Kant scholars have rarely addressed the notion of optimism as it was interpreted by the Königsbergian philosopher in the mid-18th century. The notion originates from Leibniz’s Theodi­cy and from debates over whether the actual world is the best of all possible worlds. The first of a two-part series, this article studies the historical context in which appeared Kant’s 1759 lecture advertisement leaflet entitled An Attempt at Some Reflections on Optimism. The study describes the requirements of the 1755 Berlin Academy of (...) Sciences’ competition for a comparison of G. W. Leibniz’s and A. Pope’s systems and an assessment of optimism. Another focus is the philological difficulties of translating Pope’s proposition “Whatever is, is right” into the French language — which was part of the competition task. The author considers the ways the proposition was translated into the Russian and German languages. The article shows the contribution of Voltaire and his Poem on the Lisbon Disaster and Candide: or, Optimism to the post factum changes in the perception of the competition results and to the emergence of new shades of meaning in the concept of optimism. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 had a profound effect on Europe and on the perception of optimism and of the idea that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds. However, Kant’s epistolary legacy leads one to the conclusion that the philosopher examined the problem in the framework of a polemic on Crusian philosophy. This article presents Crusius’s arguments against the theory that this is the best of all possible worlds and in favour of the theory that there are several good worlds. God’s choice of the actual world owes therefore to the freedom of contradiction (libertas contradictionis) and to the freedom of contrariety (libertas contrarietatis), which are eliminated in the teaching of optimism. (shrink)

The paper analyzes the problem of interpretations of the Gettier problem. The author draws a distinction between counterexamples presented in Edmund Gettier’s article and Gettier-style cases, between the Gettier problem and general epistemological problem supposedly occurring in all or many Gettier-style cases. It is argued that in Gettier’s article there is a gap associated with an insufficiently defined concept of justification, which does not allow talking about Gettier problem without any explicit or implicit interpretation of his views on justification. Along (...) with this, it is indicated that the same concept of justification has strict features (deductive closure principle, non-factive justification and internalism), which do not allow arbitrary interpretations of the Gettier problem, and therefore we can say that some interpretations are closer to the text of a well-known article. (shrink)

The author criticizes the thought experiment about survival in a teletransporter. The weakness of the experiment lies in the implicit dualism and the uncritical premise of multiple implementations in the conditions. The assumption about the qualitative identity of bodies after teleportation through the category of mereorganic continuity is criticized.

The article makes a general argument against understanding the concept of knowledge as a justified true belief (JTB) as a traditional. For this purpose, it analyzes the works of researchers who begin question the traditionality of JTB. Their arguments are supplemented and placed in the context of a unified argument against the thesis of traditionality. In addition, attempts to defend the status of JTB by describing this concept as intuitive or umbrella term are criticized.

This article examines Christoph Kelp's project of epistemology, which combines the approaches of Timothy Williamson's knowledge-first approach and Ernest Sosa's virtue reliabilism. Arguments are given in favour of the position that Kelp's theory of competence is a quite productive and substantially self-contained epistemological concept. It allows to construct special epistemologies and to analyse the competence of non-human actors.

This article examines how the debate over KK principle (Knowing that One Knows) introduces the notion of knowledge orders into epistemology, which standardly involves a division into first and second order knowledge. The uncritical understanding of knowledge orders leads to their naive ontologization, which has negative theoretical and practical consequences. One such consequence is the problem of proliferating orders of knowledge, which consists in the fact that if knowledge of a lower order always corresponds to knowledge of a higher order, (...) it is not clear what order is needed to possess first order knowledge. As a solution, it is proposed to understand knowledge orders as a nominal designation related to the evaluation of the position of knowledge in epistemic history (as this concept is understood by Alvin Goldman). (shrink)

The article explores the question of temporal factors of moral luck. The author demonstrates that there are cases where changes in morality can be a factor leading to moral luck. As an illustration, an example is analyzed related to a change in ideas about the morally acceptable and about the necessary grounds for holding one morally responsible. It is concluded that the resultant luck is accompanied by a temporal factor, because not only the result is important, but also how its (...) moral assessment has changed by the time it was achieved. (shrink)

The article discusses the main ideas of Alvin Goldman’s process reliabilism and related epistemological theories. A conceptual distinction between epistemic reliability and veritic effectiveness is introduced as a more parsimonious alternative to traditional arguments against reliabilism. The main ideas of reliabilism are examined in light of the notion of veritic effectiveness.

What comes after postmodernism? There are many answers to this question. In Alexander Pavlov's book ‘Post-postmodernism. How Social and Cultural Theories Explain Our Time’ a philosophical arbitration is conducted to reveal a legitimate description of our cultural epoch. The purpose of this article is to assess the author's position and identify its controversial points. In particular, arguments are given in favor of the fact that Pavlov's position does not depend on Frederick Jameson's theory, and the author himself does not find (...) convincing ways to show Jameson's fundamental importance for contemporary theories of culture. (shrink)