This paper presents a novel objection to ontological arguments. This objection aims at showing that ontological arguments in general, given the intrinsic nature of their conclusion, are of an impossible nature. The argument rests on the fact that conclusive ontological arguments would contradict the very nature of God.

The current literature suggests that the use of Husserl’s and Heidegger’s approaches to phenomenology is still practiced. However, a clear gap exists on how these approaches are viewed in the context of constructivism, particularly with non-traditional female students’ study of mathematics. The dissertation attempts to clarify the constructivist role of phenomenology within a transcendental framework from the first-hand meanings associated with the expression of the relevancy as expressed by interviews of six nontraditional female students who have studied undergraduate mathematics. Comparisons (...) also illustrate how the views associated with Husserl’s stance on phenomenology inadvertently relate to the stances of the participants interviewed as part of the study. The research questions focus on the emotional association with studying mathematics and how pre-conceived opinions regarding the study of mathematics may have influenced the essences of the experiences of the participants who have studied collegiate-level mathematics. The essences of the experiences of the participants are analyzed using bracketing and epoché to ensure personal biases of the researcher do not affect the interpretation of the expressed essences of the participants. Data collection is accomplished through two series of qualitative interviews seeking the participants’ firsthand impressions of how they view the way instructional design is oriented with regard to mathematics. Additional questions seek to illuminate the participants’ point of view regarding their emotional association with mathematics as well as their opinions and theoretical perspectives on the study of mathematics. (shrink)

Early in his career, Max Deutscher he started to explore questions in the philosophy of mind, which continue to interest him. His early reading of Jean-Paul Sartre, and the work of Gilbert Ryle, informs all his work. My paper traces the theme of genre in philosophy as it is exemplified and discussed throughout Deutscher’s work, including Judgment After Arendt (2007).

Poppe r e nt i e nde l a r a c i ona l i da d e ntérminos de nuestra actitud intelectual.Nuestra racionalidad no es una facultad ni un don intelectual.No es al go dado a un i ndi vi duo, deacuerdo con él. Es una actitud que hemosadquirido de nuestra relación intelectualcon otros. Popper no usa “racionalismo”como un término filosófico que significaintelectualismo en oposición a empirismo.El artículo muestra claramente que Popperent i ende el r aci onal i (...) smo no como l agr a nde z a de l a r a z ón, s i no c omo l acomprensión de uno del límite de la razón.Sin embargo, surge una pregunta; ¿qué tanbien ha comprendido tal racionalista ellímite de su propio racionalismo? ¿Cómodebemos entender este límite? Popperafi rma que un raci onal i sta ha notadoel límite del racionalismo al prever elcarácter auto-destructivo del racionalismoc ompr e he ns i vo. A f i n de ha c e r má scomprensible su afirmación tenemos queexplicar el racionalismo comprehensiveque Popper aprehendió.Popper understands the rationality interms of our intellectual attitude. Ourrationality is neithera faculty nor an intellectual gift. It isnot something given to an individual,according to him. It is an attitude thatwe have acquired from our intellectualintercourse with others. Popper does notuse “rationalism” as a philosophical termthat means intellectualism in oppositionto empiricism.This paper clearly shows that Popperunde r s t a nds r a t i o na l i s m no t a s t heal mi ght i nes s of r eas on, but as one’ srealization of the limit of reason. However,there arises a question; how has such arationalist realized the limit of his ownrationalism? How we should understandthis limit? Popper asserts that a rationalisthas noticed the limit of rationalism byenvisaging the self-defeating character ofthe comprehensive rationalism. In order tomake more understandable his assertion,we must at first explain the comprehensiverationalism apprehended by Popper. (shrink)

Recent philosophical and psychological researches show that memory, not only stores information but also process it. It's possible one to have a meta-representational memory despite the propositional content and attitude of the present meta-representation being different from the propositional content and attitude of the thought that the meta-representation is causally derived. So, the question is: if we take for granted that this kind of memory doesn't require content or attitude identity, what is the permissible range of aberration between the original (...) content and the memory content? This paper proposes some conditions to define when a present meta-representation has the status of memory of a past thought, despite the difference of content or attitude. The condition for diachronic content similarity is the same proposed by Sven Bernerker. The attitude condition is a new one: the attitude that S thinks (at t2) himself having taken (at t1) towards p and the attitude that S took at t1 towards p* are sufficiently similar if and only if they are the same or the attitude of the present thought is entailed by the past attitude. (shrink)

In recent years, some eminent scientists have argued that free will, as commonly understood, is an illusion. Given that questions such as ‘do we have free will?’ were once pursued solely by philosophers, how should science and philosophy coalesce here? Do philosophy and science simply represent different phases of a particular investigation—the philosopher concerned with formulating a specific question and the scientist with empirically testing it? Or should the interactions between the two be more involved? Contemporary responses to such questions (...) have occasionally given rise to conflict amongst members of different disciplines. Some individual scientists have dismissed philosophical objections to their scientific theories on the grounds that the philosopher lacks experience in their respective field. And some individual philosophers have rejected scientific theories on a priori grounds, without giving due consideration to the empirical evidence. In this paper, I argue that such dismissiveness, on both sides, is mistaken. I will do so by putting forward a view that is inspired by the American philosopher and psychologist William James, who has been characterised by recent commentators as having performed ‘boundary work’. Boundary work involves transgressing the dividing lines between such disciplines, and attempting to solve certain problems without being restricted to the methodology of a single discipline. To help support this position, I will examine a series of contemporary problems that are pursued in both philosophy and science that relate to moral responsibility and free will. I will argue that in order to solve such problems we need to perform boundary work. (shrink)

John Heil’s From an Ontological Point of View (Heil 2003) is a tremendous philosophical work. The neo-Lockean ontology the reader finds within its 267 pages is a sensible and refreshing alternative to the neo-Humean ontologies which presently occupy the vast majority of the metaphysical literature. What Heil offers is a much needed change in perspective. Nor are the strengths of the book limited to Heil’s willingness to approach central metaphysical problems in largely untried and unpopular way; the book is very (...) clear in its presentation, accessible to wide readership, and tightly argued throughout. Heil’s efforts in this book are to be applauded, and the result is one that warrants serious consideration by all those interested in serious metaphysics. But the interest should not end there: the lessons of Heil’s book are ones that almost all philosophers ought to take seriously. Despite the criticism that follows, my overall position should not be taken as anything short of a whole-hearted endorsement of Heil’s book. Nonetheless, when philosophy is one’s trade, there is always going to be something to disagree about, however much one is amenable to a view. (shrink)