In dieser Arbeit wird gezeigt, daß der Hegelsche Anspruch, allein aus dem Anfang als dem Abstrakten und Unmittelbaren das Konkretere und Reichere zu entwickeln, nicht aufrechtzuhalten ist. Damit wird nicht die Dialektik, und insbesondere nicht die Dialektik des Anfangs, preisgege- ben. Es wird aufgezeigt, wie Hegel bei Entwicklung der Kategorien in der Wissenschat'tder Logik stets Bezug nehmen muß auf ein heteroge- nes Etwas. Er versucht dies zu kaschieren. Der Unterschied der ersten Kategorien Sein und Nichts ist aus der unbestimmten Unmittelbarkeit (...) von Sein und Nichts nicht zu begründen. Für den Unterschied von Sein und Nichts muß ein Etwas zitiert werden. Erst dieses Zitat eines Hetero- genen ermöglicht den Fortgang der systematischen Darstellung. Damit ist die idealistische Dialektik in der Darstellung aufgehoben; sie ist negiert und vernichtet, weil sie als falsche aufgezeigt ist, und sie ist aufbewahrt und bestimmend für die Darstellung, weil die Kritik des Fal- schen konstitutiv für das Weitere ist. Im Folgenden werden die Übergänge zu den Kategorien Sein, Nichts, Werden, Entstehen, Vergehen, Nicht-Werden und Dasein analysiert, und es wird aufgezeigt, an welchen Stellen ein heterogenes Etwas zitiert werden muß, um eine korrekte systematische Entwicklung der Katego- rien zu erhalten. (shrink)

A recent paper by Jakl, Jung and Pultr succeeded for the first time in establishing a very natural link between bilattice logic and the duality theory of d-frames and bitopological spaces. In this paper we further exploit, extend and investigate this link from an algebraic and a logical point of view. In particular, we introduce classes of algebras that extend bilattices, d-frames and N4-lattices to a setting in which the negation is not necessarily involutive, and we study corresponding logics. We (...) provide product representation theorems for these algebras, as well as completeness, algebraizability results for the corresponding logics. (shrink)

The Darwin-Hecker hypothesis, viz. that laughter induced by tickling and humor share common underlying mechanisms, is so-called in part because of a quotation attributed to Ewald Hecker. However, a German counterpart of the quotation does not appear in the location cited. Some textual sleuthing is undertaken to find out what Hecker actually wrote and where he wrote it.

Abstract. This paper illustrates how philosophy and science may converge and inform one another. I begin with a brief rehearsal of John Morreall’s “formulaic” theory of laughter, that laughter results from a pleasant psychological shift, and of my previously published criticisms and counterproposal that laughter results from titillation (where “titillation” is a semitechnical term). I defend my own position against charges that it is trivial, circular, or vacuous (charges that, if correct, would apply equally to Morreall’s position), showing that these (...) charges are misguided or premature. Then I indicate how my position is reflected in and might be given empirical content by a hypothesis that is already under preliminary experimental investigation in psychology, namely the Darwin-Hecker hypothesis, and also how my position is in harmony with recent work in psychology alleging the discovery of evolutionary antecedents of human laughter in rats. (shrink)

In this paper, we intend to discuss if and in what sense semiosis (meaning process, cf. C. S. Peirce) can be regarded as an "emergent" process in semiotic systems. It is not our problem here to answer when or how semiosis emerged in nature. As a prerequisite for the very formulation of these problems, we are rather interested in discussing the conditions which should be fulfilled for semiosis to be characterized as an emergent process. The first step in this work (...) is to summarize a systematic analysis of the variety of emergence theories and concepts, elaborated by Achim Stephan. Along the summary of this analysis, we pose fundamental questions that have to be answered in order to ascribe a precise meaning to the term "emergence" in the context of an understanding of semiosis. After discussing a model for explaining emergence based on Salthe's hierarchical structuralism, which considers three levels at a time in a semiotic system, we present some tentative answers to those questions. (shrink)

Recently, there has been a burgeoning of interest in the relationship between Schopenhauer's philosophy and Indian thought.1 One major reason for this trend is the growing conviction among scholars that a careful understanding of Schopenhauer's complex—and evolving—engagement with Indian thought can help illuminate crucial aspects of Schopenhauer's own philosophy.2 The late nineteenth-century German scholars Paul Deussen and Max Hecker are widely acknowledged to be the pioneers in the field of Schopenhauer's relation to Indian thought. Deussen, thoroughly trained in both (...) indology and Western philosophy, was the first to bring Schopenhauer's philosophy into dialogue with Indian thought... (shrink)