‘Speculation’ originally meant ‘reflective observation’. It came to mean ‘conjecture’ or ‘mere conjecture’ as philosophers strove for certainty, consecrating science as rigorously acquired knowledge accumulated through application of the scientific method and devalued the cognitive status of other discourses. The present conventional meaning of speculation, where the place of observation has disappeared, is a by-product of this consecration. In this entry I show how through efforts to defend the status of these other discourses, the original meaning of ‘speculation’ was not (...) only revived but built upon by speculative philosophers. They showed that speculation is primordial to all experience and thinking, with past speculations embodied in language as ‘dead’ metaphors. Revealing the possibility of elaborating alternative metaphors frees us not only from these dead metaphors to overcome the dead-ends of current science, opening up new possibilities for enquiry, but the possibility of reconceiving ourselves and our place in nature. In this way, speculation makes it possible to transform ourselves, creating radically new ways of living and new forms of life. On this view, speculation, by opening new possibilities, could free us from the destructive trajectories of current civilization. (shrink)

The theoretical biologist Waddington drew attention to the damage to scientific progress by COWDUNG – the Conventional Wisdom of the Dominant Group. Despite Popper’s attack on what he called “the bucket theory of science”, that scientific knowledge accumulates incrementally, adding one fact after another, this is now conventional wisdom among biologists. Denis Noble is challenging not only the Neo-Darwinist orthodoxy dominating biology, but revealing the distortions of science produced by this bucket theory of science. The latter is central to understanding (...) the importance of his argument and for seeing the relevance of his work for biosemiotics. (shrink)

The fracture in the emerging discipline of biosemiotics when the code biologist Marcello Barbieri claimed that Peircian biosemiotics is not genuine science raises anew the question: What is science? When it comes to radically new approaches in science, there is no simple answer to this question, because if successful, these new approaches change what is understood to be science. This is what Galileo, Darwin and Einstein did to science, and with quantum theory, opposing interpretations are not merely about what theory (...) is right, but what is real science. Peirce's work, as he acknowledged, is really a continuation of efforts of Schelling to challenge the heritage of Newtonian science for the very good reason that the deep assumptions of Newtonian science had made sentient life, human consciousness and free will unintelligible, the condition for there being science. Pointing out the need for such a revolution in science has not succeeded as a defence of Peircian biosemiotics, however. In this paper, I will defend the scientific credentials of Peircian biosemiotics by relating it to the theoretical biology of the bio-mathematician, Robert Rosen. Rosen's relational biology, focusing on anticipatory systems and giving a place to final causes, should also be seen as a rigorous development of the Schellingian project to conceive nature in such a way that the emergence of sentient life, mind and science are intelligible. Rosen has made a very strong case for the characterization of his ideas as a real advance not only in science, but in how science should be understood, and I will argue that it is possible to provide a strong defence of Peircian biosemiotics as science through Rosen's defence of relational biology. In the process, I will show how biosemiotics can and should become a crucial component of anticipatory systems theory. (shrink)

This is Part 2 of an article aimed at defending Marx against orthodox Marxists to reveal the possibilities for overcoming capitalism. It is argued that Marx’s general theory of history is inconsistent with his profound insights into alienation and commodity fetishism as the foundations of capitalism. Humanist Marxists focused on the latter in opposition to Orthodox Marxists, but without fully acknowledging this inconsistency and its implications, failed to realize the full potential of Marx’s work. The outcome has been the triumph (...) of “neoliberalism”, effectively a synthesis of the worst aspects of capitalism with Soviet managerialism. In Part 1 of this article I critiqued orthodox Marxism and utilized recent scholarship examining the penultimate drafts of Capital to reinterpret his work. The legacy of orthodox Marxism is still standing in the way of efforts to replace capitalism, however. In Part 2 I argue that the call for an “ecological civilization” brings into focus what is required: a realistic vision of the future based on ecological concepts. (shrink)

Because an unmeasured quantum system consists of information — neither tangible existence nor its complete absence — no property can be assigned a definite value, only a range of likely values should it be measured. The instantaneous transition from information to matter upon measurement establishes a gradient between being and not-being. A quantum system enters a determinate state in a particular moment until this moment is past, at which point the system resumes its default state as an evolving superposition of (...) potential values of properties, neither strictly being nor not-being. Like a “self-organized” chemical system that derives energy from breaking down environmental gradients, a quantum system derives information from breaking down the ontological gradient. An organism is a body in the context of energy and a mind in the context of information. (shrink)

Was ich mit dieser Artikel hier zu zeigen versuchen werde, ist eine gewisse Affinität zwischen Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schellings Konzeptionen und Auffassungen einer Naturphilosophie in den Jahren 1797-1801 und Hans Jonas‘ ontologisch-philosophische Biologie 1, die er in Organismus und Freiheit – Ansätze zu einer philosophischen Biologie entwickelte. Die hier zu erwähnende Schellingsche Naturphilosophie ist die in der Zeit zwischen Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur vom Jahr 1797 und Ueber den wahren Begriff der Naturphilosophie und die richtige Art ihre Probleme (...) aufzulösen vom Jahr 1801 entwickelte Konzeption einer Philosophie der Natur.2 Damit schließe ich mich einer These Odo Marquards an: Schelling sei der Philosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts ein Zeitgenosse inkognito. Nur wünsche ich der prominenten Reihe von Philosophen, die Marquard – zwei Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung von Organismus und Freiheit – im Jahr 1975 aufstellte, den Name ‚Hans Jonas‘ hinzufügen. Es soll somit versucht werden, die Möglichkeit dafür zu öffnen, dass die Naturphilosophie Schellings im Lichte der philosophischen Biologie Jonas‘ gesehen werden kann. Damit wünsche ich zu verdeutlichen, dass der Problembereich und frühen Philosophie Schellings durch Jonas‘ Philosophie einen Repräsentant finden, und dass sie mit der Problematik Jonas‘ eine gewisse Aktualität gewinnen könnte. (shrink)