A discussion of Rose's new theory which argues that life depends on the interactions within cells, organisms and ecosystems and is not wholly dependent on DNA.

I provide a sympathetic reconstruction of Kant’s motivation for endorsing incompatibilism about human freedom. On my interpretation, Kant holds that if all the determining grounds of our actions were subject to natural necessity, we would never be free to respect or defy laws of practical reason, and for Kant such freedom is a condition for the possibility that our actions are governed by categorical imperatives. I argue that his view rests on a gripping construal of the rational imperfection that afflicts (...) the human will. (shrink)

Compatibilist libertarianism claims that alternate possibilities for action at the agential level are consistent with determinism at the physical level. Unlike traditional compatibilism about alternate possibilities, involving conditional or dispositional accounts of the ability to act, compatibilist libertarianism offers us unqualified modalities at the agential level, consistent with physical determinism, a potentially big advance. However, I argue that the account runs up against two problems. Firstly, the way in which the agential modalities are generated talks past the worries of the (...) incompatibilist in the traditional free will problem. As such, it fails to dispel the worries that determinism generates for the incompatibilist. Secondly, in spite of the ingenious use of the supervenience thesis and multiple realizability, the position still allows us to generate the old worry that determinism at the physical level would mean no alternate possibilities at the level of agency. In particular, I develop a new example, the ‘atomic slit case’ that demonstrates how physical level information is salient to what is possible at the agential level, motivating incompatibilism. (shrink)

Carlos Vaz Ferreira argues that the problem of freedom is conceptually distinct from the problem of causal determinism. The problem of freedom is ultimately a problem regarding the ontologically independent agency of a being, and the problem of determinism is a problem regarding explanations of events or acts in terms of the totality of their antecedent causal conditions. As Vaz Ferreira sees it, failing to keep these problems apart gives rise to merely apparent but unreal puzzles pertaining to the nature (...) of freedom and its relation to determinism. In this article, I present my interpretation of Vaz Ferreira’s distinctive ideas regarding the nature of freedom and its relation to casual determinism. (shrink)

It is well known that every propositional logic which satisfies certain very natural conditions can be characterized semantically using a multi-valued matrix ([Los and Suszko, 1958; W´ ojcicki, 1988; Urquhart, 2001]). However, there are many important decidable logics whose characteristic matrices necessarily consist of an infinite number of truth values. In such a case it might be quite difficult to find any of these matrices, or to use one when it is found. Even in case a logic does have a (...) finite characteristic matrix it might be difficult to discover this fact, or to find such a matrix. The deep reason for these difficulties is that in an ordinary multi-valued semantics the rules and axioms of a system should be considered as a whole, and there is no method for separately determining the semantic effects of each rule alone. (shrink)

Despite the praise his writing garnered during his lifetime, e.g., from readers such as Einstein and de Broglie, Émile Meyerson has been largely forgotten. The rich tradition of French épistémologie has recently been taken up in some Anglo-American scholarship, but Meyerson—who popularized the term épistémologie through his historical method of analyzing science, and criticized positivism long before Quine and Kuhn—remains overlooked. If Meyerson is remembered at all, it is as a historian of classical science. This paper attempts to rectify both (...) states of affairs by explicating one of Meyerson׳s last and untranslated works, Réel et déterminisme dans la théorie quantique, an opuscule on quantum physics.I provide an overview of Meyerson׳s philosophy, his critique of Max Planck׳s interpretation of quantum physics, and then outline and evaluate Meyerson׳s neo-Kantian alternative. I then compare and contrast this interpretation with Cassirer׳s neo-Kantian program. Finally I show that, while Meyerson believes the revolutionary new physics requires "profoundly" modifying our conception of reality, ultimately, he thinks, it secures the legitimacy of his thesis: that science seeks explanations in the form of what he calls "identification." I hope my research will enable a more general and systematic engagement with Meyerson׳s work, especially with a view to assessing its viability as a philosophical method today. (shrink)

Les résultats de la physique quantique rendent manifeste une vérité que les philosophes sont en général mal disposés à reconnaître : c’est que le déterminisme n’est pas une affirmation sur la structure des choses, mais une méthode qui ne sert qu’à prédire le cours futur des événements. Les savants, en découvrant ses limites, ont donné aux philosophes et surtout aux logiciens une leçon inestimable sur la methode de la science et la nature de la eonnaissance.

This paper is a short commentary on Veljko Dubljevic's "Autonomy in Neuroethics: Political and Not Metaphysical.".

The general moral decline widely perceived to be in process in both the UK and the USA is no doubt the effect of many causes. The present paper attends to only one, the de-moralization more or less unintentionally encouraged by the working of the machinery of the welfare state, and then further encouraged by a deliberate and systematic de-moralization of that machinery. It attempts to undermine a main assumption supporting that de-moralization, and thus contribute to the campaign for re-moralization waged (...) in recent years by, among others, the Social Affairs Unit in London and like-minded think-tanks in the USA. (shrink)

근대과학은 시공간 속에서 물질의 운동을 계산가능한 양적 법칙으로 다룸으로써 세계의 구조와 변화를 설명한다. 결정론은 우주의 구조를 이루는 모든 요소들과 전개의 법칙들이 미리 결정되어 있다는 입장이다. 베르그손과 드브로이는 공통적으로 이러한 고전역학의 전제와 설명방식을 문제삼는 데서 출발한다. 베르그손이 시간과 운동의 관념들을 철학적으로 심화시키는 과정에서 고전역학의 태도를 직접 겨냥하고 있다면 드브로이는 소립자의 파동성과 입자성의 관계라는 구체적인 문제를 해명하는 과정에서 고전역학적 사고방식의 한계에 봉착한다. 드브로이는 베르그손철학과 양자역학의 유사성을 세 가지로 분석해 보여준다. 첫째는 위치변화로서의 운동 개념에 대한 비판이다. 둘째는 전통적 인과율을 벗어나는 예측불가능성 개념의 부상이다. (...) 셋째는 견고한 실체성에 대한 부정이다. 우리는 드브로이의 논의를 따라 고전적 결정론이 붕괴되는 과정과 근거를 철학과 물리학의 양면에서 고찰하면서 그 수렴의 지점을 발견하고자 한다. (shrink)

A number of philosophers and theologians have argued that if God has knowledge of future human actions then human agents cannot be free. This argument rests on the assumption that, since God is essentially omniscient, God cannot be wrong about what human agents will do. It is this assumption that I challenge in this paper. My aim is to develop an interpretation of God’s essential omniscience according to which God can be wrong even though God never is wrong. If this (...) interpretation of essential omniscience is coherent, as I claim it is, then there is a logically consistent position according to which God is essentially omniscient, God foreknows what human agents will do, and yet it is possible for human agents to do otherwise. Thus, the argument for theological fatalism fails. (shrink)

In this essay I will try to show that there are what would appear to be some unnoticed consequences of the doctrine of divine foreknowledge. For the purposes of this discussion I will simply assume that future events are possible objects of knowledge and, hence, that foreknowledge is possible. Accordingly, I will not be concerned with discussing such questions as the status of truth-values for future contingent propositions or whether knowledge is justified true belief. Furthermore, I will not be concerned (...) with the issues involved in the claim that the doctrine of divine foreknowledge conflicts with doctrines concerning the properties of created beings, e.g., the doctrine of voluntary human action. (shrink)