This paper deals with prolegomenal stances necessary for a proper understanding of the paradoxical nature of Heidegger’s Being and Time. It shall be argued that Heidegger’s magnum opus does not inquire into the sense of being in order to render an answer to the so called Seinsfrage. In fact, several answers have already been given traditionally, which are founded on the being/entity indifferentiation (being as God, substance, nature, subject and so forth), that is, being has been turned into a topic, (...) whilst it is essentially non-topical, for only an entity can be accounted for as topical or thematic. This is the reason why assessing Heidegger as the “thinker of being” can be misleading, if not overtly wrong, when by this is meant that being be conceived of as something that can be thematized. (shrink)

This paper deals with prolegomenal stances required for a proper understanding of the paradoxical nature of Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit. It shall be argued that Heidegger’s magnum opus does not inquire into the meaning of being in order to render an answer to the so-called Seinsfrage. In fact, several answers have already been given traditionally, which are founded on the being/beings non-differentiation (being as God, substance, nature, subject, will and so forth), that is, being has been turned into a topic (...) whilst it is essentially non-topical, for only an entity can be accounted for as topical or thematic. This is the reason why assessing Heidegger as the ‘thinker of being’ can be misleading, if not overtly wrong, when by this is meant that being be conceived of as something that can be thematized. (shrink)

This paper attempts to show how Heidegger’s question concerning the sense of being implies not only the so called ‘hermeneutical transformation of phenomenology’, but also and most importantly what one might call a ‘phenomenological transformation of phenomenology’. This latter transformation, which amounts to the former, can be conceived of as a Heideggerian confrontation regarding the conception of phenomenology coined by Husserl by means of a discussion of the phenomenality of the phenomenon and thus of the fundamental maxime toward which the (...) phenomenological enterprise —at risk of endangering its original (Husserlian) nature notwithstanding— must lead its efforts. (shrink)

This paper deals with Daniel Dennett’s well-known charges against phenomenological philosophy as an endevour to restore the rights of introspection: that is, the attempt, albeit doomed to failure, to contribute to the science of the mind from a purported incorrigible, ineffable and ‘subjective’ (interpreted as ‘private’) first-person perspective. According to Dennett’s heterophenomenology, only a strict third-person method is possible when it comes to the scientific study of the mind. I will dispute Dennett’s method in order to do both: correct Dennett’s (...) caricaturization of phenomenological philosophy as naïve introspection and offer not only a clarification of phenomenology’s true aims and scope, but also a case in which phenomenology will stand as a crucial option in the new studies of the mind, under the sigh of fresh air that can be found in the new approaches to cognitive science (the so-called 4EA approaches: embodied, embedded, extended, enacted, affective). By way of introducing the concept of ‘phenomenological skillful-coping,’ an affirmative respond to Dennett’s own question shall be given: “Is there anything about experience that is not explorable by heterophenomenology? I’d like to know what.” The answer to Dennett should be firm: Yes there is! No less than the most basic non-theoretical, non-representational, embodied and embedded, human experience or coping. (shrink)

This study deals with the philosophical problems of historical conscience which arose in conjunction with the wake of 19th century Historicism, whose aim was to do away with the metaphysical presuppositions of German Idealism. The heyday of the historicist movement will be dealt with as well as its vacillating contradictions (its metaphysics).

This presentation offers a brief introduction to Heidegger in the context of artificial intelligence.

In its two parts, this study intends to reconstruct with some detail the fiasco of the Artificial Intelligence research project and the devastating critique carried out against it by Hubert Dreyfus in his magnum opus What Computers Still Can’t Do (1972, 1979, 1992). Part of these consequences is the emergence within this specialized field of a group of scholars who have called themselves ‘Heideggerian’. This definition shall be dealt with and criticized in the second part of this study. In this (...) first part, we go on to analize (i) the bizarre dreams and false expectations of AI researchers, and (ii) Dreyfus’ own criticism and its definitive thrust of phenomenological nature. (shrink)

This paper attempts to exhibit the young Heidegger’s academic and personal thinking path which stems from the two university dissertations (1913 and 1915 respectively) and ends up leading to his first lecture at the University of Freiburg on the determination of philosophy (1919). It is purported in the first place to render an account of the personal circumstances that convinced Heidegger of modifying his own early purposes of becoming a priest, then a theologian and finally a confessional Catholic philosopher by (...) means of an examination of the philosophical themes which motivate his early work (Neokantianism, medieval speculative grammar and Husserlian phenomenology). In the second place, an attempt is made in order to consider Heidegger’s first Freiburg lecture in which the young philosopher intends the enterprise of undermining the primacy of the theoretical and in which he launches a series of remarkable objections (of hermeneutical nature) against Husserlian phenomenology. (shrink)

This paper revises Heidegger’s interpretation of Aristotle, in which the greek philosopher is portrayed as a proto-phenomenologist. On this regard, an attempt is made in order to render an account of Heidegger’s teaching phase (1919-1927) right before the publication of Sein und Zeit, in which Heidegger develops a search of his own philosophical terminology, resulting from the phenomenological procedure of the so-called ‘destruction’ (Destruktion) of the ontological tradition.

This paper is a commemorative contribution on the occasion of the eight decades that have already elapsed since the publication of Sein und Zeit (1927), the work by Martin Heidegger which perhaps has become in the meantime – considerating the enormous scope of its contemporary influence – the most important philosophical treatise of the 20th century. One must draw attention to the fact that it is not purported an elaboration of the work’s reception, which can be almost imposible to embrace (...) in its entirety for it can well be structured in several phases. There is rather an introductory approach to the manuscript’s history before its publication; purpose that can be seen as a more concrete and less ambitious goal in comparison to the main one, which is nothing but to outline the work’s central topics and the pretentions that it has pursued and carried out. (shrink)

The Cell Ontology (CL) is designed to provide a standardized representation of cell types for data annotation. Currently, the CL employs multiple is_a relations, defining cell types in terms of histological, functional, and lineage properties, and the majority of definitions are written with sufficient generality to hold across multiple species. This approach limits the CL’s utility for cross-species data integration. To address this problem, we developed a method for the ontological representation of cells and applied this method to develop a (...) dendritic cell ontology (DC-CL). DC-CL subtypes are delineated on the basis of surface protein expression, systematically including both species-general and species-specific types and optimizing DC-CL for the analysis of flow cytometry data. This approach brings benefits in the form of increased accuracy, support for reasoning, and interoperability with other ontology resources. 104. Barry Smith, “Toward a Realistic Science of Environments”, Ecological Psychology, 2009, 21 (2), April-June, 121-130. Abstract: The perceptual psychologist J. J. Gibson embraces a radically externalistic view of mind and action. We have, for Gibson, not a Cartesian mind or soul, with its interior theater of contents and the consequent problem of explaining how this mind or soul and its psychological environment can succeed in grasping physical objects external to itself. Rather, we have a perceiving, acting organism, whose perceptions and actions are always already tuned to the parts and moments, the things and surfaces, of its external environment. We describe how on this basis Gibson sought to develop a realist science of environments which will be ‘consistent with physics, mechanics, optics, acoustics, and chemistry’. (shrink)

In the apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium, Pope Francis traces a relationship of clear interdependence between the evangelizing mission of the ecclesial community and the experience of joy that it lives in the faith in Jesus Christ. This work presents some contributions from the theology of Alexander Schmemann, in For the Life of the World, and from the philosophy of Fabrice Hadjadj, in Le paradis à la porte, which can enrich the reception of this programmatic document of the pontificate of Francis. (...) In this path, we identify four points of convergence between the two authors' vision: the rediscovery of the eucharistic dimension of joy, as an experience of a gift that extends itself as thanksgiving; of its paschal dimension, which goes through evil and pain, fertilizing them without denying them; of its epiphanic dimension, as a look that allows us to recognize the proximity of the mystery in everyday life; and of its transforming dimension, as a gratuity that spills over into an truly disinterested service. (shrink)

In this Article I argue that the citizenship status of Israel’s Palestinian citizens has been eroding since the "events" of October 2000 and that, as a result, Israel, within its rpe-1967 borders, may be moving from a form of democracy that has been termed "ethnic democracy" towards a form of non-democratic state that has been termed "ethnocracy." My argument is based primarily on two legal documents: the new Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, 2003, which denies Palestinian citizens the right (...) to unite with their closest family members who are residents of the Occupied Territories, and the decision of the High Court of Justice that upheld the constitutionality of this law in 2006. Two other developments that seem to support my thesis are analyzed as well: the "events" of October 2000 themselves and the report of the state commission of inquiry that investigated these events, and the plan, advanced by Yvette Lieberman and his political party, "Yisrael Beytenu," to shift the border between Israel and the West Bank westward, depriving tens of thousands of citizen-Palestinians of their Israeli citizenship. (shrink)

Can AI systems such as ChatGPT think? We present an argument from rationality for the negative answer to this question. The argument is founded on two central ideas. The first is that if ChatGPT thinks, it is not rational, in the sense that it does not respond correctly to its evidence. The second idea, which appears in several different forms in philosophical literature, is that thinkers are by their nature rational. Putting the two ideas together yields the result that ChatGPT (...) is not a thinker. The paper sets out the argument in detail and shows how it can withstand numerous objections. We end the paper by contrasting the argument from rationality with a more well-known argument often taken to show that ChatGPT doesn’t think, due to Bender and Koller. (shrink)

Causal reasoning and game-theoretic reasoning are fundamental topics in artificial intelligence, among many other disciplines: this paper is concerned with their intersection. Despite their importance, a formal framework that supports both these forms of reasoning has, until now, been lacking. We offer a solution in the form of (structural) causal games, which can be seen as extending Pearl's causal hierarchy to the game-theoretic domain, or as extending Koller and Milch's multi-agent influence diagrams to the causal domain. We then consider (...) three key questions: i) How can the (causal) dependencies in games - either between variables, or between strategies - be modelled in a uniform, principled manner? ii) How may causal queries be computed in causal games, and what assumptions does this require? iii) How do causal games compare to existing formalisms? To address question i), we introduce mechanised games, which encode dependencies between agents' decision rules and the distributions governing the game. In response to question ii), we present definitions of predictions, interventions, and counterfactuals, and discuss the assumptions required for each. Regarding question iii), we describe correspondences between causal games and other formalisms, and explain how causal games can be used to answer queries that other causal or game-theoretic models do not support. Finally, we highlight possible applications of causal games, aided by an extensive open-source Python library. (shrink)

Mówiąc o historii frazeologii języka niemieckiego, należy wyróżnić dwie zasadnicze fazy. Pierwsza z nich to odległy okres sięgający jeszcze XVII w., kiedy to w centrum zainteresowania badaczy stały paremia. Na tym etapie określanie zainteresowania frazeologizmami terminem dyscyplina byłoby nieco na wyrost. Autorzy tego okresu ograniczali się bowiem do inwentaryzacji funkcjonujących w języku przysłów. W tym miejscu należy wspomnieć takie nazwiska, jak Peters czy Schottel, których prace ze względu na jakość zasługują na szczególne uznanie. Do wieku XIX nie doszło do przełomu (...) w badaniach nad frazeologizmami. Jedynym godnym uwagi jest fakt, że pojawia się termin idiomatyczność, jedna z głównych cech związków frazeologicznych, wprowadzony przez Paula. Zaowocowało to pracami, których autorzy starali się w oparciu o to kryterium dokonywać podziału zespołów wyrazowych Jednak ich zainteresowanie dalekie było jeszcze od szczegółowej analizy, a skupiało się wyłącznie na inwentaryzacji. Dopiero wiek XX za sprawą pracy Traité de stilistique franęaise Bally’ego przyniósł przełom w badaniach frazeologizmów i stworzył fundamenty, na których powstała nowa dziedzina językoznawstwa. Choć początkowo praca nie spotkała się z większym zainteresowaniem, to w latach trzydziestych i czterdziestych minionego wieku znalazła uznanie radzieckich badaczy. To dzięki takim językoznawcom, jak Vinogradov czy Černyševa nastąpił istny renesans badań związków frazeologicznych, który ostatecznie doprowadził tam do wykrystalizowania się w latach czterdziestych XX w. frazeologii jako uznanej dyscypliny językoznawstwa. Osiągnięcia radzieckiej frazeologii przeniosła na grunt niemieckiej lingwistyki Ruth Klappenbach pod koniec lat sześćdziesiątych XX w. W roku 1970 Irina Černyševa opublikowała szczegółową pracę, poświęconą niemieckiej frazeologii. Powstałe później publikacje takich autorów, jak Koller, Pilz, Burger czy Fleischer, stały się żelaznym kanonem frazeologii języka niemieckiego i na stałe ugruntowały pozycję nowej dyscypliny. Kolejne publikacje autorów z całego świata, mające często charakter interdyscyplinarny, ukazują wciąż nowe kierunki badań frazeologizmów. Tym samym stanowią one nieoceniony wkład w dalszy rozwój niemieckiej frazeologii. (shrink)