivation of a novel prediction plays a key role in the deployment realist reply to Laudan’s and Lyon’s attacks to the No Miracle Argument. However Lyons criticized Psillos’ criterion of essentiality, urging deployment realists to abandon this requirement altogether and accept as true all the assumptions actually deployed in novel predictions. But since many false assumptions were actually deployed in novel predictions, he concludes that the “no miracle argument” and deployment (...) realism fail. I reply that the essentiality condition is required by Occam’s razor, and a “no miracle argument” deprived of that condition is a straw man. While Lyons’ criticisms of Psillos’ formalization of essentiality may be well taken, I suggest that there is a simpler formulation which escapes those criticisms and is enough to deal with the supposed counterexamples to the No Miracle Argument and deployment realism: a hypothesis is essential when it does not have a proper part (in Yablo’s sense) from which the prediction could also be derived. I then show how this condition rescues deployment realism from Lyons’ purported historical counterexamples. Essentiality in this sense cannot be detected prospectively, but this is just what we should expect, and far from causing problems for deployment realists, this frees them from unreasonable obligations. (shrink)

In questo studio sono pubblicate alcune lettere inedite, conservate nella Bibliothèque Publique et Universitaire di Ginevra, risalenti agli anni 1669-1678, scambiate tra Jean-Robert Chouet e Claude Pajon. Grazie all’apporto di questi due protagonisti delle accademie di Saumure di Ginevra è possibile meglio intendere, nella complessità dei riferimenti e delle sfumature, le soluzioni relative al tema della libertà divina nell’opera della creazione e della redenzione, argomento di grande interesse nella speculazione filosofica e teologica del Seicento. Si tratta di documenti preziosi, in (...) particolare per la storia della filosofia cartesiana, in quanto il confronto critico, che verte soprattutto sulle tesi di Cartesio concernenti la volontà divina e umana, offre a Chouet l’opportunità di intervenire a chiarire, contro riduttive letture volontaristiche, il significato della dottrina cartesiana della «volonté souveraine et independante de Dieu». (shrink)