The precarious rights of senior citizens, especially those who are highly educated and who are expected to counsel and guide the younger generations, has stimulated the creation internationally of advocacy associations and opinion leader groups. The strength of these groups, however, varies from country to country. In some countries, they are supported and are the focus of intense interest; in others, they are practically ignored. For this is reason we believe that the creation of a network of all these associations (...) is essential. The proposed network would act as a support for the already-existing policies of the United Nations’ High Commission for Human Rights, of independent experts, and of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People. All three have long ago recommended the creation of a recognized instrument for uniting presently scattered efforts. The proposed network, therefore, will seek to promote the international exchange of relevant expertise, and it will reinforce the commitments and actions that single countries are currently taking to meet these objectives. For example, informative public events can be organised to promote particular support initiatives and to provide an opportunity for new members of the network to be presented. The network will promote health for senior citizens, disease prevention, senior mobility, safe free time for seniors, alimentary education, protection against new risks and dangers, as well as equity in the services necessary for seniors to adopt new information and communication technologies. In the case of retired academic members, the network will promote equality with respect to continuing use of digital technologies (particularly email), continuing access to research libraries, and the guaranteed ability for seniors to fund their own research programs and to deliver free seminars. (shrink)

This essay examines some of the ways in which the assumption of the essential finitude of the human mind, in contrast to the infinitude of God’s mind, bears on Leibniz’s and Kant’s accounts of our representational capacities. This examination reveals several underappreciated similarities between their views, but also some notable differences that help us pinpoint where and in what ways Kant departs from his celebrated predecessor. The fruits of this examination are a better understanding of Kant’s conception of the discursivity (...) of our understanding, his account of the difference between concepts and intuitions, and the particular flavor of his idealism. -/- . (shrink)

A popular story about Kant's relation to Leibniz presents Kant as a Leibniz-Wolffian by education who, inspired by his encounter with the teachings of Newton and Hume, took on the project of reconciling Leibniz-Wolffian metaphysics with Newtonian science and of responding to epistemological skepticism, a project that led him further and further away from his Leibniz-Wolffian roots and culminated in the total rejection of the Leibniz-Wolffian philosophy in the Critique of Pure Reason. In this essay, four shortcomings of the popular (...) story are identified and several suggestions are made about how to amend and expand the story in order to overcome these shortcomings. Furthermore, some of the most important Leibnizian doctrines that influenced Kant are collected and their role in Kant's philosophy is discussed. (shrink)

Wittgenstein famously criticizes the philosophical practice of analyzing the meaning of words outside their ordinary use in everyday language, whereby often self-made pseudo-problems arise. In order to shed further light on Wittgenstein’s critique, this article makes use of the Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology. First, starting from the remark in Vol. I, §52, his criticism of the philosophical method of selection and generalization is explained in detail. Next, I give a brief outline of Wittgenstein’s own way of philosophizing by (...) reference to a selection of comments concerning the use of psychological words in everyday language, which will also further elucidate his critique. Finally, I enter into the question which significance everyday language according to Wittgenstein has for philosophy. (shrink)

Value capture occurs when an agent’s values are rich and subtle; they enter a social environment that presents simplified — typically quantified — versions of those values; and those simplified articulations come to dominate their practical reasoning. Examples include becoming motivated by FitBit’s step counts, Twitter Likes and Re-tweets, citation rates, ranked lists of best schools, and Grade Point Averages. We are vulnerable to value capture because of the competitive advantage that such crisp and clear expressions of value have in (...) our private reasoning and our public justification. There is, however, a price. In value capture, we take a central component of our autonomy — our ongoing deliberation over the exact articulation of our values — and we outsource it. And the metrics to which we outsource usually engineered for the interests of some external force, like a large-scale institution’s interest in cross-contextual comprehensibility and quick aggregability. That outsourcing cuts off one of the key benefits to personal deliberation. In value capture, we no longer adjust our values and their articulations in light of own rich experience of the world. Our values should often be carefully tailored to our particular selves or our small-scale communities, but in value capture, we buy our values off the rack. In some cases – like decreasing CO2 emissions – the costs of non-tailored values are outweighed by the benefit of precise collective coordination. In other cases, like in our aesthetic lives, they are not. This suggests that we should want different values suited to different scales. We should want value federalism. Some values are perhaps best pursued at the largest-scale level, others at smaller scales. The problem occurs when we exhibit an excess preference for the largest-scale values – when we consistently let the universal metrics swamp our quieter interests. (shrink)

In The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan argues that although all subjects-of-a-life have equal inherent value, there are often differences in the value of lives. According to Regan, lives that have the highest value are lives which have more possible sources of satisfaction. Regan claims that the highest source of satisfaction, which is available to only rational beings, is the satisfaction associated with thinking impartially about moral choices. Since rational beings can bring impartial reasons to bear on decision making, (...) Regan maintains that they have an additional possible source of satisfaction that nonrational beings do not have and, consequently, the lives of rational beings turn out to have greater value.. (shrink)

Response to critical comments by Edward Slowik on my article 'Leibniz on Motion and the Equivalence of Hypotheses' in The Leibniz Review 18 (2008).

In her BBC Reith Lectures on Trust, Onora O’Neill offers a short, but biting, criticism of transparency. People think that trust and transparency go together but in reality, says O'Neill, they are deeply opposed. Transparency forces people to conceal their actual reasons for action and invent different ones for public consumption. Transparency forces deception. I work out the details of her argument and worsen her conclusion. I focus on public transparency – that is, transparency to the public over expert domains. (...) I offer two versions of the criticism. First, the epistemic intrusion argument: The drive to transparency forces experts to explain their reasoning to non-experts. But expert reasons are, by their nature, often inaccessible to non-experts. So the demand for transparency can pressure experts to act only in those ways for which they can offer public justification. Second, the intimate reasons argument: In many cases of practical deliberation, the relevant reasons are intimate to a community and not easily explicable to those who lack a particular shared background. The demand for transparency, then, pressures community members to abandon the special understanding and sensitivity that arises from their particular experiences. Transparency, it turns out, is a form of surveillance. By forcing reasoning into the explicit and public sphere, transparency roots out corruption — but it also inhibits the full application of expert skill, sensitivity, and subtle shared understandings. The difficulty here arises from the basic fact that human knowledge vastly outstrips any individual’s capacities. We all depend on experts, which makes us vulnerable to their biases and corruption. But if we try to wholly secure our trust — if we leash groups of experts to pursuing only the goals and taking only the actions that can be justified to the non-expert public — then we will undermine their expertise. We need both trust and transparency, but they are in essential tension. This is a deep practical dilemma; it admits of no neat resolution, but only painful compromise. (shrink)

According to most accounts of trust, you can only trust other people (or groups of people). To trust is to think that another has goodwill, or something to that effect. I sketch a different form of trust: the unquestioning attitude. What it is to trust, in this sense, is to settle one’s mind about something, to stop questioning it. To trust is to rely on a resource while suspending deliberation over its reliability. Trust lowers the barrier of monitoring, challenging, checking, (...) and questioning. Trust sets up open pipelines between yourself and parts of the external world. Trust permits external resources to have a similar relationship to one as one’s internal cognitive faculties. This creates efficiency, but at the price of exquisite vulnerability. We must trust in this way because we are cognitively limited beings in a cognitively overwhelming world. Crucially, we can hold the unquestioning attitude towards objects and technologies. When I trust my climbing rope, I stop worrying about its reliability. When I trust my online calendaring system, I simply go to the events indicated, without question. But, one might worry, how could one ever hold such a normatively loaded attitude as trust towards mere objects? How could it ever make sense to feel betrayed by an object? Trust is our engine for expanding and outsourcing our agency — for binding external processes into our practical selves. Thus, we can be betrayed by our smartphones in the same way that we can be betrayed by our memory. When we trust, we try to make something a part of our agency, and we are betrayed when our part lets us down. To unquestioningly trust something is to let it in—to attempt to bring it inside one’s practical functioning. This suggests a new form of gullibility: agential gullibility, which occurs when agents too hastily and carelessly integrate external resources into their own agency. (shrink)

Games may seem like a waste of time, where we struggle under artificial rules for arbitrary goals. The author suggests that the rules and goals of games are not arbitrary at all. They are a way of specifying particular modes of agency. This is what make games a distinctive art form. Game designers designate goals and abilities for the player; they shape the agential skeleton which the player will inhabit during the game. Game designers work in the medium of agency. (...) Game-playing, then, illuminates a distinctive human capacity. We can take on ends temporarily for the sake of the experience of pursuing them. Game play shows that our agency is significantly more modular and more fluid than we might have thought. It also demonstrates our capacity to take on an inverted motivational structure. Sometimes we can take on an end for the sake of the activity of pursuing that end. (shrink)

Twitter makes conversation into something like a game. It scores our communication, giving us vivid and quantified feedback, via Likes, Retweets, and Follower counts. But this gamification doesn’t just increase our motivation to communicate; it changes the very nature of the activity. Games are more satisfying than ordinary life precisely because game-goals are simpler, cleaner, and easier to apply. Twitter is thrilling precisely because its goals have been artificially clarified and narrowed. When we buy into Twitter’s gamification, then our values (...) shift from the complex and pluralistic values of communication, to the narrower quest for popularity and virality. Twitter’s gamification bears some resemblance with the phenomena of echo chambers and moral outrage porn. In all these phenomena, we are instrumentalizing our ends for hedonistic reasons. We have shifted our aims in an activity, not because the new aims are more valuable, but in exchange for extra pleasure. (shrink)

There seems to be a deep tension between two aspects of aesthetic appreciation. On the one hand, we care about getting things right. On the other hand, we demand autonomy. We want appreciators to arrive at their aesthetic judgments through their own cognitive efforts, rather than deferring to experts. These two demands seem to be in tension; after all, if we want to get the right judgments, we should defer to the judgments of experts. The best explanation, I suggest, is (...) that aesthetic appreciation is something like a game. When we play a game, we try to win. But often, winning isn’t the point; playing is. Aesthetic appreciation involves the same flipped motivational structure: we aim at the goal of correctness, but having correct judgments isn’t the point. The point is the engaged process of interpreting, investigating, and exploring the aesthetic object. Deferring to aesthetic testimony, then, makes the same mistake as looking up the answer to a puzzle, rather than solving it for oneself. The shortcut defeats the whole point. This suggests a new account of aesthetic value: the engagement account. The primary value of the activity of aesthetic appreciation lies in the process of trying to generate correct judgments, and not in having correct judgments. -/- *There is an audio version available: look for the Soundcloud link, below.*. (shrink)

The feeling of clarity can be dangerously seductive. It is the feeling associated with understanding things. And we use that feeling, in the rough-and-tumble of daily life, as a signal that we have investigated a matter sufficiently. The sense of clarity functions as a thought-terminating heuristic. In that case, our use of clarity creates significant cognitive vulnerability, which hostile forces can try to exploit. If an epistemic manipulator can imbue a belief system with an exaggerated sense of clarity, then they (...) can induce us to terminate our inquiries too early — before we spot the flaws in the system. How might the sense of clarity be faked? Let’s first consider the object of imitation: genuine understanding. Genuine understanding grants cognitive facility. When we understand something, we categorize its aspects more easily; we see more connections between its disparate elements; we can generate new explanations; and we can communicate our understanding. In order to encourage us to accept a system of thought, then, an epistemic manipulator will want the system to provide its users with an exaggerated sensation of cognitive facility. The system should provide its users with the feeling that they can easily and powerfully create categorizations, generate explanations, and communicate their understanding. And manipulators have a significant advantage in imbuing their systems with a pleasurable sense of clarity, since they are freed from the burdens of accuracy and reliability. I offer two case studies of seductively clear systems: conspiracy theories; and the standardized, quantified value systems of bureaucracies. (shrink)

I propose to study one problem for epistemic dependence on experts: how to locate experts on what I will call cognitive islands. Cognitive islands are those domains for knowledge in which expertise is required to evaluate other experts. They exist under two conditions: first, that there is no test for expertise available to the inexpert; and second, that the domain is not linked to another domain with such a test. Cognitive islands are the places where we have the fewest resources (...) for evaluating experts, which makes our expert dependences particularly risky. -/- Some have argued that cognitive islands lead to the complete unusability of expert testimony: that anybody who needs expert advice on a cognitive island will be entirely unable to find it. I argue against this radical form of pessimism, but propose a more moderate alternative. I demonstrate that we have some resources for finding experts on cognitive islands, but that cognitive islands leave us vulnerable to an epistemic trap which I will call runaway echo chambers. In a runaway echo chamber, our inexpertise may lead us to pick out bad experts, which will simply reinforce our mistaken beliefs and sensibilities. (shrink)

„Im Grunde gibt es nur die Liebe“, sagte Picasso einst. Kaum ein Mensch durchläuft sein Leben, ohne früher oder später von jenen Gefühlen gebeutelt zu werden, welche als Liebe bezeichnet werden. Aber was ist Liebe überhaupt? Gibt es klare Kriterien, die Liebe notwendigerweise aufweist? Welchen Einfluss haben die kulturellen Vorbedingungen auf unsere Vorstellungen von Liebe?

We offer an account of the generic use of the term “porn”, as seen in recent usages such as “food porn” and “real estate porn”. We offer a definition adapted from earlier accounts of sexual pornography. On our account, a representation is used as generic porn when it is engaged with primarily for the sake of a gratifying reaction, freed from the usual costs and consequences of engaging with the represented content. We demonstrate the usefulness of the concept of generic (...) porn by using it to isolate a new type of such porn: moral outrage porn. Moral outrage porn is representations of moral outrage, engaged with primarily for the sake of the resulting gratification, freed from the usual costs and consequences of engaging with morally outrageous content. Moral outrage porn is dangerous because it encourages the instrumentalization of one’s empirical and moral beliefs, manipulating their content for the sake of gratification. Finally, we suggest that when using porn is wrong, it is often wrong because it instrumentalizes what ought not to be instrumentalized. (shrink)

„Gemeinschaft“ steht in der Philosophie nicht nur im Zusammenhang mit ethischen Überlegungen, sondern auch mit Fragen nach der Natur von sozialen Handlungen und dem charakteristischen Wesen von Kollektiven. Gibt es Bedingungen, die erfüllt sein müssen, damit man von einer Gemeinschaft – in Abgrenzung zu „Gesellschaft“ – sprechen kann?

Um was geht es beim Bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen? Und weshalb ist es auch ein Thema der Philosophie? Sollte die Gesellschaft grundsätzlich hinterfragen, was unter dem Begriff „Arbeit“ zu verstehen ist? Würde das Grundeinkommen Gerechtigkeit ermöglichen oder verunmöglichen?

Dieses Themendossier zeigt auf, mit welchen Themen sich die Philosophie befasst und wem die Philosophie was nützt. Wo heutzutage Philosophinnen und Philosophen wirken, wird ebenso betrachtet, wie die Frage, weshalb es sich überhaupt lohnt zu philosophieren.

Games have a complex, and seemingly paradoxical structure: they are both competitive and cooperative, and the competitive element is required for the cooperative element to work out. They are mechanisms for transforming competition into cooperation. Several contemporary philosophers of sport have located the primary mechanism of conversion in the mental attitudes of the players. I argue that these views cannot capture the phenomenological complexity of game-play, nor the difficulty and moral complexity of achieving cooperation through game-play. In this paper, I (...) present a different account of the relationship between competition and cooperation. My view is a distributed view of the conversion: success depends on a large number of features. First, the players must achieve the right motivational state: playing for the sake of the struggle, rather than to win. Second, successful transformation depends on a large number of extra-mental features, including good game design, and social and institutional features. (shrink)

Muss ein Mensch Selbstachtung haben, um Empfänger der Menschenwürde zu sein? Spielt Menschenwürde auch in der Wirtschaft und im Rechtssystem eine Rolle? Und wie lässt sich „Menschenwürde“ überhaupt definieren? Im Dossier findet man die philosophischen Hintergründe zum Thema „Menschenwürde“.

Dieses Dossier diskutiert die ethischen Aspekte der direkten aktiven Sterbe- hilfe und die Legitimität des Suizids. Hervorgehoben wird dabei die Relevanz der ethischen Perspektive und der Nutzen der philosophischen Diskussion hin- sichtlich dieser brisanten gesellschaftlichen Frage.

On définit souvent la philosophie comme l’« amour de la sagesse ». En grec, le terme « philosophe » qui signifie « ami de la sa- gesse » (philós= ami, sophía= sagesse) se rapporte à une personne qui aspire à une connaissance globale des choses. (1) Mais que sait-on vraiment de la philosophie? Comment procède-t-elle, à quels thèmes s‘intéresse-t-elle?

The current debate over aesthetic testimony typically focuses on cases of doxastic repetition — where, when an agent, on receiving aesthetic testimony that p, acquires the belief that p without qualification. I suggest that we broaden the set of cases under consideration. I consider a number of cases of action from testimony, including reconsidering a disliked album based on testimony, and choosing an artistic educational institution from testimony. But this cannot simply be explained by supposing that testimony is usable for (...) action, but unusable for doxastic repetition. I consider a new asymmetry in the usability aesthetic testimony. Consider the following cases: we seem unwilling to accept somebody hanging a painting in their bedroom based merely on testimony, but entirely willing to accept hanging a painting in a museum based merely on testimony. The switch in intuitive acceptability seems to track, in some complicated way, the line between public life and private life. These new cases weigh against a number of standing theories of aesthetic testimony. I suggest that we look further afield, and that something like a sensibility theory, in the style of John McDowell and David Wiggins, will prove to be the best fit for our intuitions for the usability of aesthetic testimony. I propose the following explanation for the new asymmetry: we are willing to accept testimony about whether a work merits being found beautiful; but we are unwilling to accept testimony about whether something actually is beautiful. (shrink)

-/- Shitstorms, Hate Speech oder virale Videos, die zum Klicken, Liken, Teilen bewegen: Die vernetzte Gesellschaft ist von Affekten getrieben und bringt selbst ganz neue Affekte hervor. -/- Die Beiträge des Bandes nehmen die medientechnologischen Entwicklungen unserer Zeit in den Blick und untersuchen sie aus der Perspektive einer kritischen Affekt- und Sozialphilosophie. Sie zeigen: Soziale Medien und digitale Plattformen sind nicht nur Räume des Austauschs, sie erschaffen Affektökonomien – und darin liegt auch ihre Macht. Indem sie neue Formen des sozialen (...) Umgangs stiften und bestimmen, wie wir kommunizieren, verschieben sie auch die politische Topographie. -/- Mit einem Beitrag von Antonio Negri. (shrink)

Welche alltäglichen Probleme regen zu vertieftem Nachdenken an? Was bietet uns die Philosophie an möglichen Antworten an? Können wir von den Philosophinnen und Philosophen tatsächlich etwas lernen? Und: Ist der Begriff „Alltag“ gar selbst ein Untersuchungsgegenstand der Philosophie?

Die Aufgabe der Philosophie besteht nicht darin, den moralischen Zeigefinger zu erheben und vorzugeben, was man tun soll und was nicht. Vielmehr zeigt die Philosophie unterschiedliche Argumente auf, weshalb die eine oder andere Haltung vertretbar oder aus gewissen Gründen gegebenenfalls vertretbarer ist als eine andere. Insofern eine Gesellschaft an Klugheit interessiert ist und sich einer zukünftigen Entwicklung verantwortungsvoll stellt, kann die Philosophie eine wertvolle Aufgabe übernehmen: Die Methode, analytisch das Für und Wider abzuwiegen, bedeutet nicht zuletzt viel Arbeit und Aufmerksamkeit (...) für das Detail. Wie beispielsweise das Kapitel zur Grünen Gentechnik (Seite 6) zeigt, sind die Diskussionen um die zu fällenden moralischen Urteile nicht an ein externes Gremium zu delegieren. Im Gegenteil: Die Diskussion sollte innerhalb der Gesellschaft stattfinden, einerseits um den unterschiedlichen Haltungen Platz zu geben, andererseits aber, weil nur auf diese Weise ein echter Konsens zu Stande kommen kann. Die Rolle der Philosophie zeigt sich ähnlich auch, wenn es um die für die pluralistische Gesellschaft zentrale Toleranz geht. Die wertenden Einstellungen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger verdienen es, ernst genommen zu werden und offen diskutiert zu werden. Nur durch eine tiefgreifende Auseinandersetzung lässt sich verhindern, dass populistische Wortführer mit eigennützigen, aber aufmerksamkeitsstarken Argumenten von den Themen ablenken, die ernsthaft angegangen werden möchten: Die Vision einer friedlichen und freiheitlichen Gesellschaft, das demokratische Ideal, wird nicht mit dem Verweis auf die „Krise“ aufgegeben. Verantwortung interessiert die Bürgerinnen und Bürger schliesslich eben doch mehr, als Donald Trumps neuste Lüge. Das philosophische Themendossier zeigt, dass die akademische Philosophie viel leis-tet, um eine oberflächliche Auseinandersetzung mit gesellschaftlich und zukunftsrelevanten Themen zu verhindern. Auch wenn das auf den ersten Blick nach viel Anstrengung klingt, so zeigt der zweite Blick, dass darin viel Wohlwollen zugunsten der Gesellschaft steckt. Es lohnt sich, den Mut aufzubringen, sich intensiv mit den eigenen Werturteilen auseinanderzusetzen und das Auge vom eigenen Wohl auch auf das Wohle aller schweifen zu lassen. Philosophie kann „ansteckend“ sein und viel Freude hervorrufen: Gerade dann, wenn man neue Ideen mit dazu gewinnt oder andere Argumente für bereits gefasste Entscheidungen kennenlernt. Die Philosophie entwickelt sich fortlaufend weiter und bleibt somit mehr denn je: stets aktuell. (shrink)

Art can be addressed, not just to individuals, but to groups. Art can even be part of how groups think to themselves – how they keep a grip on their values over time. I focus on monuments as a case study. Monuments, I claim, can function as a commitment to a group value, for the sake of long-term action guidance. Art can function here where charters and mission statements cannot, precisely because of art’s powers to capture subtlety and emotion. In (...) particular, art can serve as the vessel for group emotions, by making emotional content sufficiently public so as to be the object of a group commitment. Art enables groups to guide themselves with values too subtle to be codified. (shrink)

Dieses Dossier stellt die Fragen der Debatte des Kommunitarismus: Wie ent- wickeln Menschen ihre Identität? Welche Konsequenzen hat diese Identitäts- bildung auf die Werte einer Gesellschaft? Inwiefern ist der Mensch ein auto- nomes Wesen und inwiefern ist er in Strukturen eingebunden? Und: Ist auch die politische Ebene durch diese Fragen betroffen?

Hat das menschliche Wesen einen klaren Kern, welchen ihn erst zum Menschen macht? Wie wäre dieser zu definieren? Der Mensch verfügt über viele Fähigkeiten, die ihn zu einem vernünftig agierenden Tier machen. Aber ist das der wesentliche Unterschied zu den anderen Tieren? Das vorliegende Dossier geht der Frage nach, was der Mensch ist und was ihn auszeichnet.

Gibt es einen Zusammenhang zwischen Politik und Philosophie? Bei Fragen, wie sich der Staat legitimieren lässt, was Gerechtigkeit ist oder welche Rolle Interkulturalität, Toleranz und Anerkennung in der heutigen Gesellschaft spie- len, bietet die Philosophie Antworten und Denkanstösse.

Dieses Heft befasst sich mit der Bedeutung und der fortlaufenden Entwicklung der Wirtschaftsethik. Es wird gezeigt, wie die Wirtschaftsethik auf die aktuellen Krisen reagiert, warum einem Unternehmen eine moralische Verantwortung zukommt und was man sich unter ethischen Managementprinzipien vorstellen könnte.

Was ist Macht? Hat der Mensch „von Natur aus“ das Bedürfnis, nach Macht zu streben? Ist Macht „schlecht“, weil sie Machtmissbrauch ermöglicht? Wieviele Aspekte das Thema Macht wirklich hat und ob Macht beispielsweise auch etwas mit Gewalt zu tun hat, erfährt man im vorliegenden Dossier.

Ist ein gutes Leben gleichzusetzen mit einem glücklichen Leben? Lässt sich Glück antrainieren? Wie gestaltet sich ein gutes Leben im Alter? Solcherlei Fragen, aber auch die Untersuchung, ob nur eine moralisch gute Lebensführung ein gutes Leben ermöglicht, werden im vorliegenden Dossier bearbeitet.

Dieses Dossier befasst sich mit der Gleichstellung der Geschlechter: Wie muss man sich Gleichberechtigung in der Kindererziehung vorstellen? Können auch Männer Feministen sein? Was ist feministische Philosophie? Welche philoso- phischen Theorien gibt es zu Männern und Frauen?

What is a game? What are we doing when we play a game? What is the value of playing games? Several different philosophical subdisciplines have attempted to answer these questions using very distinctive frameworks. Some have approached games as something like a text, deploying theoretical frameworks from the study of narrative, fiction, and rhetoric to interrogate games for their representational content. Others have approached games as artworks and asked questions about the authorship of games, about the ontology of the work (...) and its performance. Yet others, from the philosophy of sport, have focused on normative issues of fairness, rule application, and competition. The primary purpose of this article is to provide an overview of several different philosophical approaches to games and, hopefully, demonstrate the relevance and value of the different approaches to each other. Early academic attempts to cope with games tried to treat games as a subtype of narrative and to interpret games exactly as one might interpret a static, linear narrative. A faction of game studies, self-described as “ludologists,” argued that games were a substantially novel form and could not be treated with traditional tools for narrative analysis. In traditional narrative, an audience is told and interprets the story, where in a game, the player enacts and creates the story. Since that early debate, theorists have attempted to offer more nuanced accounts of how games might achieve similar ends to more traditional texts. For example, games might be seen as a novel type of fiction, which uses interactive techniques to achieve immersion in a fictional world. Alternately, games might be seen as a new way to represent causal systems, and so a new way to criticize social and political entities. Work from contemporary analytic philosophy of art has, on the other hand, asked questions whether games could be artworks and, if so, what kind. Much of this debate has concerned the precise nature of the artwork, and the relationship between the artist and the audience. Some have claimed that the audience is a cocreator of the artwork, and so games are a uniquely unfinished and cooperative art form. Others have claimed that, instead, the audience does not help create the artwork; rather, interacting with the artwork is how an audience member appreciates the artist's finished production. Other streams of work have focused less on the game as a text or work, and more on game play as a kind of activity. One common view is that game play occurs in a “magic circle.” Inside the magic circle, players take on new roles, follow different rules, and actions have different meanings. Actions inside the magic circle do not have their usual consequences for the rest of life. Enemies of the magic circle view have claimed that the view ignores the deep integration of game life from ordinary life and point to gambling, gold farming, and the status effects of sports. Philosophers of sport, on the other hand, have approached games with an entirely different framework. This has lead into investigations about the normative nature of games—what guides the applications of rules and how those rules might be applied, interpreted, or even changed. Furthermore, they have investigated games as social practices and as forms of life. (shrink)

The theory and culture of the arts has largely focused on the arts of objects, and neglected the arts of action – the “process arts”. In the process arts, artists create artifacts to engender activity in their audience, for the sake of the audience’s aesthetic appreciation of their own activity. This includes appreciating their own deliberations, choices, reactions, and movements. The process arts include games, urban planning, improvised social dance, cooking, and social food rituals. In the traditional object arts, the (...) central aesthetic properties occur in the artistic artifact itself. It is the painting that is beautiful; the novel that is dramatic. In the process arts, the aesthetic properties occur in the activity of the appreciator. It is the game player’s own decisions that are elegant, the rock climber’s own movement that is graceful, and the tango dancers’ rapport that is beautiful. The artifact’s role is to call forth and shape that activity, guiding it along aesthetic lines. I offer a theory of the process arts. Crucially, we must distinguish between the designed artifact and the prescribed focus of aesthetic appreciation. In the object arts, these are one and the same. The designed artifact is the painting, which is also the prescribed focus of appreciation. In the process arts, they are different. The designed artifact is the game, but the appreciator is prescribed to appreciate their own activity in playing the game. Next, I address the complex question of who the artist really is in a piece of process art — the designer or the active appreciator? Finally, I diagnose the lowly status of the process arts. (shrink)

Wie wird Wissenschaft in der Gesellschaft wahrgenommen? Diese Frage lässt sich nicht leicht beantworten: Ist die gesellschaftliche Wahrnehmung von Wis- senschaft von Misstrauen geprägt? Oder von Unwissen über die Funktionswei- se von wissenschaftlicher Forschung?

Dieses Heft präsentiert philosophische Perspektiven zu Umweltproblemen. Hierbei sollen einerseits die fünf Hauptpositionen der Umweltethik (Anthropozentrismus, Pathozentrismus, Biozentrismus, Holismus & Tiefen-Ökologie) vorgestellt werden. An- dererseits wird anhand der Erhöhung der Grimselstaumauer die Relevanz der Philosophie hinsichtlich des Dilemmas zwischen Nutzen für den Menschen und Schaden an der Natur deutlich gemacht.

Dieses Heft umreisst philosophische Perspektiven zur Zukunft der Alters- und Hin- terbliebenenversicherung (AHV). Welche Pflichten haben die heutigen Generationen gegenüber den zukünftigen? Inwiefern ist die Zukunft der AHV ein philosophisches Thema?

Dieses Dossier stellt die Fragen der Migrationsethikdebatte: Gibt es ein Recht auf Einwanderung in einem liberalen demokratischen Staat wie der Schweiz? Welche Argumente sprechen grundsätzlich für oder gegen offene Grenzen? Was leistet die Philosophie hinsichtlich der Einwanderungsproblematik?

Welche philosophischen Perspektiven gibt es in Bezug auf Rauschmittel? Das Dossier zeigt die Spannbreite: Ob Substanzen, die unsere Leistung erhöhen, sogar moralisch gefordert sein könnten, warum der Staat den Menschen nicht jeden Rausch verbieten sollte, und ob Süchtige Kriminelle sind.

Dieses Heft beinhaltet philosophische Perspektiven der Debatten der personalen Identität und der Liebe. Neben der Darstellung der Kerninhalte der beiden Debatten wird die Frage „Wen liebe ich?“ philosophisch problematisiert. Dabei soll aufgezeigt werden, was unter einer philosophischen Herangehensweise zu verstehen ist und wie sich dies konkret im Fall der angeführten Frage niederschlägt.

Welche Zukunft erwartet die Menschheit? Oder müsste man fragen: Welche möglichen Zukünfte liegen im Gestaltungsbereich des Menschen? Was passiert, wenn wir eine superintelligente Maschine erfinden, die uns sogar ermöglicht, der Vergänglichkeit zu entrinnen? Welchen Einfluss haben die Technologien auf die Arbeit oder auf unsere Wahrnehmung der Zeit?

Dieses Dossier befasst sich mit den philosophischen Perspektiven zum Thema Bewusstsein: Was kennzeichnet „das Geistige“ und hat es ein einheitliches Merkmal? Wie kommt die Welt in den Kopf? Was bedeutet „subjektiv“ und haben auch Tiere und Pflanzen ein Bewusstsein?

Dieses Dossier wirft die Frage auf, welche Wirkung das digitale Zeitalter auf die Menschen hat und zeigt, welcher Zusammenhang zwischen der Philosophie und der Informationstechnologie besteht: Privatsphäre im Internet, künstliche Intelligenz, Computerethik und auch in Bezug auf Datenschutzfragen.

Because factory-farmed meat production inflicts gratuitous suffering upon animals and wreaks havoc on the environment, there are morally compelling reasons to become vegetarian. Yet industrial plant agriculture causes the death of many field animals, and this leads some to question whether consumers ought to get some of their protein from certain kinds of non factory-farmed meat. Donald Bruckner, for instance, boldly argues that the harm principle implies an obligation to collect and consume roadkill and that strict vegetarianism is thus immoral. (...) But this argument works only if the following claims are true: all humans have access to roadkill, roadkill would go to waste if those who happen upon it don’t themselves consume it, it’s impossible to harvest vegetables without killing animals, the animals who are killed in plant production are all-things-considered harmed by crop farming, and the best arguments for vegetarianism all endorse the harm principle. As I will argue in this paper, each claim is deeply problematic. Consequently, in most cases, humans ought to strictly eat plants and save the roadkill for cats. (shrink)

Albert Einstein ist für seine Arbeiten in der Physik weltberühmt. Nur wenige wissen jedoch, dass Einstein selbst auch philosophische Arbeiten publiziert hat und seine Erkenntnisse weitreichende Folgen für die Philosophie haben. Oder haben „Raum“ und „Zeit“ nichts mit Wissen zu tun?