According to one prominent view, current metaphysics is hopelessly disconnected from the implications of modern science and as a result should be abandoned forthwith (Ladyman and Ross 2007). Others have taken a more conciliatory stance, suggesting that the metaphysicians’ toolbox may yet yield devices that could prove useful to the philosopher of science (French and McKenzie 2012). In this book, Sider aims to contribute to the metaphysics of science by setting out an array of such tools and indicating which are (...) up to the job. More particularly, he wants to demonstrate the usefulness of certain ‘postmodal’ concepts, such as fundamentality, which is a promising tack, given that (Callender 2011), for example, has argued that it was the modal turn initiated by the likes of Kripke that is ultimately responsible for the disconnect. To illustrate his overall claim that the tools we deploy may help frame the issues that we take to be central to the metaphysics of science, Sider chooses to analyse various forms of structuralism, the view that we should take structure to be primary and the relevant entities to be secondary : nomic essentialism, which takes properties to be ‘bound up’ with laws (ibid., p. 23); structural realism, which holds, in its epistemic form, that all that we know about the world is its structure and, in the ontic alternative, that the world is, in some sense, structure; and comparativism about quantities, whereby quantities are ascribed to objects comparatively or relationally (ibid., p. 122). His conclusions are that no postmodal sense can be made of the first two, and so much the worse for them, whereas comparativism about quantities can unproblematically be stated in such terms (ibid., p. 119), and indeed, when it comes to ‘fundamentality’, at least, may well be this concept’s ‘Waterloo’ (ibid., p. 166). The worry some philosophers of science will have is that Sider’s arguments are driven more by his metaphysics than the relevant science and the issues that he identifies don’t quite map onto those they take to be central. (shrink)

I suggest that we can read Marx in the light of recent analytic, neo-Hegelian thought. I summarize the Pittsburgh School philosophers’ claims about the myth of the given, the claim that human experience is conceptual all the way out, and that we live in a space of reasons. I show how Hegel has been read in those terms, and then apply that reading of Hegel to Marx’s argument that capital is akin to what Hegel called Geist, or spirit. We can (...) understand capitalism as a space of reasons that is contradictory: while the space of reasons is supposed to make human freedom possible, our space of reasons makes freedom impossible. Reading Marx in this way is helpful, because it avoids the flaws of analytical Marxism, existentialism and structuralism. However, it raises a large problem of its own: Can the theory of the space of reasons be applied to a society that is not free of alienation? I argue that it can, but only in ways that would not satisfy the analytic neo-Hegelians themselves. (shrink)

In recent years, secondary literature about 19th Century philosophy has shown a reassessment of both its problems and movements, as well as the role of some philosophers within that scenario. In order to make explicit the contribution undertaken by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) to the general context of the anti-Hegelian turn in the middle of that century, this article analyzes the problems concerning categories as the loci of idealistic thesis of unity between logic and ontology as from Kierkegaard’s (...) critique and approach to such problems. (shrink)

Tässä tutkielmassa käsittelen Henri Bergsonin (1859–1941) teoksessa L’évolution créatrice (1907) esittelemää analogiaa elämän ja tietoisuuden välillä. Analogian taustalla on tarve aidolle elämän ja muutoksen filosofialle. Bergsonin mukaan filosofian historiassa muutosta on tarkasteltu siihen soveltumattomilla käsitteellisillä välineillä. Tämän vuoksi on kehitettävä uusi filosofinen metodi. Tässä tutkielmassa esitän, että tietoisuuden ja elämän välinen analogia on korvaamaton osa tätä uutta metodia. Bergsonin metodissa analogia tai ”analogiapäättely” (raisonnement par analogie) osoittautuu tärkeäksi välineeksi, jonka pohjalta filosofinen ”sisäinen tieto” ja ymmärrys metafyysisistä tärkeistä aiheista kuten liikkeestä (...) ja muutoksesta mahdollistuu. Tässä tutkielmassa avaan Bergsonin metodia ja hänen käsitystään filosofisen tiedon luonteesta. Taustoitan teoksen L’évolution créatrice sisällöllisiä ja metodologisia lähtökohtia sekä tutkielman puitteita. Tarkastelen minkälaiset tulokulmat ja tarkastelukeinot Bergsonin mukaan soveltuvat elämän filosofiseen tarkasteluun ja millaiset eivät. Lisäksi rekonstruioin myös mallin Bergsonin metodista, jonka lähtökohtana on ennen kaikkea analogia. Tämä mallin pohjalta tarkastelen tietoisuuden ja elämän analogiaa teoksessa L’évolution creatrice. Tarkastelu tapahtuu lähiluvun, Bergsonin ajatusten rekonstruoinnin ja käsitteiden vertailun avulla. Tutkielma osoittaa, että tämä teoksesta löytyvä analogia vastaa Bergsonin analogiaoäättelyyn liittyvää analogiaa. (shrink)

The Unknowable offers the first sustained study of a nineteenth-century movement in British philosophy: metaphysical agnosticism. The book is appropriately titl.