Ludwig Wittgenstein, one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, made significant contributions to the philosophy of language. His work is often divided into two periods: early and later Wittgenstein. The concept of the logic of language is central to both, though his understanding of it evolved significantly over time. Wittgenstein's exploration of the logic of language fundamentally reshaped our understanding of how language relates to the world. His early work provided a foundation for logical positivism and analytic (...) philosophy, while his later work opened new avenues for understanding the complexities of human communication. Together, these contributions offer a rich and nuanced perspective on the nature of language, meaning, and human interaction. In his early work, the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus," Wittgenstein aimed to establish a clear relationship between language and reality. He believed that language mirrors the world through logical structures, which he referred to as "logical form." According to early Wittgenstein, the world consists of facts, not things, and language's primary function is to represent these facts. Wittgenstein’s "Philosophical Investigations" presents a radical shift from his earlier work and offers a deep and nuanced understanding of language and its role in human life. By focusing on the practical uses of language and the various contexts in which it operates, Wittgenstein dissolves many traditional philosophical problems and opens up new ways of thinking about meaning, communication, and the nature of reality. His work remains a cornerstone of contemporary philosophy and continues to inspire debate and exploration. (shrink)

As with so many mystics, Alexis karpouzos intuitively know the oneness of cosmic creation and historic humanity as part of all that is and all there isn't. So, the originality of Alexis Karpouzos thought is that it crosses the most diverse fields, the most opposing philosophies, to unite them into an often contradictory and broken whole. Marx and Heidegger, Nietzsche, Freud and Heraclitus, poets and political theorists all come together in the same distance and the same unusual proximity. Alexis karpouzos (...) use Pre-Socratics philosophy and generally the ancient Greek philosophy, as well as the pre-philosophical thinking of The Upanishads, the Vedas and Buddhism in India, of Lao Tzu, of Zen Buddhism and the Taoist tradition in China, of the Arab mystics and poets, with their metaphysical religiosity as the metaphysical basis for the interpretation and understanding of the world and existence. At the same time the ancient metaphysics is connect with Hegel’s dialectical ontology and with the modern thinking of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger, and others as the interpretive context for understanding the central problems of the technical and scientific world during his time. Novalis, Hölderlin, Rimbaud, Whitman, Eliot and others show the dreamy nature of existence, the transcendence of the Cosmos, welcome the infinity. For Alexis karpouzos the combination of ancient and modern thought creates the holistic experience of universal space-time and the consciousness of the unity. The poetic thought of Alexis karpouzos is a expressions of soul's inner experiences, expression of universality. The inspiring visual images and the symbolic use of language offer a description of elevating experiences of consciousness, a glimpse of higher worlds. The philosophy of Alexis karpouzos speak to the human experience from a universal perspective, transcending all religions, cultural and national boundaries. Using vivid images and a direct language that speaks to the heart, his philosophy evokes a sense of deep communication with the collective unconscious, a sense of connection to all the creatures of the world, compassion for others, admiration for the beauty of nature, reverence for all life, and an abiding faith in the invisible touch of world. Alexis karpouzos thoughts are often terse and paradoxical, challenging us to to break out of the box of limiting beliefs and see things from a new perspective. Above all, Alexis karpouzos continually calls to us to wake up and explore the mysteries within our own selves, i.e the mysteries of universe. (shrink)

The relationship between the One and the Multiple in mystic philosophy is a profound and central theme that explores the nature of existence, the cosmos, and the divine. This theme is present in various mystical traditions, including those of the East and West, and it addresses the paradoxical coexistence of the unity and multiplicity of all things. -/- In mystic philosophy, the **One** often represents the ultimate reality, the source from which all things emanate and to which all things return. (...) It is the absolute, the infinite, and the unchanging. The One is beyond all attributes and is often associated with the divine or the absolute truth. -/- The **Multiple**, on the other hand, represents the manifest world, the diversity of forms, and the realm of change and plurality. It is the world we experience through our senses, the domain of time and space, where differentiation and individuality are apparent. -/- The relationship between the One and the Multiple is not one of opposition but of emanation and unity. The Multiple is seen as a reflection, expression, or manifestation of the One. In this sense, the diversity of the world doesn’t contradict the unity of the One but rather demonstrates it in a myriad of forms. -/- Mystics seek to understand and experience this relationship through various practices and insights. They aim to transcend the illusion of separation and duality to experience the non-dual reality where the One and the Multiple are recognized as inseparable. -/- This concept can be illustrated by the metaphor of the ocean and its waves. The ocean represents the One—vast, deep, and all-encompassing—while the waves represent the Multiple—distinct, diverse, and ever-changing. Each wave is unique, yet it is not separate from the ocean. The wave’s existence is dependent on and made of the same substance as the ocean. In the same way, each individual entity in the Multiple is an expression of the One. -/- In summary, the relationship between the One and the Multiple in mystic philosophy is a dynamic interplay that challenges the conventional understanding of separation. It invites a deeper exploration of reality, where the apparent multiplicity of the world is a direct expression of the singular, underlying essence of all that is. -/- The relationship between the One and the Multiple in the context of mathematical philosophy is a profound topic that touches upon the very foundations of existence and knowledge. It’s a theme that has been explored by philosophers and mathematicians alike, often leading to the contemplation of unity and diversity within the structures of reality. -/- In mathematics, the concept of the One can be seen as the basis of unity from which all numbers derive. It’s the identity element in multiplication, the starting point in counting, and the foundation of dimension in geometry. The One is often associated with the concept of monism in philosophy, which posits that there is a single, underlying substance or principle that constitutes reality. -/- On the other hand, the Multiple represents the infinite variety and diversity of forms and numbers that arise from the One. It’s the embodiment of plurality and the complex interplay of different entities that mathematics seeks to understand and describe. This reflects the philosophical stance of pluralism, which acknowledges the existence of multiple realities or truths. -/- The interplay between the One and the Multiple can be seen in the mathematical concept of sets. A set can be thought of as a unity, a whole composed of distinct elements. Yet, each element within the set also retains its individuality, contributing to the diversity of the set’s composition. This duality is mirrored in the philosophical exploration of the universal and the particular, where the universal represents the One, and the particulars represent the Multiple. -/- In the realm of mathematical philosophy, this relationship often leads to questions about the nature of mathematical objects: Are they discovered as part of an objective reality (the One), or are they constructed by the human mind from a multitude of experiences (the Multiple)? This debate resonates with the philosophical inquiry into the nature of truth and reality. -/- Reflecting on the One and the Multiple can also lead to a deeper understanding of the self and the cosmos. Just as the number one is integral to the existence of all other numbers, the individual self can be seen as a unique expression of the universal whole. Similarly, the cosmos can be viewed as a grand unity composed of a multiplicity of forms and phenomena. -/- Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have a fascinating connection to the philosophical concepts of the One and the Multiple. These theorems, which are pivotal in mathematical logic and philosophy of mathematics, articulate the inherent limitations of formal axiomatic systems, particularly those sufficient to express the arithmetic of natural numbers. -/- Gödel’s incompleteness theorems have a fascinating connection to the philosophical concepts of the One and the Multiple. These theorems, which are pivotal in mathematical logic and philosophy of mathematics, articulate the inherent limitations of formal axiomatic systems, particularly those sufficient to express the arithmetic of natural numbers⁴. -/- The **first incompleteness theorem** reveals that within any such consistent system, there are propositions that are true but cannot be proven within the system itself. This reflects the idea of the Multiple in that there is an abundance of mathematical truths, a multiplicity that exceeds the unifying framework of any one system. It suggests that the realm of mathematical truth is more extensive than any single formal system can fully capture. -/- The **second incompleteness theorem** extends this by showing that a system cannot prove its own consistency. This relates to the concept of the One, as it implies that a system’s complete self-understanding, its unity and coherence, is unattainable from within. It must look beyond itself, to an external vantage point, to ascertain its consistency. -/- In the context of the One and the Multiple, Gödel’s theorems imply that the One (a consistent formal system) is inherently incomplete and cannot encompass the Multiple (the totality of mathematical truths). This resonates with philosophical discussions about the relationship between unity and plurality. Just as a single philosophical system cannot capture the entirety of truth, a single formal mathematical system cannot encapsulate all mathematical truths. -/- Moreover, Gödel’s work suggests that the pursuit of a single, unified theory of everything in mathematics—a One that encompasses all Multiples—is an inherently Sisyphean task. There will always be more truths (Multiples) than can be derived from any given set of axioms (the One). -/- In essence, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems provide a formal underpinning to the philosophical notion that the One cannot exist without the Multiple, and vice versa. They are interdependent, with the One giving rise to the Multiple, and the Multiple necessitating the One for its expression and comprehension. This interplay is a dance of limitations and possibilities, where the boundaries of logic, mathematics, and philosophy blur into one another. -/- The relationship between the One and the Multiple in the context of the mathematics of zero is a deeply philosophical inquiry that bridges the abstract world of numbers with the existential questions of being and non-being. -/- Zero, in mathematics, is a symbol of absence, a representation of nothingness, yet it holds a pivotal position as a number. It is the void from which all things emerge and to which they return. In the philosophy of mathematics, zero is the paradoxical junction where the One and the Multiple converge and diverge. -/- From the perspective of the One, zero can be seen as the origin—the singular point that precedes the existence of numbers. It is the empty set, the foundation upon which the edifice of mathematics is constructed. As the identity element in addition, zero maintains the integrity of numbers, for adding zero to any number leaves it unchanged, reflecting the immutable nature of the One. -/- Conversely, when we consider the Multiple, zero represents the infinite potentiality of creation. It is the canvas upon which the integers, both positive and negative, express their multitude. Zero is the balance point, the fulcrum around which the symphony of numbers dances. It embodies the plurality of possibilities, the beginning of the number line that stretches infinitely in both directions. -/- Philosophically, zero challenges our understanding of existence. It is both something and nothing—a number that quantifies the absence of quantity. This duality echoes the philosophical struggle to comprehend how the One gives rise to the Multiple. How does the unity of being manifest the diversity of the cosmos? Zero offers a mathematical metaphor for this mystery, as it encapsulates the transition from non-existence to existence, from the undifferentiated One to the differentiated Multiple. -/- In the realm of set theory, zero corresponds to the empty set—a set with no elements. This set is unique in that it is the only set that contains nothing, yet it is the foundation upon which all other sets are built. The empty set is the mathematical embodiment of the One, and all other sets, containing multiple elements, arise from it. -/- Reflecting on zero in the context of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, we find a resonance with the idea that the One (a consistent formal system) cannot capture the entirety of the Multiple (the totality of mathematical truths). Zero, as the foundation of numbers, similarly suggests that from the nothingness of the One, the infinite complexity of the Multiple emerges—yet it can never be fully encompassed or expressed by any single system. -/- In conclusion, the mathematics of zero offers a profound reflection on the relationship between the One and the Multiple. It serves as a bridge between the abstract and the concrete, the known and the unknowable, challenging us to ponder the origins of existence and the nature of reality itself. -/- . (shrink)

In this chapter I argue that choosing to live forever comes with the threat of an especially pernicious kind of boredom. However, it may be theoretically possible to circumvent it by finding ways to pursue an infinite number of projects consistent with one’s personality, taking on endlessly pursuable endlessly interesting projects, or by rekindling old projects once you’ve forgotten about them. However, each of these possibilities is contingent upon having certain traits that you are likely not currently in a good (...) position to assess. I therefore argue that no one is in a good position to be confident about her prospects for living forever. (shrink)

Surveys different potential normative underpinnings of neurodiversity-related access claims, focusing both on their legitimacy and the adjudication of conflicts between them.

This paper advances a new agentially undemanding account of the conditions of attributability, the Minimal Approval account, and argues that it has a number of advantages over traditional Deep Self theories, including the way in which it handles agents with conditions like addiction, Tourette syndrome, and misophonia. It is argued that in order for an agent to be attributionally responsible, the mental process that leads to her action must dispose her to be such that she would, upon reflec-tion, approve to (...) some minimal degree of being moved to action by the motive on which she in fact acts. (shrink)

Orthodoxy holds that the difference between weakness of will and compulsion is a matter of the resistibility of an agent's effective motivation, which makes control-based views of agency especially well equipped to distinguish blameworthy weak-willed acts from non-blameworthy compulsive acts. I defend an alternative view that the difference between weakness and compulsion instead lies in the fact that agents would upon reflection give some conative weight to acting on their weak-willed desires for some aim other than to extinguish them, but (...) not to their compulsive desires. This view allows identificationist theorists of moral responsibility to explain why weak-willed actions, but not compulsive actions, are attributable to agents such that they can, in theory, be praised or blamed for them. After motivating and presenting the view in detail, I show how it has unique resources for explaining the ethics of managing one's compulsions. (shrink)

Bernard Williams argues that human mortality is a good thing because living forever would necessarily be intolerably boring. His argument is often attacked for unfoundedly proposing asymmetrical requirements on the desirability of living for mortal and immortal lives. My first aim in this paper is to advance a new interpretation of Williams' argument that avoids these objections, drawing in part on some of his other writings to contextualize it. My second aim is to show how even the best version of (...) his argument only supports a somewhat weaker thesis: it may be possible for some people with certain special psychological features to enjoy an immortal life, but no one has good reason to bet on being such a person. (shrink)

Subjectivism about normativity (SN) is the view that norms are never intrinsic to things but are instead always imposed from without. After clarifying what SN is, I argue against it on the basis of its implications concerning intentionality. Intentional states with the mind-to-world direction of fit are essentially norm-subservient, i.e., essentially subject to norms such as truth, coherence, and the like. SN implies that nothing is intrinsically an intentional state of the mind-to-world sort: its being such a state is only (...) a status relative to the imposition of a norm. If one rejects this view of mind-to-world states, then one has grounds for rejecting SN itself. If one accepts it, an infinite regress arises that makes it impossible for norms to be imposed, which means that SN has undermined itself. (shrink)

Much of the literature on impairment to self-governance focuses on cases in which a person either lacks the ability to protect herself from errant urges or cases in which a person lacks the capacity to initiate self-reflective agential processes. This has led to frameworks for thinking about self-governance designed with only the possibility of these sorts of impairments in mind. I challenge this orthodoxy using the case of melancholic depression to show that there is a third way that self-governance can (...) be undermined: an agent may fail to form the desire she most wants to act on. (shrink)

Deep Self views of moral responsibility have been criticized for positing mysterious concepts, making nearly paradoxical claims about the ownership of one’s mental states, and promoting self-deceptive moral evasion. I defend Deep Self views from these pervasive forms of skepticism by arguing that some criticism is hasty and stems from epistemic injustice regarding testimonies of experiences of alienation, while other criticism targets contingent features of Deep Self views that ought to be abandoned. To aid in this project, I provide original (...) naturalistic analyses of “Self” and “internality” that replace the view’s metaphorical language with common-sensical concepts that make clear their usefulness. (shrink)

The distinction between the essential and the accidental characteristics of a thing should be understood not in modal terms (the received view) nor in definitional terms (Fine’s recent proposal) but as follows: an essential characteristic of a thing is one that is not explained by any other of that thing’s characteristics, and an accidental characteristic of a thing is one that is so explained. Various versions of this proposal can be formulated.

Difference and Repetition: Deleuze’s magnum opus, “Difference and Repetition” (1968), explores the interplay between difference and repetition. He argues that difference is fundamental to reality, and repetition is not mere duplication but a creative force. Deleuze challenges conventional notions of identity and sameness, emphasizing the productive potential of difference. Gilles Deleuze’s “Difference and Repetition” is a seminal work that challenges traditional Western metaphysics and offers a fresh perspective on concepts like identity, repetition, and creativity. Let’s explore some key ideas from (...) this remarkable book: Pure Difference: Deleuze argues that difference is fundamental to reality. Unlike classical philosophy that seeks universal truths, he emphasizes divergence and decentering. Each moment contains unique differences, and these differences shape our understanding of the world. Complex Repetition: Repetition, for Deleuze, isn’t mere duplication. Instead, it involves displacement and disguising. While repetition contributes to generality and thought, it’s the differences within each repetition that account for change and novelty. Concepts and things derive meaning from these differences. Shift Away from Hegel and Marx: “Difference and Repetition” played a crucial role in shifting French thought away from Hegel and Marx toward Nietzsche and Freud. Deleuze’s exploration of difference challenged established philosophical norms and paved the way for new perspectives. The Image of Thought: Deleuze critiques the traditional “image of thought,” which often relies on fixed identities and binary oppositions. Instead, he encourages us to embrace multiplicities, complexities, and the perpetual process of becoming. Asymmetrical Synthesis of the Sensible: Deleuze introduces the concept of asymmetrical synthesis, emphasizing the interplay between perception and affect. Reality is a dynamic, ever-changing process, not a static being. Copies are never identical; they’re something new. “Difference and Repetition” invites us to rethink how we perceive reality, emphasizing creativity, multiplicity, and the constant flux of existence. Deleuze’s work continues to inspire thinkers across disciplines, bridging philosophy with art, literature, and mysticism. (shrink)

En los albores de la tercera del siglo XXI, la existencia de la humanidad se ha vuelto sumamente peligrosa. Estamos talando nuestros bosques, agotando nuestros acuíferos de agua dulce y perdendo nuestros suelos superiores vitais. Estamos eliminando a vida de nuestros oceanos e reemplazándola com cientos de milhões de toneladas de desechos plásticos. Estamos inundando nosso ambiente com produtos químicos industriais tóxicos. Nuestra contaminação está impulsando a mudança climática que provoca olas de calor, sequías e incêndios florestais que destrozan o (...) tejido de la vida en los continentes. Y estamos trazendo novas gerações no mundo, milhões que requerem acesso aos recursos de uma existência digna. El alcance y la amplitud de las amenazas a la vida aumentarn día tras día. Este não é um modo sustentável de desarrollo. A causa raíz de nuestros machos fornece uma forma de pensar equivocada. ¿Que significa exatamente? significa que hemos estado pensando em nosotros mismos principalmente como seres materiais, mientras negamos nuestra naturaleza espiritual. Debido a que pensamos que existimos como seres materiais e nada mais, damos prioridade a proteger nuestros cuerpos del daño y prolongar nuestra existencia material. Nuestra naturaleza espiritual, si é que se considera em absoluto, se trata como um aspecto secundário de nuestro ser físico, algo que não deve ser tomado em serio. Para nós, as únicas cosas que importam são os fenômenos que aparecem no mundo material, como se pueden ver, oír, tocar o mediterrâneo, por saber que nuestros sentidos nos engañan, los sentidos son una construção del cerebro. Lo que consideramos um mundo real é uma ilusão. A dominação do pensamento positivista e materialista conduz à irracionalidade e à destruição. Pero, ¿adónde nos ha llevado este enfoque? ¿Nos ha traído una sensación de felicidad y plenitud? No lugar de viver cada dia com um espírito de cooperação alegre, con nuestros corazones llenos de brillante esperanza y feliz antecipación, nos hemos aislado Diferenos de los demás y verlos como rivales o inemigos. Nuestros pensamientos estão inundados de sospecha, miedo y codicia, lo que lleva a un ciclo interminável de guerra, pobreza, hambruna y destruição ambiental. A menos que despertemos pronto e prestemos atenção a nossa naturaleza espiritual, não há futuro para a humanidade na Terra. Las palabras son vida. As palavras da luz. Las palabras son poder. Las palavras son energía. Las palabras son verdad. Las palabras pueden animar y las palabras también pueden matar. Las palabras pueden dar esperanza ou hundirnos en la desesperación. La gente usa palabras para construir la paz y usa palabras para hacer la guerra. Las palabras pueden crear muros entre culturas, religiões e nações. Y las palabras también pueden construir puentes. La existencia de un individuo, una familia, una comunidad, un país y nuestro planeta está conduzindo al been ou al mal a través del poder de las palabras que hablamos. Las palabras que hablamos son responsables de todo lo que sucede neste mundo. Nosotros, por lo tanto, debemos ser responsables de las palabras que hablamos. Em nome das gerações futuras, espero que cada um de nosotros haga todo o possível para hablar solo palabras brilhantes y llenas de luz, para que um dia, nuestros descendentes nazcan en un mundo lleno de luz. No hay tiempo que perder. A partir deste momento, espero que todos echemos uma vista de cerca das palavras que hemos estado usando e hagamos esfuerzos constantes para llenarlas de brillo. Nadie va a cambiar nuestra vida por nosotros. Nadie va a cambiar el mundo por nosotros. É hora de cada um de nós reconhecer o prodigioso poder criativo que se desata em cada palavra que pronuncia, e de maneira consciente pronunciemos apenas palavras de gratidão, alienação e boa intenção. A partir deste momento, elijamos palabras que resuenen con amor y perdón para nosotros mismos y para los demás. Ciertamente podemos fazer se damos um passo solo adelante. Un paso a la vez, uma palavra a la vez, podemos arrancar de raíz os gérmenes de tragédia e aislamiento de nossa consciência e conversão em ondas de felicidade e conciliação. Por nosostros mismos, por la Madre Tierra y por el bien de las generaciones futuras, usemos palavras que contribuem para a evolução positiva de la humanidad en la Tierra. (shrink)

21. yüzyılın üçüncü on yılının şafağında, insanlığın varlığı son derece tehlikeli hale geldi. Ormanlarımızı kesiyor, tatlı su akiferlerimizi tüketiyor ve hayati önem taşıyan topraklarımızı kaybediyoruz. Okyanuslarımızdaki yaşamı sıyırıp yerine yüz milyonlarca ton plastik atık koyuyoruz. Çevremizi toksik endüstriyel kimyasallarla dolduruyoruz. Kirliliğimiz, kıtalardaki yaşamın dokusunu parçalayan ısı dalgalarına, kuraklıklara ve vahşi yangınlara neden olan iklim değişikliğini tetikliyor. Ve dünyaya yeni nesiller getiriyoruz, onurlu bir varoluşun kaynaklarına erişmeye ihtiyaç duyan milyonlarca insan. Hayata yönelik tehditlerin kapsamı ve genişliği her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bu (...) sürdürülebilir bir kalkınma şekli değildir. -/- Hastalıklarımızın temel nedeni, yanlış bir düşünce tarzından kaynaklanır. Bu tam olarak ne anlama geliyor? bu, ruhsal doğamızı inkar ederken kendimizi esas olarak maddi varlıklar olarak düşündüğümüz anlamına gelir. Maddi varlıklar olarak var olduğumuzu ve başka bir şey olmadığını düşündüğümüz için öncelikle bedenlerimizi zararlardan korumaya ve maddi varlığımızı sürdürmeye önem veririz. Manevi doğamız, eğer hiç düşünülürse, fiziksel varlığımızın ikincil bir yönü olarak ele alınır - ciddiye alınmaması gereken bir şey. Bizim için önemli olan tek şey maddi dünyada ortaya çıkan fenomenlerdir - görülebilen, duyulabilen, dokunulabilen veya ölçülebilen şeyler, ancak duyularımızın bizi aldattığını biliyoruz, duyular beynin bir yapısıdır. . Gerçek bir dünya olarak kabul ettiğimiz şey bir yanılsamadır. Pozitivist ve materyalist düşüncenin tahakkümü mantıksızlığa ve yıkıma yol açar. -/- Peki bu yaklaşım bizi nereye götürdü? Bize bir mutluluk ve tatmin duygusu getirdi mi? Her günü neşeli bir işbirliği ruhu içinde, parlak umutlar ve mutlu beklentilerle dolu kalplerimizle yaşamak yerine, kendimizi diğerlerinden soyutladık ve onları rakip veya düşman olarak gördük. Düşüncelerimiz, sonsuz bir savaş, yoksulluk, açlık ve çevresel yıkım döngüsüne yol açan şüphe, korku ve açgözlülükle dolu. Yakında uyanmadıkça ve ruhsal doğamıza dikkat etmedikçe, Dünya'da insanlık için bir gelecek olmayacak. -/- Kelimeler hayattır. Kelimeler hafiftir. Kelimeler güçtür. Kelimeler enerjidir. Sözler gerçektir. Kelimeler canlandırabilir ve kelimeler de öldürebilir. Kelimeler umut verebilir veya bizi umutsuzluğa sürükleyebilir. İnsanlar barışı inşa etmek için kelimeleri, savaşmak için kelimeleri kullanırlar. Kelimeler kültürler, dinler ve milletler arasında duvarlar oluşturabilir. Ve kelimeler de köprüler kurabilir. Bir bireyin, bir ailenin, bir topluluğun, bir ülkenin ve gezegenimizin varlığı, konuştuğumuz kelimelerin gücüyle iyiye veya kötüye yönlendirilmektedir. Konuştuğumuz kelimeler bu dünyada olan her şeyden sorumludur. Bu nedenle, konuştuğumuz kelimelerden sorumlu olmalıyız. Gelecek nesiller adına, umarım her birimiz sadece parlak, ışık dolu sözler söylemek için elimizden gelen her şeyi yaparız, böylece bir gün torunlarımız ışıkla dolu bir dünyaya doğar. Kaybedecek vakit yok. Bu andan itibaren, umarım hepimiz kullandığımız kelimelere yakından bakar ve onları parlaklık ile doldurmak için sürekli çaba gösteririz. -/- Kimse bizim için hayatımızı değiştiremez. Kimse bizim için dünyayı değiştirmeyecek. Her birimizin, konuştuğumuz her kelimenin serbest bıraktığı olağanüstü, yaratıcı gücü tanımasının ve bilinçli olarak sadece şükran, teşvik ve iyi niyetle dolu kelimeleri konuşmanın zamanı geldi. Bu andan itibaren, kendimiz ve başkaları için sevgi ve bağışlama ile rezonansa giren kelimeleri seçelim. Sadece bir adım ileri gidersek bunu kesinlikle yapabiliriz. Her seferinde bir adım, her seferinde bir kelime, bilincimizdeki trajedi ve izolasyon tohumlarını söküp onları mutluluk ve uzlaşma dalgalarına dönüştürebiliriz. Kendimiz, Toprak Ana ve gelecek nesiller adına, insanlığın Dünya üzerindeki olumlu evrimine katkıda bulunan kelimeleri kullanalım. (shrink)

In Almost Over: Aging, Dying, Dead, Frances Kamm seeks to make sense of people’s widely variant choices about which lives they would choose to continue living. She does this by defending the Prudential Prerogative, which, in analogy to the Moral Prerogative, holds that in a fairly wide range of conditions we are under no intrapersonal rational obligation to choose either to die or to live on. I argue against Kamm's case for the Prudential Prerogative in favor of Life Holism, the (...) view that you ought to live the life that would be best for you as an individual when each potential life is considered as a whole. I argue that the features of the Moral Prerogative that make it an attractive principle do not transfer to the Prudential Prerogative, and that Life Holism can better account for the perspectival and non-summative features of the normative phenomena Kamm wants to capture while retaining a tight connection between reasons and goodness. (shrink)

John Martin Fischer’s Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life puts forth a view that individual experiences could provide us with sources of endless fascination, motivation, and value if only we could live forever to continue to enjoy them. In this article I advocate for more caution about embracing this picture by pointing to three points of tension in Fischer's book. First, I argue that taking meaningfulness in life to be holistic is not compatible with the view immortal lives would be (...) recognizably humanlike. Next, I interrogate Fischer’s claim that that worries about boredom in immortal lives are predicated on the false view that our pursuits are compelling to us because we value them instrumentally, showing that he relies on a more controversial view of the value of our pursuits. Finally, I argue that Fischer’s naturalistic reinterpretation of the value of Near-Death experiences falls somewhat short of capturing their poignancy. Given Fischer’s seeming acknowledgment that what we get from an experience is sometimes ineffable, I argue that he ought to be less skeptical that a genuine Near-Death Experience would give the person experiencing it some (defeasible) evidence of the supernatural. (shrink)

Wir wissen, dass eine Transformation von globalem Ausmaß bereits begonnen hat, und wir wissen, dass ihre Entfaltung nicht vorhersehbar ist. Wir können sicher sein, dass es eine Herausforderung sein wird: Wir werden inmitten tiefgreifender Veränderungen leben, unser Überleben wird ständig auf dem Spiel stehen. Werden wir das Verständnis, die Weisheit erreichen, um diese Herausforderung zu bestehen? Hier sind einige Gedanken und Überlegungen, die uns helfen, den Zustand zu erreichen, in dem wir eine positive Antwort geben können. -/- Zurückblicken, um nach (...) vorne zu sehen -/- Dies wird nicht das erste Mal in der Geschichte sein, dass für die Menschheit eine Periode der Transformation auf globaler Ebene angebrochen ist. Der Wissenschaftsphilosoph Holmes Rolston wies darauf hin, dass unsere „große Geschichte“ drei solcher Transformationen umfasst – wahre „Urknalle“.1 Die erste war der physische Urknall, der vermutlich vor etwa 13,8 Milliarden Jahren stattfand. Es gebar das manifeste Universum mit seinen Quantenteilchen, vielfältigen Arten von Energien und Milliarden von Galaxien. Es führte zur Bildung von Sonnensystemen mit Sonnen und Planeten und Energieflüssen, die die Entwicklung von lebenden (glücklich gelegenen) Planeten ermöglichen, die aktive Sonnen umkreisen. Eine weitere grundlegende Transformation – ein „zweiter Urknall“ – war die Entstehung lebender Organismen in den komplexen Systemen, die sich auf der Erde und vermutlich auch auf anderen Planeten entwickelt haben. Es wird angenommen, dass diese Transformation vor etwa 3,8 Milliarden Jahren stattgefunden hat. Es begann mit der Entstehung einzelliger Prokaryoten in der Ursuppe, die die Oberfläche des Planeten bedeckte. Der „dritte Urknall“ soll vor etwa 120.000 Jahren stattgefunden haben. Es hat das Bewusstsein unserer Spezies grundlegend verändert – „entwickelt“. Homo soll sapiens geworden sein. Zu den evolutionären Vorteilen des weiterentwickelten Bewusstseins gehörte eine flexiblere und schnellere Form der Kommunikation. Die Kommunikation war nicht mehr auf halbautomatische Reaktionen beschränkt, die durch wiederkehrende Bedingungen und Ereignisse ausgelöst wurden; Anstatt sich auf Zeichen zu beschränken, basierte die menschliche Kommunikation auf einvernehmlich entwickelten Symbolen. -/- Die Entwicklung der Symbolsprache war ein großer Sprung. Einerseits brachte es soziale Strukturen hervor, die auf kollektiv erworbener Bedeutung beruhten, und andererseits produzierte es verbesserte manipulative Fähigkeiten. Gesellschaften könnten sich auf der Grundlage gemeinsamer Kulturen entwickeln, die mächtige Technologien einsetzen. Homo sapiens begann andere Arten zu dominieren und wurde zu einem Schlüsselfaktor in der Evolution des Lebens in der Biosphäre. Der dritte Urknall erzeugte eine Explosion der menschlichen Bevölkerung, aber er brachte nicht die Weisheit hervor, die sicherstellen würde, dass die erweiterte Bevölkerung das Gleichgewicht aufrechterhalten könnte, das für das Gedeihen des Lebens auf diesem Planeten unerlässlich ist. Diese Gleichgewichte wurden immer mehr beeinträchtigt. Der kurzsichtige Einsatz von Technologie und die Missachtung natürlicher Kontrollmechanismen brachten die Menschheit dorthin, wo sie heute ist: an einen „Chaos-Punkt“, an dem die Wahl klar ist: zwischen Zusammenbruch und Durchbruch.2 Eine weitere globale Transformation ist unvermeidlich geworden und ist es noch tatsächlich im Gange: ein vierter Urknall. Es ist an der Zeit, die Lehren aus der Geschichte zu ziehen. Der Aufbau unserer Herrschaft auf dem Planeten hängt davon ab, ob wir die Herausforderung dieser Transformation meistern. -/- Die erste und grundlegende Lektion ist einfach und offensichtlich. Wir haben uns von der natürlichen Welt getrennt und müssen zurückkommen – nicht um Wilde und „Primitive“ zu werden, sondern Wesen, die auf die Welt um sie herum eingestimmt sind, die im Einklang mit den Rhythmen und Gleichgewichten der Natur leben und kompatibel erschaffen und nachhaltige eigene Rhythmen und Balancen. Wir sind nicht mehr auf die Rhythmen und Balancen der Natur ausgerichtet. Obwohl wir durch unsere biologische Evolution in diese Rhythmen und Balancen „eingebaut“ sind, haben wir unsere eigenen künstlichen Rhythmen und gefährlichen Balancen geschaffen, die die natürlichen Rhythmen ignorieren und oft mit ihnen in Konflikt stehen. Mit der Sonne aufzugehen und sich mit der Sonne zurückzuziehen bedeutet, sich an den zirkadianen 24-Stunden-Rhythmus anzupassen, der durch die Bewegung der Erde um die Sonne geschaffen wurde, und die sogenannten primitiven Menschen leben immer noch in Harmonie damit, und das tun die meisten auch die restlichen indigenen und traditionellen Kulturen. Aber moderne Menschen missachten die Rhythmen und Gleichgewichte der Natur und glauben, dass sie sie ersetzen können, indem sie Lichter und andere künstliche Annehmlichkeiten mit dem Umlegen eines Schalters ein- und ausschalten. Doch der menschliche Körper passt sich nicht den künstlichen Rhythmen an, und wir leiden unter den Folgen. -/- 3Die Wirksamkeit des Immunsystems ist beeinträchtigt, und trotz einer Flut von biochemischen Medikamenten breiten sich Krankheiten aus. Moderne Bevölkerungen sind Stadtbewohner und haben nur begrenzten Kontakt mit der Natur. Sie leben in einer künstlichen Welt und denken, dass es die reale Welt ist. Sie halten sich anderen Lebensformen überlegen und glauben, die Natur nach Belieben beherrschen zu können. Noch vor fünfzig Jahren musste die Tierintelligenzforscherin Jane Goodall gegen die damals noch vorherrschende Überzeugung ankämpfen, dass ChiMenschen sind biochemische Reiz-Reaktions-Mechanismen, keine lebenden und fühlenden Wesen. Heute erkennen wir, dass nicht nur höhere Säugetiere, alle lebenden Organismen und sogar Bäume und Pflanzen sensible Lebewesen sind und sich in dieser Hinsicht nicht grundlegend von uns unterscheiden. Es liegt im besten Interesse unseres körperlichen und geistigen Wohlbefindens, dass wir diese Missverständnisse und fehlerhaften Verhaltensweisen korrigieren. Wenn wir dies tun, gewinnen wir unsere natürliche Gesundheit und Vitalität zurück. Die heilende Wirkung natürlicher Substanzen und Lebensweisen war schon in der Antike Heilern und Weisen bekannt. Seit Hippokrates, der als Vater der modernen Medizin gilt, suchen Mediziner nach Substanzen und Methoden, die das Gleichgewicht und die Verbindung zwischen Mensch und Natur wiederherstellen. Heute wird dieser Anspruch überschattet von einer oft kommerziell motivierten Abhängigkeit von synthetischen Substanzen und naturverachtenden Praktiken. Die Szene ist nicht nur negativ: Wie wir sehen werden, gibt es positive Entwicklungen in allen Bereichen des menschlichen Strebens, einschließlich Heilung und Medizin. Die Verbindung mit der Natur ist ein Hauptziel der alternativen Heilmethoden, die als Informations- und Energiemedizin bekannt sind. Diese Form der Heilung erlebt in verschiedenen Teilen der Welt, vor allem im Orient, eine Renaissance. Shirin yoku, die japanische Kunst des Waldbadens, ist ein Paradebeispiel. Um es zu praktizieren, müssen wir in einen Wald gehen und uns auf seine Rhythmen und Energien eingestimmt fühlen – den Wind durch die Blätter rauschen hören, das Lichtspiel auf der Oberfläche eines Teichs spüren, mit den Wolken schweben, wenn sie sich durch den Himmel bewegen. Psychotherapeuten finden, dass sogar die Geräusche der Natur, das Zwitschern der Vögel, das Rauschen der Bäche heilend wirken. Einfach in einem Wald zu sein oder neben einem Baum zu stehen, beruhigt und heilt das Nervensystem. Eine weitere wesentliche Aufgabe ist es, positive Entwicklungen in der Gesellschaft zu erkennen und daran anzuknüpfen. -/- Es gibt positive Entwicklungen in der Gesellschaft, und es gibt gesunde, lebensspendende und erhaltende Prozesse in der Natur. Wir könnten wieder in die Natur eintauchen und an positiven Entwicklungen in der Gesellschaft teilhaben. Und doch gelingt uns das nicht. Wir beschreiten einen Weg, der eher zum Zusammenbruch als zum Durchbruch führt. Wir müssen überdenken, wie wir gehen, und vor allem, wohin wir gehen. Wir sind eine von mehr als hundert Millionen Arten in der Biosphäre, wobei jede Art Millionen und in einigen Fällen Milliarden von Individuen umfasst. Unter all diesen Arten und Individuen befinden wir uns in einer privilegierten Position: Wir haben ein hoch entwickeltes Gehirn und Bewusstsein. Dies ermöglicht uns zu fragen, wer wir sind, was die Welt ist und wie wir in der Welt leben können und sollen. Ein fortgeschrittenes Bewusstsein ist eine einzigartige Ressource, und wir machen keinen guten Gebrauch davon. Wir stellen nicht die richtigen Fragen und suchen nicht nach den richtigen Antworten, sondern gehen einfach vorwärts und vertrauen auf das Glück. Wir haben unsere Zahl erhöht, aber nicht die Vorteile, die unser Bewusstsein denen verleihen könnte, die wir in die Welt bringen. Wir haben ausgeklügelte Technologien entwickelt und angewendet, um unseren Bedürfnissen und Wünschen gerecht zu werden, haben aber die Mehrheit der fortgeschrittenen Arten beschädigt oder zum Aussterben gebracht. Fünfzig Prozent aller Wildtiere auf dem Planeten sind verschwunden, und jeden Tag verschwinden vierundvierzigtausend Populationen lebender Arten. Wir sind zu einer Gefahr für das Leben in der Biosphäre geworden. Die Geschichte lehrt uns, dass Urknalle, globale Transformationen, nicht unbedingt eine gerechte und blühende Welt hervorbringen; sie können zu einem Zusammenbruch führen. Wir haben die Schwelle eines vierten Urknalls erreicht, und wir tun nicht, was wir können, um einen Zusammenbruch abzuwenden. Der Großteil der heutigen Bevölkerung ist frustriert und depressiv und wird gewalttätig. Menschen leiden unter einer veränderten -/- über Klima, Umweltverschmutzung und unzählige Formen der Umweltzerstörung. Millionen durchstreifen den Planeten auf der Suche nach einem Ort, an dem sie nur überleben können. Die Lehren der Geschichte liegen vor uns, und wir ignorieren sie. Dennoch könnten wir die Lektionen lernen und unsere Wege korrigieren. Wir sind durchaus in der Lage, auf diesem Planeten zu leben, ohne das Gleichgewicht und die Ressourcen zu zerstören, die für ein gesundes Leben für uns und andere Arten erforderlich sind. Keine Spezies müsste dezimiert, unterworfen oder zum Aussterben getrieben werden, um uns am Leben zu erhalten. Wir könnten nachhaltig leben, mit anderen Arten koexistieren und die Grenzen des Lebens auf dem Planeten respektieren. Wir könnten die Verfügbarkeit lebenswichtiger Ressourcen für alle Menschen und Bevölkerungsgruppen sicherstellen. Dennoch treiben wir unzählige Arten zum Aussterben und schädigen die gemeinsame Umwelt. Die bloße Tatsache, dass wir es geschafft haben, als biologische Spezies fünf Millionen Jahre und als bewusste Spezies fünfzigtausend Jahre zu überleben, ist ein Beweis dafür, dass unsere grundlegende Natur nicht das Problem ist. Es ist nicht die Masse der menschlichen Bevölkerung, die dafür verantwortlich ist, zu einer Geißel des Lebens auf dem Planeten zu werden, sondern nur ein Teil. Die Frage ist, warum dieses Segment unhaltbare und jetzt kritische Bedingungen für geschaffen hat die höheren Formen des Lebens auf der Erde? Und kann es sich rechtzeitig ändern und transformieren, um eine große Katastrophe zu vermeiden? Theologische und mystische Annahmen wurden manchmal als Grund dafür angeführt, dass wir zu dem wurden, was wir sind, aber unser Verhalten göttlichen oder anderen transzendenten Ursachen zuzuschreiben, ist nicht die Antwort. Wir sind weder Engel noch Teufel. Wir wurden zur Geißel, zu der wir unbeabsichtigt geworden sind. Zu Beginn des Neolithikums begann ein Teil der Menschheit, die Ressourcen des Planeten ohne Rücksicht auf irgendetwas und irgendjemanden zu nutzen und sich nur darauf zu konzentrieren, seinen eigenen Komfort und seine eigene Macht zu verbessern. Auf einem endlichen und voneinander abhängigen Planeten führte dies zu unausgewogenen und unhaltbaren Bedingungen. Der egozentrische Umgang mit Ressourcen hat das Netz des Lebens beschädigt. Die menschliche Spezies wurde zu einer Bedrohung für alles Leben auf dem Planeten und auch für sich selbst: Die Gesundheit des Netzes des Lebens ist eine Vorbedingung für die Gesundheit der dort lebenden Spezies. Dies ist eine relativ junge Erkenntnis. Jahrtausendelang gingen die Menschen ihren Daseinsaufgaben nach, ohne sich bewusst zu sein, dass die unreflektierte Verfolgung ihrer eigenen Interessen um sie herum zum Fluch des Lebens wird. -/- Wir sind zu einem Fluch für das Leben auf diesem Planeten geworden; Wir haben die Welt zu einem Spielzeugladen gemacht, in dem wir die leistungsstarken Spielzeuge bauen, die unseren wahrgenommenen Interessen dienen. Wir spielen mit unseren Spielsachen unabhängig davon, ob sie wirklich unseren Bedürfnissen dienen, und ohne Rücksicht auf die Bedürfnisse anderer. Wir setzen die Energie des Atoms frei und nutzen sie, um Systeme anzutreiben, die unsere Bedürfnisse befriedigen. Wir leiten Elektronenströme in integrierte Schaltkreise und verwenden die Schaltkreise, um die Technologien zu beherrschen, die unseren Anforderungen an Kommunikation und Information dienen. Wir spielen im globalen Spielzeugladen ohne Rücksicht auf die Folgen für andere und für den gesamten Laden. Dies ist ein kurzsichtiges und gefährliches Verhalten. Wir greifen auf Energie auf eine Weise zu, die nicht unseren wirklichen Bedürfnissen dient, sondern nur unseren kurzfristigen, egozentrischen Bedürfnissen. Ähnlich kurzsichtig manipulieren wir Informationen. Beispiele dafür sind die Atombombe und das Atomkraftwerk auf der einen Seite und der Computer mit seinem Netzwerk aus globalem Geschwätz auf der anderen Seite. Atomkraft, selbst für friedliche Zwecke, und künstliche Intelligenz, selbst wenn sie gut gemeint ist, sind gefährliche Spielzeuge. Sie können zu technologischen Überschreitungen werden, die am Ende unser Leben und das gesamte Lebensnetz in der Biosphäre schädigen. Wir sind an sich gut, aber egozentrisch und kurzsichtig. Aber das kann nicht unwidersprochen bleiben. Die Zeit, in der wir naiv mit mächtigen Spielzeugen spielen konnten, ist vorbei. Ihre unvorhergesehenen „Nebenwirkungen“ sind zu einer Bedrohung für alles Leben auf dem Planeten geworden, einschließlich unseres eigenen. -/- Vorwärts gehen. -/- Wir sind an der Schwelle des vierten Urknalls angekommen. Was machen wir jetzt? Wenn wir gedeihen oder auch nur überleben wollen, muss sich unser Bewusstsein ändern. Gelingt dies nicht, wird der nächste Urknall unser letzter sein. Eine globale Transformation ist ein riskanter Prozess: Soll sie nicht zum Zusammenbruch, sondern zum Durchbruch führen, muss sie gesteuert werden. Wir können mit der bewussten Führung unserer Evolution beginnen, indem wir Gandhis Rat folgen: Sag anderen nicht, was sie tun sollen; Werde du selbst zu dem, was sie und die Welt werden sollen. Unsere wesentliche Aufgabe ist es, die Transformation der Welt zu werden. Wir müssen Ausdruck eines reifen und gesunden Lebens in der Biosphäre sein. Wenn diese kritische Masse erreicht wird, wird der „vierte Urknall“ nicht das Ende des Lebens auf dem Planeten markieren. Es wird eine disruptive globale Transformation sein, aber keine destruktive. Es wird eine neue Phase in der Amtszeit der Menschheit auf dem Planeten auslösen und nicht das Ende dieser Amtszeit. Es ist an der Zeit, die Lehren aus der Geschichte zu ziehen – zurückzublicken, um nach vorne zu sehen. Das Überleben einer fortgeschrittenen Spezies und die Zukunft des Lebensnetzes auf diesem Planeten liegt in unseren Händen. Noch nie waren so viele von der Weisheit so weniger abhängig. Wir müssen erwachen – um erwachsen zu werden. Die Kraft des Bewusstseins zu nutzen, die in unseren Händen liegt. Es ist nicht an der Zeit zu fragen, ob wir den vierten Urknall, die bereits begonnene globale Transformation, überstehen werden. Es ist an der Zeit, sich daran zu machen, es zu schaffen. (shrink)

Wir leben in einem Universum, das aus vielen verschiedenen Perspektiven gesehen und erlebt werden kann. Deshalb müssen wir das Universum aus vielen verschiedenen Blickwinkeln betrachten. Alles und jeder ist eine Form des Universums, die sich auf eine bestimmte Weise ausdrückt. Mit anderen Worten, jeder von uns kann mit absoluter Gewissheit sagen: „Wir sind das Universum!“ Da wir das Universum sind, bietet jeder von uns eine wertvolle Perspektive, die die Beiträge aller und alles andere um uns herum ergänzt. Jeder von uns (...) ist das Universum, das sich an einem bestimmten Ort auf eine bestimmte Weise ausdrückt. Wir sind alle Teil desselben sich bewegenden und sich entwickelnden Kosmos, aber der Blick darauf ist von jedem unserer jeweiligen Standorte aus einzigartig. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass das Universum nicht nur omnizentrisch, sondern auch multiperspektivisch ist – dazu gibt es viele unterschiedliche und gleichermaßen gültige Sichtweisen. Jeder von uns ist ein kosmisches Labor, in dem wir die Geheimnisse des Universums entdecken können. Wir sprechen auf verschiedene Weise, wir sind alle das Universum, das sich seiner selbst auf seine eigene einzigartige Weise bewusst geworden ist. Die Einsicht, dass das Universum viele verschiedene Perspektiven hat und sowohl kosmisch als auch persönlich ist, hat ein großes transformatives Potenzial und ist es wert, tief darüber nachzudenken. (shrink)

En los albores de la tercera década del siglo XXI, la existencia de la humanidad se ha vuelto sumamente peligrosa. Estamos talando nuestros bosques, agotando nuestros acuíferos de agua dulce y perdiendo nuestros suelos superiores vitales. Estamos eliminando la vida de nuestros océanos y reemplazándola con cientos de millones de toneladas de desechos plásticos. Estamos inundando nuestro medio ambiente con productos químicos industriales tóxicos. Nuestra contaminación está impulsando el cambio climático que provoca olas de calor, sequías e incendios forestales que (...) destrozan el tejido de la vida en los continentes. Y estamos trayendo nuevas generaciones al mundo, millones que requieren acceso a los recursos de una existencia digna. El alcance y la amplitud de las amenazas a la vida aumentan día tras día. Este no es un modo sostenible de desarrollo. La causa raíz de nuestros males proviene de una forma de pensar equivocada. ¿Qué significa esto exactamente? significa que hemos estado pensando en nosotros mismos principalmente como seres materiales, mientras negamos nuestra naturaleza espiritual. Debido a que pensamos que existimos como seres materiales y nada más, damos prioridad a proteger nuestros cuerpos del daño y prolongar nuestra existencia material. Nuestra naturaleza espiritual, si es que se la considera en absoluto, se trata como un aspecto secundario de nuestro ser físico, algo que no debe tomarse en serio. Para nosotros, las únicas cosas que importan son los fenómenos que aparecen en el mundo material, cosas que se pueden ver, oír, tocar o medir, pero sabemos que nuestros sentidos nos engañan, los sentidos son una construcción del cerebro. Lo que consideramos un mundo real es una ilusión. La dominación del pensamiento positivista y materialista conduce a la irracionalidad y la destrucción. Pero, ¿adónde nos ha llevado este enfoque? ¿Nos ha traído una sensación de felicidad y plenitud? En lugar de vivir cada día con un espíritu de alegre cooperación, con nuestros corazones llenos de brillante esperanza y feliz anticipación, nos hemos aislado Preimpresión de Academia Letters.©2021 por el autor – Acceso abierto – Distribuido bajo CC BY 4.0 1 diferenciarnos de los demás y verlos como rivales o enemigos. Nuestros pensamientos están inundados de sospecha, miedo y codicia, lo que lleva a un ciclo interminable de guerra, pobreza, hambruna y destrucción ambiental. A menos que despertemos pronto y prestemos atención a nuestra naturaleza espiritual, no habrá futuro para la humanidad en la Tierra. Las palabras son vida. Las palabras son luz. Las palabras son poder. Las palabras son energía. Las palabras son verdad. Las palabras pueden animar y las palabras también pueden matar. Las palabras pueden dar esperanza o hundirnos en la desesperación. La gente usa palabras para construir la paz y usa palabras para hacer la guerra. Las palabras pueden crear muros entre culturas, religiones y naciones. Y las palabras también pueden construir puentes. La existencia de un individuo, una familia, una comunidad, un país y nuestro planeta está siendo conducida al bien o al mal a través del poder de las palabras que hablamos. Las palabras que hablamos son responsables de todo lo que sucede en este mundo. Nosotros, por lo tanto, debemos ser responsables de las palabras que hablamos. En nombre de las generaciones futuras, espero que cada uno de nosotros haga todo lo posible para hablar solo palabras brillantes y llenas de luz, para que un día, nuestros descendientes nazcan en un mundo lleno de luz. No hay tiempo que perder. A partir de este mismo momento, espero que todos echemos un vistazo de cerca a las palabras que hemos estado usando y hagamos esfuerzos constantes para llenarlas de brillo. Nadie va a cambiar nuestra vida por nosotros. Nadie va a cambiar el mundo por nosotros. Es hora de que cada uno de nosotros reconozca el prodigioso poder creativo que se desata en cada palabra que pronunciamos, y de manera consciente pronunciemos sólo palabras llenas de gratitud, aliento y buena intención. A partir de este momento, elijamos palabras que resuenen con amor y perdón para nosotros mismos y para los demás. Ciertamente podemos hacerlo si damos un solo paso adelante. Un paso a la vez, una palabra a la vez, podemos arrancar de raíz los gérmenes de tragedia y aislamiento de nuestra conciencia y convertirlos en ondas de felicidad y conciliación. Por nosotros mismos, por la Madre Tierra y por el bien de de las generaciones futuras, usemos palabras que contribuyan a la evolución positiva de la humanidad en la Tierra . (shrink)

A modified version of Michael Gorman's comments on Peter King’s paper at the 2004 Henle Conference. Above all, an account of Augustine’s purposes in discussing Neoplatonism in Confessions VII, showing why Augustine does not tell us certain things we wish he would. In my commentary I will address the following topics: (i) what it means to speak of the philosophically interesting points in Augustine; (ii) whether Confessions VII is really about the Trinity; (iii) Augustine‘s intentions in Confessions VII; (iv) (...) King‘s hypostatic interpretation‖;(v) Christology. (shrink)

This is my first publication of the distinction between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness, though not using quite those terms. It ends with this: "The upshot is this: If Searle is using the access sense of "consciousness," his argument doesn't get to first base. If, as is more likely, he intends the what-it-is-like sense, his argument depends on assumptions about issues that the cognitivist is bound to regard as deeply unsettled empirical questions." Searle replies: "He refers to what he calls (...) an "access sense of consciousness." On my account there is no such sense.". (shrink)

Digital records, from chat transcripts to social media posts, are being used to create chatbots that recreate the conversational style of deceased individuals. Some maintain that this is merely a new form of digital memorial, while others argue that they pose a variety of moral hazards. To resolve this, I turn to classical Chinese philosophy to make use of a debate over the ethics of funerals and mourning. This ancient argument includes much of interest for the contemporary issue at hand, (...) including the use of impersonators of the dead to help the bereaved to deal well with their grief. I connect this historical discussion with a modern trend in clinical psychology that reframes therapeutic interventions with bereaved individuals. The trend directs practitioners away from facilitating detachment and toward affirming continuing bonds. I conclude that these chatbots can offer an important source of support to mourners, but also discuss parameters and features of social context that will be important to avoid the moral hazards identified by sceptics. (shrink)

À l'aube de la troisième décennie du XXIe siècle, l'existence de l'humanité est devenue hautement périlleuse. Nous abattons nos forêts, épuisons nos aquifères d'eau douce et perdons nos sols vitaux. Nous enlevons la vie de nos océans et la remplaçons par des centaines de millions de tonnes de déchets plastiques. Nous inondons notre environnement de produits chimiques industriels toxiques. Notre pollution est à l'origine du changement climatique qui provoque des vagues de chaleur, des sécheresses et des incendies de forêt qui (...) déchirent le tissu de la vie sur les continents. Et nous mettons au monde de nouvelles générations, des millions qui ont besoin d'accéder aux ressources d'une existence digne. La portée et l'ampleur des menaces à la vie augmentent jour après jour. Ce n'est pas un mode de développement durable. La cause profonde de nos maux provient d'une façon de penser erronée. Qu'est-ce que cela signifie exactement? cela signifie que nous nous considérons principalement comme des êtres matériels, tout en niant notre nature spirituelle. Parce quenous pensons que nous existons en tant qu'êtres matériels et rien de plus, nous accordons la importance à la protection de notre corps contre les dommages et à la prolongation de notre existence matérielle. Notre nature spirituelle, si elle est considérée du tout, est traitée comme un aspect secondaire de notre être physique, quelque chose à ne pas prendre au sérieux. Pour nous, les seules choses qui comptent sont les phénomènes qui apparaissent dans le monde matériel - des choses qui peuvent être vues, ou entendues, ou touchées, ou mesurées, mais nous savons que nos sens nous trompent, les sens sont une construction du cerveau . Ce que nous considérons comme un monde réel est une illusion. La domination de la pensée positiviste et matérialiste conduit à l'irrationalité et à la destruction. Mais où cette approche nous a-t-elle menés ? Cela nous a-t-il apporté un sentiment de bonheur et d'épanouissement ? Plutôt que de vivre chaque jour dans un esprit de coopération joyeuse, avec nos cœurs remplis d'espoir brillant et d'anticipation heureuse, nous avons isolé la -/- TRADUCTION 1 prépublication des Lettres académiques. nous démarquer des autres et les considérait comme des rivaux ou des ennemis. Nos pensées sont inondées de suspicion, de peur et de cupidité, conduisant à un cycle sans fin de guerre, de pauvreté, de famine et de destruction de l'environnement. À moins que nous ne nous réveillions bientôt et que nous ne prêtions attention à notre nature spirituelle, il n'y aura pas d'avenir pour l'humanité sur Terre. Les mots sont la vie. Les mots sont légers. Les mots sont le pouvoir. Les mots sont énergie. Les mots sont la vérité. Les mots peuvent animer et les mots peuvent aussi tuer. Les mots peuvent donner de l'espoir ou nous plonger dans le désespoir. Les gens utilisent des mots pour construire la paix et utilisent des mots pour faire la guerre. Les mots peuvent créer des murs entre les cultures, les religions et les nations. Et les mots peuvent aussi construire des ponts. L'existence d'un individu, d'une famille, d'une communauté, d'un pays et de notre planète est conduite au bien ou au mal par le pouvoir des mots que nous prononçons. Les mots que nous prononçons sont responsables de tout ce qui se passe dans ce monde. Nous devons donc être responsables des paroles que nous prononçons. Au nom des générations futures, j'espère que chacun de nous fera tout ce qui est en son pouvoir pour ne dire que des mots clairs et lumineux, afin qu'un jour, nos descendants naissent dans un monde rempli de lumière. Il n'y a pas de temps à perdre. À partir de ce moment précis, j'espère que nous examinerons tous de près les mots que nous avons utilisés et que nous ferons des efforts constants pour les remplir de luminosité. Personne ne changera nos vies à notre place. Personne ne changera le monde à notre place. Il est temps pour chacun de nous de reconnaître le pouvoir créatif prodigieux qui se dégage de chaque mot que nous prononçons et de ne prononcer consciemment que des mots remplis de gratitude, d'encouragement et de bonnes intentions. À partir de ce moment, choisissons des mots qui résonnent d'amour et de pardon pour nous-mêmes et pour les autres. Nous pouvons certainement le faire si nous ne faisons qu'un pas en avant. Un pas à la fois, un mot à la fois, nous pouvons déraciner les germes de la tragédie et de l'isolement dans notre conscience et les convertir en vagues de bonheur et de réconciliation. Pour nousmêmes, pour la Terre Mère et pour les générations futures, utilisons des mots qui contribuent à l'évolution positive de l'humanité sur Terre. (shrink)

Michael Tye's response to my “Grain” (Block ) and “Windows” (Block ) raises general metaphilosophical issues about the value of intuitions and judgments about one's perceptions and the relations of those intuitions and judgments to empirical research, as well as specific philosophical issues about the relation between seeing, attention and de re thought. I will argue that Tye's appeal to what is (§. 2) “intuitively obvious, once we reflect upon these cases” (“intuition”) is problematic. I will also argue (...) that first person judgments can be problematic when used on their own as Tye does but can be valuable when integrated with empirical results. (shrink)

Albert Camus, a French-Algerian writer and philosopher, is renowned for his unique contribution to the philosophical realm, particularly through his exploration of the Absurd. His philosophy is often associated with existentialism, despite his own rejection of the label. Camus’ works delve into the human condition and the search for meaning in a seemingly indifferent universe. The Absurd and the Search for Meaning At the heart of Camus’ philosophy is the concept of the Absurd, which arises from the conflict between the (...) human desire for significance, order, and clarity on one hand, and the silent, irrational, and indifferent world on the other1. This tension is a fundamental aspect of the human experience, as individuals continually seek purpose in life despite the universe’s lack of inherent meaning. Revolt as a Response to the Absurd Camus argues that the appropriate response to the Absurd is not suicide or despair, but rather revolt. This revolt is a persistent and courageous confrontation with the Absurd, and it involves a refusal to succumb to nihilism, a rejection of false hopes, and the continuous quest for meaning1. It is through this act of revolt that individuals affirm their own existence and derive a sense of personal freedom and identity. Camus’ Literary Expression of Philosophy Camus’ philosophical ideas are intricately woven into his literary works. Novels such as “The Stranger” (L’Étranger), “The Plague” (La Peste), and “The Fall” (La Chute) not only tell compelling stories but also serve as vehicles for his philosophical thought. In “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus uses the Greek mythological figure Sisyphus, condemned to eternally roll a boulder up a hill only for it to roll back down, as a metaphor for the human condition. Sisyphus, aware of his futile task, chooses to embrace his labor, thus embodying the spirit of revolt and finding happiness in the struggle itself. -/- . (shrink)

I defend social media’s potential to support Aristotelian virtue friendship against a variety of objections. I begin with Aristotle’s claim that the foundation of the best friendships is a shared life. Friends share the distinctively human and valuable components of their lives, especially reasoning together by sharing conversation and thoughts, and communal engagement in valued activities. Although some have charged that shared living is not possible between friends who interact through digital social media, I argue that social media preserves the (...) relevantly human and valuable portions of life, especially reasoning, play, and exchange of ideas. I then consider several criticisms of social media’s potential to host friendships, and refute or weaken the force of these objections, using this conception of a distinctively human shared life. I conclude that we should use the shared life to evaluate features of specific social media and norms for users’ conduct. (shrink)

The paper takes up a traditional view that has also been a part of some recent analytic metaphysics, namely, the view that substance is to be understood in terms of independence. Taking as my point of departure some recent remarks by Kit Fine, I propose reviving the Aristotelian-scholastic idea that the sense in which substances are independent is that they are non-inherent, and I do so by developing a broad notion of inherence that is more usable in the context of (...) contemporary analytic metaphysics than the traditional notion is. I end by showing how non-inherence, while necessary for being a substance, cannot be taken as sufficient without some qualifying remarks. (shrink)

Pandemic-related restrictions can be especially tragic for people whose lives are ending; it seems that the needs and desires of people who are dying should be given extra consideration. Given an additivist view of well-being, however, the last weeks of a person's life can only matter so much relative to the rest of the life they had. This article reflects on the end of my mother's life during the Covid-19 pandemic in order to make the case that the additive view (...) of well-being is part of a broader trend of dehumanizing emergency ethics. (shrink)

The historical profession is not noted for examining its own methodologies. Indeed, most historians are averse to historical theory. In "Historical Judgement" Jonathan Gorman's response to this state of affairs is to argue that if we want to characterize a discipline, we need to look to persons who successfully occupy the role of being practitioners of that discipline. So to model historiography we must do so from the views of historians. Gorman begins by showing what it is to (...) model a discipline by using recent philosophy of law and philosophy of science. There are different models at work, whose rivalry and resolution are to be historically understood. With this approach in place he is able to develop the history of historiography and explore the character of historiography as presented by historians. He reveals that historians conform to various norms - that historians now and in the past have agreed and disagreed about the same set of interrelated matters: truth-telling, moral judgement and the synthesis of facts - and it is this internal understanding that we need to recover if we are to arrive at a correct characterization of the discipline of historiography. Demonstrating how the practice of historiography requires choices and therefore the exercise of judgement, Gorman is able to show that in their making of judgements historians enjoy the immense benefit of hindsight. He shows how, in reflecting on their own discipline, historians have typically failed to attend adequately to the history of historiography, neglecting to situate previous historians within their historical contexts, or to pay adequate attention to the fact that present historians, too, are within a context that will change. In addition, Gorman's approach, which emphasizes the power and necessity of choice, and which rests on the pragmatic holistic empiricism of Quine, shows postmodernism not to be the threat that some historians feel it to be, indeed, it is shown to be a radical form of empiricism. Gorman shows how the historical enterprise may be established in our factual and moral understanding in the light of our choices and commitments to a shared world. "Historical Judgement" is an original and important contribution to the philosophy of history. By bringing together the ideas of historians and philosophers, Gorman presents a much more practitioner-focused examination of the discipline of history, one that will, hopefully, encourage historians to think more about the nature of what they do. (shrink)

This book argues that there is a joint in nature between seeing and thinking, perception, and cognition. Perception is constitutively iconic, nonconceptual, and nonpropositional, whereas cognition does not have these properties constitutively. The book does not appeal to “intuitions,” as is common in philosophy, but to empirical evidence, including experiments in neuroscience and psychology. The book argues that cognition affects perception, i.e., that perception is cognitively penetrable, but that this does not impugn the joint in nature. A key part of (...) the argument is that we perceive not only low-level properties like colors, shapes, and textures but also high-level properties such as faces and causation. Along the way, the book explains the difference between perception and perceptual memory, the differences between format and content, and whether perception is probabilistic despite our lack of awareness of probabilistic properties. The book argues for perceptual categories that are not concepts, that perception need not be singular, that perceptual attribution and perceptual discrimination are equally fundamental, and that basic features of the mind known as “core cognition” are not a third category in between perception and cognition. The chapter on consciousness leverages these results to argue against some of the most widely accepted theories of consciousness. Although only one chapter is about consciousness, much of the rest of the book repurposes work on consciousness to isolate the scientific basis of perception. (shrink)

According to Christian belief, Jesus Christ is a divine person who became “incarnate,” i.e., who became human. A key event in the second act of the drama of creation and redemption, the incarnation could not have failed to interest Aquinas, and he discusses it in a number of places. A proper understanding of what he thought about it is thus part of any complete understanding of his work. It is, furthermore, a window into his ideas on a variety of other (...) topics: God, human nature, language, substance, and so on. Finally, it forces us to come to grips with what is at stake in acknowledging that Aquinas was not only a philosopher but a theologian as well. (shrink)

Must the best friends necessarily be good people? On the one hand, as Aristotle puts it, ‘people think that the same people are good and also friends’. But on the other hand, friendship sometimes seems to require that one behave badly. For example, a normally honest person might lie to corroborate a friend's story. What I will call closeness, which I take to include sensitivity to friends' subjective values and concerns as well as an inclination to take their subjective interests (...) as reasons for action, is characteristic of friendship. But this seems to require that good friends should be morally flexible, more so than is compatible with a virtuous character. This would imply tension between ideals of friendship and ideals of character. But there is an important connection between virtue and friendship which arises precisely from friends' closeness, when concern for wellbeing, another important feature of friendship, is also taken into account. This helps mitigate the tension and shows how friendship and virtue are interconnected. The connection in turn provides friendship-based reason to think the best friends must be good people, even though concerns of friendship may occasionally clash with other moral concerns. (shrink)

I argue in favor of the Minimal Approval account, an original account of an agent’s moral responsibility for her actions, understood as the conditions that must be met so that an agent’s actions speak for her such that she can appropriately be blamed on their basis. My account shares a general theoretical orientation with Deep Self views, but diverges in several respects. I argue that Deep Self views tend to seriously over-generate exemptions, such that agents are exempt from responsibility even (...) from ordinary weak-willed actions. Accordingly, much of my focus is on giving a more nuanced, and in certain senses narrower, explanation of genuine exemption cases. While I address the advantages the Minimal Approval account has over competing accounts throughout these chapters, the account also aims to provide an empirically informed response to a certain sort of skeptical worry about how it could be the case that anyone is ever responsible for what they do at all. One commonplace thought is that when agents’ behaviors are due to compulsion their “brains make them do it.” But, in a literal sense, it might seem that our brains make all of us do everything that we do. In this dissertation I head off this worry by directly addressing both what the difference is, and what it should mean for our practices. (shrink)

In this paper I explain Thomas Aquinas's view that Christ is a composite person, and then I explain the role of Christ's compositeness in Thomas‘s solutions to a range of Christological problems. On the topics I will be discussing, Thomas‘s views did not change significantly over the course of his career; for the sake of simplicity, then, I will focus on texts from the Summa theologiae, citing parallels in the notes.

This paper argues that the “Canberra Plan” picture of physicalistic reduction of mind--a picture shared by both its proponents and opponents, philosophers as diverse as David Armstrong, David Chalmers Frank Jackson, Jaegwon Kim, Joe Levine and David Lewis--neglects ground (Fine, 2001, 2012). To the extent that the point of view endorsed by the Canberra Plan has an account of the physical/functional ground of mind at all, it is in one version trivial and in another version implausible. In its most general (...) form, the point of view of the Canberra Plan is committed to unacceptably treating indexical or name-related facts as part of the ultimate physical/functional ground of the mental. (shrink)

Discusses the old problem of how to characterize apparently intentional states that appear to lack objects. In tandem with critically discussing a recent proposal by Tim Crane, I develop the line of reasoning according to which talking about intentional objects is really a way of talking about intentional states—in particular, it’s a way of talking about their satisfaction-conditions.

There are two basic views concerning the relationship between constitutional rights and proportionality analysis. The first maintains that there exists a necessary connection between constitutional rights and proportionality, the second argues that the question of whether constitutional rights and proportionality are connected depends on what the framers of the constitution have actually decided, that is, on positive law. The first thesis may be termed ‘necessity thesis’, the second ‘contingency thesis’. According to the necessity thesis, the legitimacy of proportionality analysis is (...) a question of the nature of constitutional rights, according to the contingency thesis, it is a question of interpretation. The article defends the necessity thesis. | A previous version of this article was published in Chinese Yearbook of Constitutional Law, Vol. 2010, 221–235. (shrink)

We live in a universe that can be seen and experienced from many different perspectives. We therefore need to look at the universe from many different angles. Everything and everyone is a form of the universe being expressed in a particular way. In other words, each one of us can say with absolute certainly “We are the Universe!” Since we are the universe, each one of us provides a valuable perspective that complements the contributions of everyone and everything else around (...) us.Each of us is the universe being expressed in a particular location in a specific way. We’re all part of the same moving and evolving cosmos, but the view of it is unique from each of our respective locations. This suggests that the universe is not only omnicentric, but that it is also multiperspectival – there are many different, and equally valid, viewpoints on this. Each one of us is a cosmic laboratory within which we can discover the secrets of the universe.We speak in various ways, we are each the universe having become aware of itself in our own unique way. The insights that the universe has many different perspectives and is both cosmic and personal has great transformative potential, and is worth reflecting on deeply. Goodreads - official Amazon - Official. (shrink)

Ned Block; IX*—An Argument for Holism1, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 95, Issue 1, 1 June 1995, Pages 151–170.

Can we consciously see more items at once than can be held in visual working memory? This question has elud- ed resolution because the ultimate evidence is subjects’ reports in which phenomenal consciousness is filtered through working memory. However, a new technique makes use of the fact that unattended ‘ensemble prop- erties’ can be detected ‘for free’ without decreasing working memory capacity.

An overview of Hugh’s thought, focusing on philosophical issues. Specifically it gives a summary of his overall vision; the sources he worked from; his understanding of: the division of the science, biblical interpretation, God, creation, providence and evil, human nature and ethics, salvation; and his spiritual teachings.

The status and functioning of shame is contested in moral psychology. In much of anglophone philosophy and psychology, it is presumed to be largely destructive, while in Confucian philosophy and many East Asian communities, it is positively associated with moral development. Recent work in human-robot interaction offers a unique opportunity to investigate how shame functions while controlling for confounding variables of interpersonal interaction. One research program suggests a Confucian strategy for using robots to rebuke participants, but results from experiments with (...) educational technologies imply a different and potentially opposing account of shame’s role in personal development. By digging deeper into the details of Confucian theorizing about shame, I identify a unifying explanation for these apparently conflicting results. I conclude by offering suggestions for future empirical research in human-robot interactions to further investigate shame’s role in moral development. (shrink)

According to Christian doctrine as formulated by the Council of Chalcedon (451), Christ is one person (one supposit, one hypostasis) existing in two natures (two essences), human and divine. The human and divine natures are not merged into a third nature, nor are they separated from one another in such a way that the divine nature goes with one person, namely, the Word of God, and the human nature with another person, namely, Jesus of Nazareth. The two natures belong to (...) just one person, and the one person has two distinct natures. Chalcedon‟s justly-famous formula brought the debate into sharper focus and ruled out certain options, but of course it did not bring the arguments to a complete end. More councils,more debates, and more questions were to follow, although the range of disagreement tended to narrow. In the medieval Latin West, Peter Lombard (†1160) identified in book III of the Sententiae three “opinions” on the topic, but by the middle of the thirteenth century, it was widely agreed that only one of them was orthodox teaching. This relative unity of thought provided the space within which more detailed issues could be debated, and one of the most interesting of these concerned existence (esse): how many existences are there in Christ? Since Christ is only one person, it might seem that he has only one existence. On the other hand, he has two natures, so perhaps instead he has more than one existence. In this one paper, my goal is rather modest. I discuss only a few of the relevant authors, and I focus primarily on which questions they were asking. I proceed as follows. I first look at Thomas Aquinas, whose remarks on these topics had such a large influence on the debate later in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Crucial will be certain distinctions that Thomas makes, distinctions we can see as disambiguating the question we began with, namely, „How many existences are there in Christ?‟. After that I will look at how one of those distinctions makes its appearance in the writings of two post-Thomistic authors, Giles of Rome and Godfrey of Fontaines. (shrink)

According to authoritative Christian teaching, Jesus Christ is a single person existing in two natures, divinity and humanity. In attempting to understand this claim, the high-scholastic theologians often asked whether there was more than one existence in Christ. John Duns Scotus answers the question with a clear and strongly-formulated yes, and Thomists have sometimes suspected that his answer leads in a heretical direction. But before we can ask whether Scotus‘s answer is acceptable or not, we have to come to a (...) clear understanding of what his answer is. And before we can ask what his answer is, we have to come to a clear understanding of what question or questions he is trying to answer. In this paper I begin by explaining that the question about Christ‘s existence is ambiguous, i.e., that there are actually two questions hidden behind one formulation. Next I look at Scotus‘s writings on the topic in order to determine which question he is really trying to answer, and I argue that he is trying to answer both of them, even though he does not make this clear. Third, I provide an initial look at the answers that he gives. Fourth, I explain why these answers might seem problematic, especially from a Thomistic perspective. Fifth, I explain Scotus‘s answers in more detail and show that they are not problematic in the way that some Thomists have held. Indeed, at least some of Scotus‘s ideas are the very same ideas that Thomas spells out in one of his works. (shrink)

Anyone who tries to understand categories soon runs into the problem of giving an account of the unity of a category. Call this the “unity problem.” In this essay, I describe a distinctive and under-studied version of the unity problem and discuss how it might be solved. First, I describe various versions of the unity problem. Second, I focus on one version and argue that it is best dealt with by thinking of at least some categories as “norm-constituted,” in a (...) sense that I try to make clear. Third, I discuss some objections to my proposal. Fourth, I compare norm -constituted categories to categories that are normative in a different sense. Fifth, I briefly discuss the possibility of grounding the normativity of norm-constituted categories. Finally, I raise a few questions for further research. (shrink)

One of the most important issues concerning the foundations ofconscious perception centerson thequestion of whether perceptual consciousness is rich or sparse. The overflow argument uses a form of ‘iconic memory’ toarguethatperceptual consciousnessisricher (i.e.,has a higher capacity) than cognitive access: when observing a complex scene we are conscious of more than we can report or think about. Recently, the overflow argumenthas been challenged both empirically and conceptually. This paper reviews the controversy, arguing that proponents of sparse perception are committed to the (...) postulation of (i) a peculiar kind of generic conscious representation that has no independent rationale and (ii) an unmotivated form of unconscious representation that in some cases conflicts with what we know about unconscious representation. (shrink)

Patrick Toner has recently criticized accounts of substance provided by Kit Fine, E. J. Lowe, and the author, accounts which say (to a first approximation) that substances cannot depend on things other than their own parts. On Toner’s analysis, the inclusion of this parts exception results in a disjunctive definition of substance rather than a unified account. In this paper (speaking only for myself, but in a way that would, I believe, support the other authors that Toner discusses), I first (...) make clear what Toner’s criticism is, and then I respond to it. Including the parts exception is not the adding of a second condition but instead the creation of a new single condition. Since it is not the adding of a condition, the result is not disjunctive. Therefore, the objection fails. (shrink)