Locates, discusses, and explains the transition between Nietzsche's middle and late periods represented by the first four books of _The Gay Science_.

This review confirms Herman’s work as a praiseworthy contribution to East-West and comparative philosophical literature. Due credit is given to Herman for providing English readers with access to Buber’s commentary on, a personal translation of, the Chuang-Tzu; Herman’s insight into the later influence of I and Thou on Buber’s understanding of Chuang-Tzu and Taoism is also appropriately commended. In latter half of this review, constructive criticisms of Herman’s work are put forward, such as formatting inconsistencies, a tendency toward verbosity and (...) jargon, and a neglect of seemingly important hermeneutical issues. Such issues, seemingly substantive but neglected by Herman, are the influence of Buber’s prior familiarity with Hasidic teachings on his encounter with Chuang-Tzu, as well as the prevalence of Hasidic and Taoist thought in Buber’s conception of good and evil. (shrink)

The importance of situational constraint for moral evaluations is widely accepted in philosophy, psychology, and the law. However, recent work suggests that this relationship is actually bidirectional: moral evaluations can also influence our judgments of situational constraint. For example, if an agent is thought to have acted immorally rather than morally, that agent is often judged to have acted with greater freedom and under less situational constraint. Moreover, when considering interpersonal situations, we judge that an agent who forces another to (...) act immorally (versus morally) uses more force. These two features can result in contradictory response patterns in which participants judge both that (1) a forcer forced a forcee to act and (2) the forcee was not forced by the forcer to act. Here, we characterize potential psychological mechanisms, in particular, “moral focus” and counterfactual reasoning that account for this paradoxical pattern of judgments. (shrink)

Deception sometimes results in nonconsensual sex. A recent body of literature diagnoses such violations as invalidating consent: the agreement is not morally transformative, which is why the sexual contact is a rights violation. We pursue a different explanation for the wrongs in question: there is valid consent, but it is not consent to the sex act that happened. Semantic conventions play a key role in distinguishing deceptions that result in nonconsensual sex (like stealth condom removal) from those that don’t (like (...) white lies). Our framework is also applicable to more controversial cases, like those implicated in so-called “gender fraud” complaints. (shrink)

This paper explores an emerging sub-field of both empirical bioethics and experimental philosophy, which has been called “experimental philosophical bioethics” (bioxphi). As an empirical discipline, bioxphi adopts the methods of experimental moral psychology and cognitive science; it does so to make sense of the eliciting factors and underlying cognitive processes that shape people’s moral judgments, particularly about real-world matters of bioethical concern. Yet, as a normative discipline situated within the broader field of bioethics, it also aims to contribute to substantive (...) ethical questions about what should be done in a given context. What are some of the ways in which this aim has been pursued? In this paper, we employ a case study approach to examine and critically evaluate four strategies from the recent literature by which scholars in bioxphi have leveraged empirical data in the service of normative arguments. (shrink)

A long-standing puzzle for moral philosophers and psychologists alike is the concept of psychopathy, a personality disorder marked by tendencies to defy moral norms despite cognitive knowledge about right and wrong. Previously, discussions of the moral deficits of psychopathy have focused on willingness to harm and cheat others as well as reasoning about rule-based transgressions. Yet recent research in moral psychology has begun to more clearly define the domains of morality, en- compassing issues of harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, and spiritual (...) purity. Clinical descriptions and theories of psychopathy suggest that deficits may exist primarily in the areas of harm and fairness, although quantitative evidence is scarce. Within a broad sample of participants, we found that scores on a measure of psychopathy predicted sharply lower scores on the harm and fairness subscales of a measure of moral concern, but showed no relationship with authority, and very small relationships with ingroup and purity. On a measure of willingness to violate moral standards for money, psychopathy scores predicted greater willingness to violate moral concerns of any type. Results are further explored via potential mediators and analyses of the two factors of psychopathy. (shrink)

The recent news of a 13-year-old Singaporean prodigy graduating from an Australian university has sparked discussion about Singapore’s approach to nurturing exceptional young talents, especially after it was revealed that the boy had been previously rejected by a local university because of his young age. Some have called for an increased flexibility to allow such young people to skip levels in Singapore - parents of intellectually advanced children often cite concerns that their children are disengaged and bored (...) at school. The fear is real - keeping these students at the same level as their peers could potentially squander their potential and impede their growth. Yet, on the flip side, accelerating their academic journey could potentially jeopardise their social and emotional development, which could negatively impact their ability to connect and work well with their peers in their adulthood. Nonetheless, this debate brings to light the need for more effective strategies to meaningfully engage students with diverse abilities and learning paces. (shrink)

Psychopathic individuals display a callous-coldhearted approach to interpersonal and affective situations and engage in impulsive and antisocial behaviors. Despite early conceptualizations suggesting that psychopathy is related to enhanced cognitive functioning, research examining executive functioning (EF) in psychopathy has yielded few such findings. It is possible that some psychopathic trait dimensions are more related to EF than others. Research using a 2-factor or 4-facet model of psychopathy highlights some dimension-specific differences in EF, but this research is limited in scope. Another complicating (...) factor in teasing apart the EF–psychopathy relationship is the tendency to use different psychopathy assessments for incarcerated versus community samples. In this study, an EF battery and multiple measures of psychopathic dimensions were administered to a sample of male prisoners (N. (shrink)

In this article, we propose the Fair Priority Model for COVID-19 vaccine distribution, and emphasize three fundamental values we believe should be considered when distributing a COVID-19 vaccine among countries: Benefiting people and limiting harm, prioritizing the disadvantaged, and equal moral concern for all individuals. The Priority Model addresses these values by focusing on mitigating three types of harms caused by COVID-19: death and permanent organ damage, indirect health consequences, such as health care system strain and stress, as well as (...) economic destruction. It proposes proceeding in three phases: the first addresses premature death, the second long-term health issues and economic harms, and the third aims to contain viral transmission fully and restore pre-pandemic activity. -/- To those who may deem an ethical framework irrelevant because of the belief that many countries will pursue "vaccine nationalism," we argue such a framework still has broad relevance. Reasonable national partiality would permit countries to focus on vaccine distribution within their borders up until the rate of transmission is below 1, at which point there would not be sufficient vaccine-preventable harm to justify retaining a vaccine. When a government reaches the limit of national partiality, it should release vaccines for other countries. -/- We also argue against two other recent proposals. Distributing a vaccine proportional to a country's population mistakenly assumes that equality requires treating differently situated countries identically. Prioritizing countries according to the number of front-line health care workers, the proportion of the population over 65, and the number of people with comorbidities within each country may exacerbate disadvantage and end up giving the vaccine in large part to wealthy nations. (shrink)

All parties involved in researching, developing, manufacturing, and distributing COVID-19 vaccines need guidance on their ethical obligations. We focus on pharmaceutical companies' obligations because their capacities to research, develop, manufacture, and distribute vaccines make them uniquely placed for stemming the pandemic. We argue that an ethical approach to COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution should satisfy four uncontroversial principles: optimising vaccine production, including development, testing, and manufacturing; fair distribution; sustainability; and accountability. All parties' obligations should be coordinated and mutually consistent. For (...) instance, companies should not be obligated to provide host countries with additional booster shots at the expense of fulfilling bilateral contracts with countries in which there are surges. Finally, any satisfactory approach should include mechanisms for assurance that all parties are honouring their obligations. This assurance enables countries, pharmaceutical companies, global organisations, and others to verify compliance with the chosen approach and protect ethically compliant stakeholders from being unfairly exploited by unethical behaviour of others. (shrink)

Last year saw the 20th anniversary edition of JECP, and in the introduction to the philosophy section of that landmark edition, we posed the question: apart from ethics, what is the role of philosophy ‘at the bedside’? The purpose of this question was not to downplay the significance of ethics to clinical practice. Rather, we raised it as part of a broader argument to the effect that ethical questions – about what we should do in any given situation – are (...) embedded within whole understandings of the situation, inseparable from our beliefs about what is the case, what it is that we feel we can claim to know, as well as the meaning we ascribe to different aspects of the situation or to our perception of it. Philosophy concerns fundamental questions: it is a discipline requiring us to examine the underlying assumptions we bring with us to our thinking about practical problems. Traditional academic philosophers divide their discipline into distinct areas that typically include logic: questions about meaning, truth and validity; ontology: questions about the nature of reality, what exists; epistemology: concerning knowledge; and ethics: how we should live and practice, the nature of value. Any credible attempt to analyse clinical reasoning will require us to think carefully about these types of question and the relationships between them, as they influence our thinking about specific situations and problems. So, the answers to the question we posed, about the role of philosophy at the bedside, are numerous and diverse, and that diversity is illustrated in the contributions to this thematic edition. (shrink)

Currently, the widely used notion of activity is increasingly present in computer science. However, because this notion is used in specific contexts, it becomes vague. Here, the notion of activity is scrutinized in various contexts and, accordingly, put in perspective. It is discussed through four scientific disciplines: computer science, biology, economics, and epistemology. The definition of activity usually used in simulation is extended to new qualitative and quantitative definitions. In computer science, biology and economics disciplines, the new simulation activity definition (...) is first applied critically. Then, activity is discussed generally. In epistemology, activity is discussed, in a prospective way, as a possible framework in models of human beliefs and knowledge. (shrink)

The Protein Ontology (PRO; http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/pr) formally defines and describes taxon-specific and taxon-neutral protein-related entities in three major areas: proteins related by evolution; proteins produced from a given gene; and protein-containing complexes. PRO thus serves as a tool for referencing protein entities at any level of specificity. To enhance this ability, and to facilitate the comparison of such entities described in different resources, we developed a standardized representation of proteoforms using UniProtKB as a sequence reference and PSI-MOD as a post-translational modification (...) reference. We illustrate its use in facilitating an alignment between PRO and Reactome protein entities. We also address issues of scalability, describing our first steps into the use of text mining to identify protein-related entities, the large-scale import of proteoform information from expert curated resources, and our ability to dynamically generate PRO terms. Web views for individual terms are now more informative about closely-related terms, including for example an interactive multiple sequence alignment. Finally, we describe recent improvement in semantic utility, with PRO now represented in OWL and as a SPARQL endpoint. These developments will further support the anticipated growth of PRO and facilitate discoverability of and allow aggregation of data relating to protein entities. (shrink)

This PhD dissertation examines the conceptual and theoretical foundations of the most general and most widely used framework for understanding social evolution, W. D. Hamilton's theory of kin selection. While the core idea is intuitive enough (when organisms share genes, they sometimes have an evolutionary incentive to help one another), its apparent simplicity masks a host of conceptual subtleties, and the theory has proved a perennial source of controversy in evolutionary biology. To move towards a resolution of these controversies, we (...) need a careful and rigorous analysis of the philosophical foundations of the theory. My aim in this work is to provide such an analysis. I begin with an examination of the concepts behavioural ecologists employ to describe and classify types of social behaviour. I stress the need to distinguish concepts that are often conflated: for example, we need to distinguish simple cooperation from collaboration in collective tasks, behaviours from strategies, and control from manipulation and coercion. I proceed from here to the formal representation of kin selection via George R. Price’s covariance selection mathematics. I address a number of interpretative issues the Price formalism raises, including the vexed question of whether kin selection theory is ‘formally equivalent’ to multi-level selection theory. In the second half of the dissertation, I assess the uses and limits of Hamilton’s rule for the evolution of social behaviour; I provide a precise statement of the conditions under which the rival neighbour-modulated fitness and inclusive fitness approaches in contemporary kin selection theory are equivalent (and describe cases in which they are not); and I criticize recent formal attempts to establish the controversial claim that kin selection leads to organisms behaving as if maximizing their inclusive fitness. (shrink)

The central hypothesis of the collaboration between Language and Computing (L&C) and the Institute for Formal Ontology and Medical Information Science (IFOMIS) is that the methodology and conceptual rigor of a philosophically inspired formal ontology greatly benefits application ontologies. To this end r®, L&C’s ontology, which is designed to integrate and reason across various external databases simultaneously, has been submitted to the conceptual demands of IFOMIS’s Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). With this project we aim to move beyond the level of (...) controlled vocabularies to yield an ontology with the ability to support reasoning applications. Our general procedure has been the implementation of a meta-ontological definition space in which the definitions of all the concepts and relations in LinKBase® are standardized in a framework of first-order logic. In this paper we describe how this standardization has already led to an improvement in the LinKBase® structure that allows for a greater degree of internal coherence than ever before possible. We then show the use of this philosophical standardization for the purpose of mapping external databases to one another, using LinKBase® as translation hub, with a greater degree of success than possible hitherto. We demonstrate how this offers a genuine advance over other application ontologies that have not submitted themselves to the demands of philosophical scrutiny. LinKBase® is one of the world’s largest applications-oriented medical domain ontologies, and BFO is one of the world’s first philosophically driven reference ontologies. The collaboration of the two thus initiates a new phase in the quest to solve the so-called “Tower of Babel”. (shrink)

This study set out to look into the relationship between metacognitive reading strategies and reading comprehension of Grade 11 Technical-Vocational-Livelihood modular distance learners of Pasay City East. A correlational research design was employed. The Metacognitive reading strategies served as the dependent variable while reading comprehension served as an independent variable. Random sampling was used to select the 116 respondents and MARSI R and McCall Crabbs Reading Proficiech test were the instruments. The findings of this study show a weak relationship between (...) metacognitive awareness of reading strategies and reading comprehension and the unachieved grade level which failed to reject the hypothesis that there was no significant relationship of metacognitive reading strategies and reading comprehension for Global and Problem-Solving reading strategies. It recommended that future researchers should employ other reading comprehension proficiency tests to validate the result of the existing study and include intervention through the utilization of metacognitive reading strategies as the appropriate strategy to address reading comprehension. (shrink)

When do we judge that someone was forced to do what they did? One relatively well-established finding is that subjects tend to judge that agents were not forced to do actions when those actions violate norms. A surprising discovery of Young & Phillips 2011 is that this effect seems to disappear when we frame the relevant ‘force’-claim in the active rather than passive voice ('X forced Y to φ ' vs. 'Y was forced to φ by X'). Young (...) and Phillips found a similar contrast when the scenario itself shifts attention from Y (the forcee) to X (the forcer). We propose that these effects can be (at least partly) explained by way of the role of attention in the setting of quantifier domains which in turn play a role in the evaluation of ‘force’- claims. We argue for this hypothesis by way of an experiment which shows that sequences of active vs. passive ‘force’-claims display the characteristic “stickiness” of quantifier domain expansion, using a paradigm which we argue provides a useful general paradigm for testing quantifier domain hypotheses. Finally, we sketch a semantics for ‘force’ which we argue is suitable for capturing these effects. (shrink)

The present paper aims to validate our research on human–humanoid interaction (HHI) using the minimalist humanoid robot Telenoid. We conducted the human–robot interaction test with 142 young people who had no prior interaction experience with this robot. The main goal is the analysis of the two social dimensions (‘‘Perception’’ and ‘‘Believability’’) useful for increasing the natural behaviour between users and Telenoid.Weadministered our custom questionnaire to human subjects in association with a well defined experimental setting (‘‘ordinary and goal-guided task’’). A (...) thorough analysis of the questionnaires has been carried out and reliability and internal consistency in correlation between the multiple items has been calculated. Our experimental results show that the perceptual behaviour and believability, as implicit social competences, could improve the meaningfulness and the natural-like sense of human–humanoid interaction in everyday life task-driven activities. Telenoid is perceived as an autonomous cooperative agent for a shared environment by human beings. (shrink)

In Liberalism with Excellence, Matthew Kramer makes an argument for how excellence may enter in into liberalism, despite liberalism’s strong commitment to neutrality. Kramer seeks to challenge not only the uncompromising rejection of this position by liberals such a Jonathan Quong, but also the so-called “blended” approach of “soft-perfectionist” scholars such as Joseph Raz and George Sher. In this essay, I do not so much challenge Kramer’s approach as offer an alternative for accomplishing the same thing. Under my proposal, (...) certain forms of excellence and neutrality can both be accommodated as long as state support for the form of excellence at issue is proportional to the support for such a form of excellence within the relevant polity, competing forms of excellence are non-rivalrous, and no one is forced to embrace a form of excellence with which they disagree. My proposal is therefore not what Ronald Dworkin derogatively characterized as “a checkerboard solution.” Rather than allowing the state to support contrary moral positions at one and the same time, it is a solution that takes morally compatible but nevertheless competing conceptions of excellence seriously, and exhibits neutrality by giving them proportional rather than full support. This neither forces anyone to pursue the particular forms of excellence the state supports nor prevents them from pursuing some other form of excellence entirely or, if they wish, no form of excellence at all. (shrink)

Psychopathy refers to a range of complex behaviors and personality traits, including callousness and antisocial behavior, typically studied in criminal populations. Recent studies have used self-reports to examine psychopathic traits among noncriminal samples. The goal of the current study was to examine the underlying factor structure of the Self-Report of Psychopathy Scale–Short Form (SRP-SF) across complementary samples and examine the impact of gender on factor structure. We examined the structure of the SRP-SF among 2,554 young adults from three undergraduate (...) samples and a high-risk young adult sample. Using confirmatory factor analysis, a four-correlated factor model and a four-bifactor model showed good fit to the data. Evidence of weak invariance was found for both models across gender. These findings highlight that the SRP-SF is a useful measure of low-level psychopathic traits in noncriminal samples, although the underlying factor structure may not fully translate across men and women. (shrink)

My first paper on the Is/Ought issue. The young Arthur Prior endorsed the Autonomy of Ethics, in the form of Hume’s No-Ought-From-Is (NOFI) but the later Prior developed a seemingly devastating counter-argument. I defend Prior's earlier logical thesis (albeit in a modified form) against his later self. However it is important to distinguish between three versions of the Autonomy of Ethics: Ontological, Semantic and Ontological. Ontological Autonomy is the thesis that moral judgments, to be true, must answer to a (...) realm of sui generis non-natural PROPERTIES. Semantic autonomy insists on a realm of sui generis non-natural PREDICATES which do not mean the same as any natural counterparts. Logical Autonomy maintains that moral conclusions cannot be derived from non-moral premises.-moral premises with the aid of logic alone. Logical Autonomy does not entail Semantic Autonomy and Semantic Autonomy does not entail Ontological Autonomy. But, given some plausible assumptions Ontological Autonomy entails Semantic Autonomy and given the conservativeness of logic – the idea that in a valid argument you don’t get out what you haven’t put in – Semantic Autonomy entails Logical Autonomy. So if Logical Autonomy is false – as Prior appears to prove – then Semantic and Ontological Autonomy would appear to be false too! I develop a version of Logical Autonomy (or NOFI) and vindicate it against Prior’s counterexamples, which are also counterexamples to the conservativeness of logic as traditionally conceived. The key concept here is an idea derived in part from Quine - that of INFERENCE-RELATIVE VACUITY. I prove that you cannot derive conclusions in which the moral terms appear non-vacuously from premises from which they are absent. But this is because you cannot derive conclusions in which ANY (non-logical) terms appear non-vacuously from premises from which they are absent Thus NOFI or Logical Autonomy comes out as an instance of the conservativeness of logic. This means that the reverse entailment that I have suggested turns out to be a mistake. The falsehood of Logical Autonomy would not entail either the falsehood Semantic Autonomy or the falsehood of Ontological Autonomy, since Semantic Autonomy only entails Logical Autonomy with the aid of the conservativeness of logic of which Logical Autonomy is simply an instance. Thus NOFI or Logical Autonomy is vindicated, but it turns out to be a less world-shattering thesis than some have supposed. It provides no support for either non-cognitivism or non-naturalism. (shrink)

This article is featured in a special issue dedicated to theme, "the human being in the digital era: awareness, critical thinking and political space in the age of the internet and artificial intelligence." In this article, I consider the way that social-media companies nudge us to spend more time on their platforms, and I argue that, in principle, these nudges are morally permissible: they are not manipulative and do not violate any obvious moral rules. The moral problem, I argue, is (...) not with nudging in principle but is instead with the fact that users are being nudged towards something bad for them. In practice, this often involves being nudged to spend an unhealthy amount of time using a social-media app or being nudged towards content that is bad for us, such as by promoting eating-disorder content to young girls. Since nudging is morally permissible, it is open to these companies to use the same technologies to nudge us towards the good. (shrink)

In this article, I seek to assess the extent to which a ‘trope-theoretic’ version of Theism is a better theory than that of a theory of Atheism, as posited by Graham Oppy. This end will be achieved by utilising the systemisation of the theoretical virtues proposed by Michael Keas (as further modified by an application of the work of Jonathan Schaffer), the notion of a trope, introduced by D.C. Williams, and an aspect, proposed by Donald L.M. Baxter, which will (...) establish the basis of the trope-theoretic account of Theism that will be at the centre of our analysis. This assessment will ultimately show that Theism, rather than that of Atheism (Naturalism), can successfully achieve the trade-off between minimising theoretical commitments and maximising explanatory power. And thus, given this, the best theory of Theism—namely, that of ‘trope-theoretic Theism’—is to be privileged over that of the best theory of Atheism—namely, that of ‘Oppyian Naturalism’—and is able to provide grounds for a decisive reassessment of the cogency of Agnosticism. (shrink)

This paper critically examines color relationalism and color relativism, two theories of color that are allegedly supported by variation in normal human color vision. We mostly discuss color relationalism, defended at length in Jonathan Cohen's The Red and the Real, and argue that the theory has insuperable problems.

In 2035 global egg demand will have risen 50% from 1985. Because we are not able to tell in the egg whether it will become a male or female chick, billons of one day-old male chicks will be killed. International research initiatives are underway in this area, and governments encourage the development of an alternative with the goal of eliminating the culling of day-old male chicks. The Netherlands holds an exceptional position in the European egg trade, but is also the (...) only country in the European Union where the downside of the egg sector, the practice of killing day-old male chicks, is a recurrent subject of societal debate. ‘Preventing the killing of young animals’ and ‘in ovo sex determination’ are the two alternative approaches available to solve this problem. It is clear that both approaches solve the problem of killing day-old male chicks, either by keeping them alive or by preventing them from living, but they also raise a lot of new animal welfare-related dilemmas. A thorough analysis was undertaken of these dilemmas and the results are presented in this article. The analysis resulted in an ethical framework based on the two main approaches in bioethics: a consequentialist approach and a deontological approach. This ethical framework was used to develop an online survey administered to ascertain Dutch public opinion about these alternative approaches. The results show that neither alternative will be fully accepted, or accepted by more than half of Dutch society. However, the survey does provide an insight into the motives that are important for people’s choice: food safety and a good treatment of animals. Irrespective of the approach chosen, these values should be safeguarded and communicated clearly. (shrink)

This article aims to provide a metaphysical elucidation of a specific model of the doctrine of the Trinity: Monarchical Trinitarianism, within the formal, neo–Aristotelian ontological and metaphysical framework of Jonathan Lowe (i.e. his four–category ontology and serious essentialism). Formulating the model through this ontological and metaphysical framework will enable us to explicate it in a clear and consistent manner, and the important 'multiple–natures' problem raised against the proposed model will be shown to be ineffective.

In this article it is shown that a careful analysis of Kant 's Gedanken von der wahren Schätzung der lebendigen Kräfte und Beurtheilung der Beweise leads to a conclusion that does not match the usually accepted interpretation of Kant 's reasoning in 1747, according to which the young Kant supposedly establishes a relationship between the tridimensionality of space and Newton's law of gravitation. Indeed, it is argued that this text does not yield a satisfactory explanation of space dimensionality, and (...) actually restricts itself to justifying the tridimensionality of extension. (shrink)

Creationists who object to evolution in the science curriculum of public schools often cite Jonathan Well’s book Icons of Evolution in their support (Wells 2000). In the third chapter of his book Wells claims that neither paleontological nor molecular evidence supports the thesis that the history of life is an evolutionary process of descent from preexisting ancestors. We argue that Wells inappropriately relies upon ambiguities inherent in the term ‘Darwinian’ and the phrase ‘Darwin’s theory’. Furthermore, he does not accurately (...) distinguish between the overwhelming evidence that supports the thesis of common descent and controversies that pertain to causal mechanisms such as natural selection. We also argue that Wells’ attempts to undermine the evidence in support of common descent are flawed and his characterization of the relevant data is misleading. In particular, his assessment of the ‘Cambrian explosion’ does not do justice to the fossil record. Nor do his selective references to debate about molecular and paleontological phylogenies constitute a case against common descent. We conclude that the fossil and molecular evidence is more than sufficient to warrant science educators to present common descent as a well-established scientific fact. We also argue that diagrams depicting the ‘tree of life’ can be pedagogically useful as simplified representations of the history of life. (shrink)

The purpose of the study was to determine the demographic profiles in terms of age, sex, years in teaching, type of school and ethnicity, SOGIE, perception about the workplace climate in terms of the different gender prejudices faced by secondary science teachers at City of Dasmariñas, Cavite; the study aims to identify if there is a significant difference between perceptions of the participants about the gender prejudices when grouped according to demographic profile; determine if there is a substantial relationship between (...) SOGIE and perceptions about the gender prejudices. This study developed an action plan to promote awareness and make schools SOGIE-sensitive; the research design was quantitative, and an online questionnaire was the data-gathering tool. Descriptive statistics used were mean, median, and standard error; the second level was for relational statistics using Chi-square statistics, Mann-Whitney statistics, and Kruskal-Walli’s statistics. The study revealed that most science teachers in Dasmariñas City, Cavite, were female and young professionals. Science teachers at the secondary level have a diverse SOGIE; in addition, there is zero visibility for transgender people and intersex people. Generally, the secondary schools in the City of Dasmariñas, Cavite, are unsafe for people with diverse SOGIE, especially for transgender and intersex people. The study suggests that the action plan proposed in this study should be adopted by schools to address the issues of gender prejudices and to promote awareness of SOGIE. (shrink)

The study was conducted to determine the pitfalls encountered by grade five teachers during modular teaching and learning. Specifically, it aimed to find out the pitfalls encountered by teachers along with students’ comprehension, students’ academic behavior, monitoring of students’ education, and physical interaction with the learners. The personal profile of teachers, out of the total respondents (56), most of the teachers are female-dominated. Most of them belong to the age bracket of 34 to 45 and most of the teachers are (...) married. Most of the teachers had attended post-graduate studies. Most respondents are still young in the service, holding Teacher 2 and Teacher 3 positions, and attending local, national, and regional training. On the level of pitfalls encountered by teachers in modular teaching and learning, most respondents experienced a slight gravity level in the four aspects. The computed average weighted mean along comprehension is 2.50, along academic behavior is 2.54, along monitoring of students’ performance is 2.58, and along physical interaction is 2.79. All have an equivalent value of moderately grave. There is a specific profile of teachers that is significantly related. Age is significantly associated with monitoring students’ learning. The computed r value is .270, while the calculated significance level is 0.04. Training attended by the teachers is significantly related to some aspects of students’ comprehension, (computed sig. value is 0.04 and physical interaction is .02), which is lower than the .05 level of significance. The grade five teachers who served as respondents are mostly female dominated; they are in their early forties and married. Most of them are attending post-graduate studies and have attended relevant training. Second, the level of teachers’ pitfalls is mostly moderately grave. In addition, age is significantly related to monitoring, training is significantly associated substantially with physical interaction and comprehension. (shrink)

Tradução para o português do verbete "George Berkeley, de Michael Ayers, retirado de "A Companion to Epistemology", ed. Jonathan Dancy e Ernest Sosa (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), pp. 261–264. Criticanarede. ISSN 1749-8457.

Fallibilism, as a fundamental aspect of pragmatic epistemology, can be illuminated by a study of law. Before he became a famous American judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., along with his friends William James and Charles Sanders Peirce, associated as presumptive members of the Metaphysical Club of Cambridge in the 1870s, recalled as the birthplace of pragmatism. As a young scholar, Holmes advanced a concept of legal fallibilism as incremental community inquiry. In this early work, I suggest that Holmes treats (...) common law cases more like scientific experiments than as deductive applications of already clear rules. Common law rules may be seen as a product of 1) the conflicts that occur in society, 2) the channeling of conflicts into legal disputes, 3) the gradual accumulation of judicial decisions classified into groups, and 4) the development of consensual understanding, expressed in rules and principles, as to how future cases should be classified and decided. This does not involve only lawyers and judges. Especially in controversial cases, it may indirectly involve an entire community. The legal process is seen as an extended intergenerational process of inquiry. It illuminates the relation of thought, expression, and conduct among a community of inquirers, applied to the problems of social ordering. (shrink)

Using two examples of ethical choice, Philippa Foot’s snake and the traffic roundabout, this paper offers an account of normative induction that characterizes particularism and generalism as stages of normative inquiry, rather than rival accounts of moral knowledge and motivation. Ethical particularism holds that the evaluative cannot be “cashed out” in propositional form, and that it is descriptively “shapeless.” Drawing on examples from law, this paper claims that, while individual normative inquiry may be viewed as encountering a shapeless particularist context (...) of seemingly unlimited non-moral properties, normativity is driven by repetition of similar situations toward shared practices and descriptive predication. Rather than retention of epistemic status by defeated reasons,this illustrates retirement of relevant properties and accompanying reasons,transformation of the reasons environment, and a pluralist normative ontology. (shrink)

One of the recurring themes in Čapek’s play is the existential question of whether the reductionist materialist worldview – the belief that we can fully explain the world, including ourselves, in terms of nothing but physical processes – can accommodate all that is essential to the human being. The materialist worldview triumphed with the scientific revolution, which in turn laid the foundations for the military-industrial complex. This historical shift is represented in the play by the business-minded young Rossum inheriting (...) the bio-engineering methodology from the mad scientist old Rossum. A key difference between the two is that old Rossum’s materialist stance is an ideological commitment, whereas for young Rossum working within a materialist framework is more a matter of convenience: for him it is sufficient for most practical purposes to replicate the machine-like aspects of a person. Where does this leave the soul, or what we today might prefer to call consciousness? The question of whether human nature goes beyond its physical aspects, and whether these subjective aspects can also be artificially replicated, is extremely challenging to address in scientific theory and practice –100 years ago as much as now. (shrink)

One of the recurring themes in Čapek’s play is the existential question of whether the reductionist materialist worldview – the belief that we can fully explain the world, including ourselves, in terms of nothing but physical processes – can accommodate all that is essential to the human being. The materialist worldview triumphed with the scientific revolution, which in turn laid the foundations for the military-industrial complex. This historical shift is represented in the play by the business-minded young Rossum inheriting (...) the bio-engineering methodology from the mad scientist old Rossum. A key difference between the two is that old Rossum’s materialist stance is an ideological commitment, whereas for young Rossum working within a materialist framework is more a matter of convenience: for him it is sufficient for most practical purposes to replicate the machine-like aspects of a person. Where does this leave the soul, or what we today might prefer to call consciousness? The question of whether human nature goes beyond its physical aspects, and whether these subjective aspects can also be artificially replicated, is extremely challenging to address in scientific theory and practice –100 years ago as much as now. (shrink)

Alexander R. Galloway and Jason R. LaRiviére’s article “Compression in Philosophy” seeks to pose François Laruelle’s engagement with metaphysics against Bernard Stiegler’s epistemological rendering of idealism. Identifying Laruelle as the theorist of genericity, through which mankind and the world are identified through an index of “opacity,” the authors argue that Laruelle does away with all deleterious philosophical “data.” Laruelle’s generic immanence is posed against Stiegler’s process of retention and discretization, as Galloway and LaRiviére argue that Stiegler’s philosophy seeks to reveal (...) an enchanted natural world through the development of noesis. By further developing Laruelle and Stiegler’s Marxian projects, I seek to demonstrate the relation between Stiegler's artefaction and “compression” while, simultaneously, I also seek to create further bricolage between Laruelle and Stiegler. I also further elaborate on their distinct engagement(s) with Marx, offering the mold of synthesis as an alternative to compression when considering Stiegler’s work on transindividuation. In turn, this paper seeks to survey some of the contemporary theorists drawing from Stiegler (Yuk Hui, Al-exander Wilson and Daniel Ross) and Laruelle (Anne-Françoise Schmidt, Gilles Grelet, Ray Brassier, Katerina Kolozova, John Ó Maoilearca and Jonathan Fardy) to examine political discourse regarding the posthuman and non-human, with a particular interest in Kolozova’s unified theory of standard philosophy and Capital. (shrink)

(The Kindle book can be ordered for $3.21 from Amazon) -/- Thinking is a fundamental activity of our species – those that give names to other creatures and call themselves humans. Textbooks tell us that there is about 1.2 kg of matter called the brain inside the human body. It sounds small but actually is proportionally the biggest among all animals on Earth. -/- I became more aware of thinking at around 5th grade upon hearing about an ancient paradox. It (...) can be summarized as follows. -/- ¤ -/- Once upon a time, there was a stupid king. In his kingdom lived a sage who was highly respected for his intelligence. The King did not appreciate this fact. Maybe the Sage made fun of the King’s intellect, but I am not so sure. Anyway, one day, the King summoned the Sage, intending to kill him. -/- The King said, “Wise man, I heard you earn a living by thinking and arguing. Now I give you two options to die.” -/- The Sage said, “Please tell me the choices, Your Majesty.” -/- The King continued, “You live by your tongue, so I will let you say one sentence before you die. If what you say is true, you will die by hanging. If what you say is false, you will die by beheading.” -/- Little did the King know that this was a stupid order. After a short while, the Sage confidently spoke his “last words”, which actually were what saved his life: -/- “Your Majesty, I am about to be beheaded!” -/- ¤ -/- As a “wild animal” going out into life from a young age, my brain spent a lot of time and energy looking for food. Now that I have become older, my body no longer needs so much sustenance. However, my mind craves a different type of nourishment: food for thought. -/- Food for thought can directly lead to food (on the table). My main job as a scientist exemplifies what I have just stated. Maybe we were wrong. Maybe it has been “thought for food” all along, like in such a sequence as TFFTTTFTFFTTFFFT... -/- In the hyper-chaotic infosphere today, we are surrounded by the noises of information, not only as wavy shores or waterfalls but also mega-tsunamis, through Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, Instagram, Youtube, etc. More than ever, tranquility and calmness are necessary. Like what you have seen in wilderness video clips, predators such as lions, bears, and alligators act lightning-fast when catching prey. But when food is served, the natural world returns to its peaceful, soothing silence. -/- This short book is in its own tidy infosphere, where each little story is also brief and self-contained. Despite this small appearance, I hope the content inside carries the value of tranquility and life observation. The book is petite, but pretty sure not malnourished. A not-too-small detail is that the way the content was shaped and distilled reflects some innovations of mine and my research team: the mindsponge theory, a new theory of serendipity, the bayesvl R package, the BMF analytics, as well as other experiences from working in the field of science. After all, scientific works were my main source of food (before this book sells well – if it does). -/- Welcome to the priceless sober moments – with a chicken-burger price tag! -/- I hope this book will bring readers some moments of calmness, peaceful smiles, and maybe a couple of good laughs too. -/- ~~~ -/- *This update: December 12, 2023 (Third edition, with additions). (shrink)

In 1964, the young Walter Kasper (born in 1933) was granted by the Faculty of Catholic Theology at Tübingen the licence to teach dogmatic theology on the basis of a thesis on Philosophie und Theologie der Geschichte in der Spätphilosophie Schellings (Philosophy and Theology of History in Schelling’s Late Philosophy). Kasper’s interest in Schelling, himself a student at the Evangelisches Stift at Tübingen, thus originated in the context of his university studies in the school of J.R. Geiselmann and developed (...) in parallel with his theological education. For this reason, it is impossible to form a correct idea of Kasper and his whole theology unless one is willing to take into account this background, not least because he himself has always consciously and forcefully recognised this fact and seen in it his own centre of gravity. Kasper’s work and thought were shaped in a lasting manner during his university years. In fact, his entire academic oeuvre has been nurtured from this fecund origin so much so that he became one of the most well known names associated with the Catholic school at Tübingen to which he gave a new, creative impulse having himself been profoundly inspired by it. ‘He always emphasised his own roots not only as a teacher of theology and a member of the teaching faculty of this institution, but also as bishop’ and cardinal. The principal intention of the present article is precisely this: to return to this beginning and elucidate these decisive years for Kasper in broad outline by way of a relecture and interpretation of his book on The Absolute in History and the particular manner in which he interpreted the so-called second Schelling, an author whom he approached in the wake of Walter Schulz and at practically the same time as Xavier Tilliette. The analysis will subsequently move on into the more properly theological field. (shrink)

One emerging issue in contemporary epistemology concerns the relation between animal knowledge, which can be had by agents unable to take a view on the epistemic status of their attitudes, and reflective knowledge, which is only available to agents capable of taking such a view. Philosophers who are open to animal knowledge often presume that while many of the beliefs of human adults are formed unreflectively and thus constitute mere animal knowledge, some of them—those which become subject of explicit scrutiny (...) or are the result of a deliberative effort—may attain the status of reflective knowledge. According to Sanford Goldberg and Jonathan Matheson (2020), however, it is impossible for reflective subjects to have mere animal knowledge. If correct, their view would have a number of repercussions, perhaps most notably the vindication of a dualism about knowledge, which would frustrate attempts to provide a unified account of knowledge-attributions to human adults, very young children, and non-human animals. I discuss Goldberg and Matheson’s proposal, outline some of the ways in which it is insightful, and argue that it is ultimately unsuccessful because it neglects the inherent temporal dimension of knowledge acquisition. While the article is pitched as a reply to Goldberg and Matheson, its primary aim is to highlight significant connections between the debates on the relation between animal and reflective knowledge, propositional and doxastic justification, and the theory of epistemic defeat. (shrink)

This volume considers challenges to forgiveness in the most difficult circumstances, such as in criminal justice contexts, when the victim is dead or when bystanders disagree, and when anger and resentment seem preferable and important. Contributing philosophers include Myisha Cherry, Jonathan Jacobs, Barrett Emerick, Alice MacLachlan, David McNaughton and Eve Garrard. Contributing psychologists include Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela, Robert D. Enright and Mary Jacqueline Song, C. Ward Struthers, Joshua Guilfoyle, Careen Khoury, Elizabeth van Monsjou, Joni Sasaki, Curtis Phills, Rebecca Young, (...) and Zdravko Marjanovic. (shrink)

În acest articol încerc să argumentez opinia că, așa cum este definită eugenia, este foarte dificil de făcut o diferențiere clară între știință (medicină, ingineria genetică) și eugenie. Și de stabilit o linie peste care ingineria genetică nu ar trebui să treacă, conform unor norme morale, juridice și religioase. Atâta timp cât acceptăm ajutorul geneticii în găsirea unor modalități de combatere a cancerului, diabetului sau HIV, acceptăm în mod implicit și eugenia pozitivă, conform definiției actuale. Și atâta timp cât acceptăm (...) screening-ul genetic, și intervenții asupra fătului nenăscut, sau avortul, acceptăm în mod implicit și eugenia negativă. În plus, la nivel de guverne, deși oficial eugenia este repudiată, ea a fost legalizată în foarte multe țări până de curând, și încă mai este acceptată și legalizată, chiar dacă în forme mai subtile, și în prezent. În Introducere definesc termenul și modurile de clasificare. Urmează Istoria eugeniei pornind din perioada antică, introducerea eugeniei de Francis Galton, practica eugeniei ca politică de stat în diverse țări, și eugenia actuală (eugenia liberală). Analizez apoi diverse probleme ridicate de Etica eugeniei liberale, și am dezvoltat o secțiune aparte pentru Viitorul eugeniei, cu accent pe proiectul genomului uman. În final, în secțiunea Concluzii expun opiniile personale cu privire la practica actuală a eugeniei. Am folosit ca surse principale de investigație articolele lui Kenneth M. Ludmerer, ”American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement: 1905-1935”, Kathy J. Cooke, ”Duty or Dream? Edwin G. Conklin's Critique of Eugenics and Support for American Individualism”, Jonathan Anomaly, ”Defending Eugenics”, John R. Harding Jr. ”Beyond Abortion: Human Genetics and the New Eugenics”, Michael Boulter, ”Bloomsbury Scientists”, Chapter Title: The rise of eugenics, 1901–14, Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson, ”Moral Philosophy as Applied Science” și Goering, Sara, "Eugenics". (shrink)

Το ερώτημα πώς μπορούν να προσδιοριστούν οι λειτουργίες του νου και σύμφωνα με ποιες αρχές θα ήταν χρήσιμο να κατηγοριοποιηθούν είναι διττό και αφορά τόσο στην επιστήμη, όσο και την φιλοσοφία: στην πρώτη, εφόσον μέλημά της είναι η αναζήτηση συμπερασμάτων διαμέσου του πειράματος και της ανάλυσης και στην δεύτερη, εφόσον η αποσαφήνιση επιστημονικών εννοιών και ορισμών διευθετείται κυρίως φιλοσοφικά. Προϋπόθεση για μία τέτοια συσχέτιση είναι οι αρχές της επιστήμης να συμβαδίζουν προς τις αρχές της εμπειρίας και οι κατευθύνσεις της φιλοσοφίας (...) να μην αντίκειται προς τους όρους του επιστημονικού πειράματος: να προσφέρει δηλαδή, η φιλοσοφία, τους ορισμούς της πραγματικότητας, σύμφωνα με τους επιστημονικούς κανόνες που διέπουν αυτούς τους ορισμούς. Επιστήμη και φιλοσοφία οφείλουν να ενσωματώνουν και να γενικεύουν πληροφορίες κατά τρόπο ανάλογο προς τις προτάσεις και της εκφράσεις μιας φυσικής γλώσσας. Ωστόσο, σε μία εποχή όπου τα συμπεράσματα της επιστήμης ξεπερνούν την δυνατότητα των αισθήσεων να ανατρέχουν σε προϋπάρχουσες εμπειρίες και να επιβεβαιώνονται διαμέσου αυτών, δημιουργούνται συζητήσεις γύρω από το εάν η φιλοσοφία, μπορεί να συνεχίσει να στέκεται δίπλα στην εννοιολογική γνώση και να ταξινομεί με ακρίβεια τα αποτελέσματά της. Εξετάζοντας το σύνολο των σχέσεων μεταξύ αισθητικών και λογικών μορφών, στην μελέτη που ακολουθεί θα εξηγήσουμε γιατί η φιλοσοφία, διαμέσου μιας μεθοδολογίας που είναι αποτέλεσμα ιστορικής κληρονομιάς αλλά και κοινωνικής πρακτικής, όχι μόνον αφήνει χώρο, αλλά ενθαρρύνει την δημιουργία νέων συντακτικών σχέσεων με την επιστήμη, ανοίγοντας δρόμο για την αισθητική κατανόηση της επιστημονικής μέτρησης, αλλά και της ειδικής φύσης του μετρούμενου. Δεν ξέρω εάν υπάρχει μεγαλύτερο χάρισμα για τον άνθρωπο από την ικανότητα να εξισορροπεί τις λειτουργίες του νου του: τη λογική με το σκοπό και τη διασκεπτική ενέργεια με τη βούληση. Αρκεί να αναλογιστούμε ότι, καμία σκοπιμότητα δεν στερείται λογικών κρίσεων και αντίστροφα: κάθε λογική κρίση οδηγείται από πρακτικές σκοπιμότητες, από αξιολογικές συνιστώσες. Πώς όμως μπορούν να προσδιοριστούν οι λειτουργίες του νου και ακόμη περισσότερο, σύμφωνα με ποιες αρχές μπορούν να κατηγοριοποιηθούν; Πρόκειται για ένα ερώτημα επιστημονικό, εφόσον αναζητά λύση διαμέσου του πειράματος και της ανάλυσης, ταυτόχρονα όμως και φιλοσοφικό, δεδομένου ότι οι επιστημονικές έννοιες, όπως αποκαλύπτει η χρήση τους, βασίζονται κατά κύριο λόγο στις κατευθύνσεις της φιλοσοφίας. Προϋπόθεση σε μία τέτοια συσχέτιση είναι οι κατευθύνσεις και τα συμπεράσματα της φιλοσοφίας να μην αντίκειται στα αποτελέσματα και τις μετρήσεις του επιστημονικού πειράματος: ρόλος της επιστήμης είναι η λογική μελέτη και ανάλυση των φυσικών φαινομένων, και της φιλοσοφίας η αποσαφήνιση των εννοιών. Η επιστήμη αυτοκαθορίζεται, δηλαδή ανατρέχει στις βάσεις της επιβεβαιώνοντας ή αναθεωρώντας τα δεδομένα, διατηρώντας έτσι ζωντανά τα ερωτήματά της. Σκοπός της επιστήμης είναι, διαμέσου της ανάκλησης των ερωτημάτων της, να καλύπτει όσο το δυνατό περισσότερα κενά. Έτσι κινείται η επιστήμη: μεταβαίνοντας από το απλούστερο στο συνθετότερο και αντίστροφα, προκειμένου να επιβεβαιώνει τις παρατηρήσεις της με βάση την πρόβλεψη. Και πώς λειτουργεί η εννοιολογική γνώση; Ό, τι κάνει ο νους είναι να αντιλαμβάνεται τη φυσική επαναληπτικότητα, την περιοδικότητα των φαινομένων και να αναζητά τα αίτιά τους. Προσδιορίζοντας τα αίτια στο περιβάλλον του χωροχρόνου, ο άνθρωπος κατανοεί τις συνθήκες, δηλαδή τις προϋποθέσεις της επαναληπτικότητας και βάσει αυτής της κατανόησης, προβλέπει το πώς θα αντιδράσει η ύλη όταν βρεθεί κάτω από παρόμοιες συνθήκες. Η πρόβλεψη, επομένως, βασίζεται στη μελέτη της επαναληπτικότητας των φαινομένων. Είναι ωστόσο η εμπειρία μας, ασφαλής βάση άντλησης πληροφοριών; Τα φυσικά φαινόμενα ιδωμένα ως εμπειρικά αποτελέσματα αλληλεπιδράσεων, κατηγοριοποιούνται με κριτήριο τις μεταβολές που προκαλούν. Ωστόσο, ο συνδυασμός των δυνάμεων της φύσης, προκειμένου να κατανοηθεί, πρέπει να βρει ένα ασφαλές διασκεπτικό μονοπάτι, μία οικεία κατάσταση, σε σχέση με την εμπειρία. Και πώς ο άνθρωπος κατανοεί τις γνώσεις που αποκτά διαμέσου της παρατήρησης; Έχοντας κατανοήσει ότι η φύση, για τη διατήρηση των ισορροπιών της, συντηρεί και εφαρμόζει τους ίδιους μηχανισμούς με τους οποίους έχει εφοδιάσει τον άνθρωπο, ο άνθρωπος συσχετίζει τις μεταβολές που συμβαίνουν στο περιβάλλον με τις μεταβολές που προκαλεί ο ίδιος με τις πράξεις του, οι οποίες είναι αποτελέσματα βουλητικών σκοπιμοτήτων. Τα αποτελέσματα αυτά ερμηνεύονται από τη λογική ως σχέσεις μεταξύ σκοπών-αποτελεσμάτων. Παρατηρώντας τα αποτελέσματα των φυσικών μηχανισμών στον εαυτό του, ο άνθρωπος, μπορεί να επιτύχει ασφαλή πρόβλεψη των αποτελεσμάτων των λειτουργιών των ίδιων μηχανισμών σε άλλα επίπεδα της φύσης. Επομένως, κάθε φαινόμενο μπορεί να προβλεφθεί, εφόσον περιέχει αναγνωρισμένα για την αποτελεσματικότητά του επίπεδα ασφαλούς σύγκρισης. Άλλωστε ο όρος φυσικός νόμος, φέρει το ειδικό βάρος του σκοπού, της τελικότητας, που είναι πέρα για πέρα χαρακτηριστικό του βουλητικού μας νου: η φύση δεν βούλεται, επομένως δεν μπορεί να παράγει νόμους. Ό,τι βούλεται είναι ο άνθρωπος, ο οποίος είναι προσανατολισμένος από την φύση να αναγνωρίζει λογικές σχέσεις στην αλληλεπίδραση των φυσικών φαινομένων. Επομένως όχι η φύση, αλλά ο άνθρωπος δημιουργεί τους νόμους, με βάση την αρχή της λογικής τακτοποίησης των παρατηρήσεών του. Πιο αναλυτικά, η καταγραφή και κατηγοριοποίηση των αποτελεσμάτων της παρατήρησης της ύλης, με βάση τους όρους παρατήρησης του εαυτού μας, συνιστά χρήσιμο εργαλείο κατανόησης του περιβάλλοντος: παρατηρώντας τα φαινόμενα, ο νους ανακαλεί τις εμπειρίες του, συνθέτοντας και ανασυνθέτοντάς τες. Όταν τα αποτελέσματα των παρατηρήσεων συμφωνούν με τις προβλέψεις, παράγεται γνώση. Έτσι ο νους μετατρέπει την γνώση των φαινομένων, σε αρχή τεκμηρίωσης συμπερασμάτων, την οποία χρησιμοποιεί για περαιτέρω αναλύσεις και συνθέσεις. Οι γνώσεις που αποκτώνται από την παρατήρηση, ανακαλούνται αυτόματα όταν ο νους αντιληφθεί ότι υπάρχει ιδανική σχέση ανάμεσά τους ώστε να συνδυαστούν. Πώς όμως λειτουργεί η εμπειρία; Η εμπειρία ομοιομορφίας της ύλης, δίνει την εντύπωση ότι οι μεταβολές στο περιβάλλον συνδέονται με κάποιου είδους σκοποθεσία. Ωστόσο, οι φυσικοί νόμοι δεν είναι παρά οι εννοιολογικές διατυπώσεις του πώς αντιλαμβανόμαστε εμείς οι ίδιοι την πραγματικότητα και με ποιους τρόπους μπορούμε να τη μεταβάλλουμε προς όφελός μας. Αναφέρονται δε, οι φυσικοί νόμοι, μόνο στη μία πλευρά του πανάρχαιου κοσμογονικού προβλήματος της αποσαφήνισης των τρόπων αλληλεπίδρασης των αισθητών. Μιας αλληλεπίδρασης που κινείται στα όρια μεταξύ συμφωνίας και αντιπαράθεσης, δεδομένου ότι η βεβαιότητα της φυσικής σταθερότητας δεν είναι τίποτε περισσότερο από μία προοπτική κατανόησης της πραγματικότητας σε μία δεδομένη στιγμή. Τι συμβαίνει ωστόσο όταν υπάρχει διάσταση μεταξύ προβλέψεων και αποτελεσμάτων; Στην περίπτωση αυτή, η θεωρία ανατρέχει στις εμπειρίες και τις ανασυνθέτει έτσι ώστε να επιτύχει τον πλησιέστερο δυνατό συνδυασμό. Έτσι λειτουργεί η λογική: ως πρωτότυπη εφαρμογή των δεδομένων της εμπειρίας, σε σχέση προς τον θεωρητικό κανόνα των προβλέψεων. Και ποια είναι η προϋπόθεση της πρωτοτυπίας όσον αφορά στον νου; Η προϋπόθεση αυτή δεν είναι άλλη από τη δημιουργικότητα: ο δημιουργικός νους, διαμέσου της παρατήρησης, αποκαλύπτει τους τρόπους με τους οποίους η ύλη αλληλεπιδρά, και δημιουργεί κάτι εντελώς διαφορετικό, όχι ως προς την πρώτη ύλη, αλλά ως προς την μορφή. Αυτή είναι δημιουργικότητα: η ενσάρκωση των λογικών συνθέσεων, το αποτύπωμα του νου στην ύλη. Εδώ εισέρχεται ο ρόλος της φιλοσοφίας, με σκοπό την αποσαφήνιση νέων και πιο σύνθετων μορφών και εννοιών, με γνώμονα τον βαθμό αποσαφήνισής τους. Ωστόσο αποσαφήνιση σημαίνει ταυτόχρονα και συστηματοποίηση, δηλαδή δημιουργική ενίσχυση των γνώσεων διαμέσου μιας ακλόνητης διαβεβαίωσης που θα ονομάζαμε προ-λογική ή καλύτερα αισθητική. Αποτελεί ωστόσο η βεβαιότητα που προκαλεί η αισθητική εποπτεία ισάξιο κριτήριο γνώσης με την λογική, ώστε να τοποθετεί τα συμπεράσματά της δίπλα στα επιστημονικά; Προσεγγίζοντας το ζήτημα από την επιστημονική σκοπιά, παρατηρούμε ότι από την περίοδο της ανθρωπιστικής επανάστασης και έπειτα, βρίσκεται σε εξέλιξη μία συστηματική προσπάθεια ανάδειξης της λογικής ως μοναδικής κατηγορίας του νου, η οποία λειτουργεί σε βάρος της γενικής προεπιστημονικής κοσμοθεωρίας περί ύπαρξης μιας ακλόνητα επιβεβαιωμένης γνώσης, που εμπειρικά προηγείται των εννοιών. Ο νους, για τους θεωρητικούς της επιστημονικής προσέγγισης, συνδέεται με τα αποτελέσματα των μελετών της ανατομίας του εγκεφάλου, οι οποίες αποκαλύπτουν σε σημαντικό βαθμό τα κέντρα των νοητικών διεργασιών. Στο περιβάλλον αυτό αντιπαρατέθηκαν οι δύο θεωρίες προσέγγισης των λειτουργιών του νου: ο δυϊσμός, με κύριο εισηγητή τον Descartes, ο οποίος υποστήριζε την αλήθεια των προεπιστημονικών αντιλήψεων, περί ενός νου ελεύθερου να ανατρέχει σε μη συμβατές προς την επιστημονική κοσμοθεωρία υποθέσεις όταν η λογική αδυνατεί να επιλύσει τα λογικά αδιέξοδα, και ο μονισμός, που εξέφραζε ότι η βιολογική ενότητα νου και πνεύματος είναι εν δυνάμει ικανή να καλύψει κάθε λογική αδυναμία. Σύμφωνα με τον δυϊσμό, εγκέφαλος και νόηση αποτελούν διαφορετικές υποστάσεις, οι οποίες συναντώνται και αλληλεπιδρούν μεταξύ τους: εγκέφαλος και νους, ύλη και πνεύμα συνθέτουν αλλά και συντίθενται στο περιβάλλον της ζώσας πραγματικότητας, και εκδηλώνονται ως γνώσεις. Ο νους χρησιμοποιεί ως πρώτη ύλη τον εγκέφαλο, ενώ ο εγκέφαλος μετέρχεται εξωλογικών υποθέσεων που φαντάζουν ικανές να περιγράψουν την υπερβατική προέλευση των αρχών που διέπουν την λειτουργία του. Δεδομένου ότι δεν υπήρχε αποδεδειγμένα σημείο αλληλεπίδρασης μεταξύ των δύο υποστάσεων, της υλικής και της υπερβατικής, ο Descartes υπέθεσε ότι η λογική ψυχή συνδέεται με την υλική υπόσταση στο εσωτερικό του εγκεφάλου και συγκεκριμένα στην περιοχή της επίφυσης. Στην πραγματικότητα, ο λόγος ήταν ότι κανείς δεν γνώριζε τίποτε για την λειτουργία της επίφυσης -ούτε σήμερα γνωρίζουμε επακριβώς τον ρόλο της- επομένως εύκολα μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί ως μηχανισμός σύνδεσης μεταξύ ψυχής και σώματος. Από την άλλη μεριά, οι οπαδοί της μονιστικής θεώρησης αναρωτήθηκαν πώς είναι δυνατόν μια άυλη υπόσταση όπως είναι η λογική ψυχή, να εντοπίζεται και να προκαλεί μεταβολές στο εσωτερικό του φθαρτού σώματος; Απάντηση στο λεγόμενο καρτεσιανό παράδοξο περί αλληλεπίδρασης μεταξύ των δύο υποστάσεων του ανθρώπου, άυλης και φθαρτής, επιχείρησαν να δώσουν κυρίως οι Γάλλοι εγκυκλοπαιδιστές και οι Γερμανοί υλιστές φιλόσοφοι, οι θέσεις των οποίων οδήγησαν σταδιακά στην αποπνευματοποίηση της νόησης. Από εκεί και έπειτα πειραματισμοί της βιολογίας και της νευροφυσιολογίας απέδειξαν την εξέλιξη του νευρικού συστήματος κατά την πορεία των γεωλογικών αιώνων από τα πρώιμα στάδια συγκέντρωσης νευρικών συμπλεγμάτων στις κατώτερες περιοχές του εγκεφαλικού φλοιού, προς τα ανώτερα. Αξίζει ωστόσο να σημειωθεί, ότι παρόλη την πρόοδο των νευροεπιστημών, πολλά ερωτήματα που αφορούν στη σύνδεση μεταξύ εγκεφάλου-νόησης και ερμηνείας νοητικών λειτουργιών που συνδέονται με την παραπάνω σχέση, παραμένουν αναπάντητα ακόμη και σήμερα. Ο μονισμός επιμένει ότι ο νους αποτελεί παράγωγο της ύλης και απορρίπτει ως μεταφυσική κάθε τοποθέτηση πέρα από τα όρια της ζώσας πραγματικότητας. Δεν προσπαθούμε να επιλύσουμε την παραπάνω διαμάχη, δεδομένου ο κύριος λόγος μελέτης και αποσαφήνισης θεμελιωδών ορισμών γύρω από την ποσότητα και το είδος της ενέργειας που διοχετεύεται στους νευρώνες δημιουργώντας ό,τι ο Honderich περιγράφει ως ενσυνείδητες εκδηλώσεις, βρίσκεται στα χέρια της επιστήμης. Η εγκεφαλοποίηση της νόησης, αν και -ορθά- συνδέθηκε με τα επιτεύγματα της λογικής, εντούτοις δημιούργησε μία αυτοπεποίθηση για την ανωτερότητα της λογικής ως μεθόδου ικανής, όχι μόνο να ερμηνεύει, αλλά και να κατευθύνει τα πράγματα, λειτουργώντας a priori ως μηχανισμός που εμπεριέχεται στο εσωτερικό τους. Τούτη η προοπτική, αν και κατευθυνόμενη από επιστημονικούς κύκλους και -κατά κανόνα- αντίθετη προς την φιλοσοφική μεθοδολογία, εντούτοις εκδηλώθηκε ως φιλοσοφία, διαιρεμένη μάλιστα σε κινήματα ή σχολές, με κοινό χαρακτηριστικό την βεβαιότητα, ότι η λογική ενυπάρχει μέσα στην φύση των πραγμάτων, και εκδηλώνεται νομοτελειακά. Μιλώ για τα κινήματα του θετικισμού, του λογικού θετικισμού και του ιστορικισμού, τα οποία συστηματοποιήθηκαν κατά τα μέσα του εικοστού αιώνα και εξάντλησαν την επιχειρηματολογία τους σε σύντομο χρονικό διάστημα. Και πώς η φιλοσοφία υπερασπίζεται το δικαίωμά της να αποσαφηνίζει επιστημονικές έννοιες με γνώμονα την δημιουργική προοπτική; Η απάντηση της φιλοσοφίας προέρχεται από μία ιστορική πορεία χιλιετιών, με βαθιές πολιτισμικές και κοινωνικές ρίζες. Ο νους, ως κινητήριος αρχή της γνώσης αλλά και των αξιών, της ηθικής, συνδέεται με έργα που έχουν ένα κοινό χαρακτηριστικό: είναι όλα παράγωγα αισθητικής και λογικής γνώσης. Φιλοσοφικά, ο νους, αρχικά, προσλαμβάνει αισθητικά το περίγραμμα, την μορφή μιας ιδέας, έπειτα την επεξεργάζεται λογικά, και εν τέλει την πραγματοποιεί. Η αισθητική δραστηριότητα, ως φιλοσοφική κατηγορία, εντοπίζεται στο αρχικό στάδιο της νοητικής λειτουργίας, ενώ η πραγματοποίηση στο τελικό. Τόσο η αισθητική δραστηριότητα, όσο και η λογική λειτουργούν σύμφωνα με έναν σκοπό: τη διασάφηση των ορίων πραγματικότητας· και βούληση είναι η λειτουργία, που ενεργοποιεί το υποκείμενο να πράξει σύμφωνα με τις επιταγές του σκοπού αυτού. Η διαίρεση του νου σε κατηγορίες έχει αφετηρία την σκέψη του Αριστοτέλη. Ο εισηγητής της λογικής επιστήμης πρότεινε τον διαχωρισμό των αρχών του νου, σύμφωνα με τον χαρακτήρα τους σε θεωρητικό, πρακτικό και ποιητικό. Ο νους, στο θεωρητικό επίπεδο επεξεργάζεται συλλογισμούς που οδηγούν σε περιγραφές γεγονότων, στο πρακτικό, συλλογισμούς που οδηγούν σε ηθικές αξιολογήσεις ενώ στο ποιητικό, συλλογισμούς που αποσκοπούν στη δημιουργία καλλιτεχνικών εκφράσεων και γενικότερα, ωφέλιμων έργων. Ο Benedetto Croce στο έργο του Estetica, σημειώνει ότι οι δύο μορφές του θεωρητικού πνεύματος η αισθητική εποπτεία και η λογική αποτελούν διαφορετικές, πλην ισότιμες μορφές γνώσης: κάθε έννοια περιέχει μία πλευρά αισθητική. Ως γνώση, η αισθητική εποπτεία δεν έχει ανάγκη λογικής επιβεβαίωσης· αντίθετα, η λογική επιβεβαίωση κατηγοριοποιεί, κατατάσσει και αναλύει αισθητικές πληροφορίες για να κατανοήσει τους νόμους που διέπουν το περιβάλλον. Ο πρώτος βαθμός του θεωρητικού μας νου, επομένως, χρησιμοποιεί ποικίλους τρόπους αποσαφήνισης των εισερχόμενων πληροφοριών, προκειμένου να δημιουργήσει και να μεταδώσει επικοινωνιακά μία μορφή. Το ερώτημα εδώ είναι εάν η αισθητική εποπτεία, περιέχει όλα εκείνα τα στοιχεία που μπορούν να γίνουν κατανοητά και να γενικευθούν κατά τον ίδιο τρόπο. Οι θεωρητικές βάσεις για την ανάδειξη ενός καθολικού κριτηρίου που επιβεβαιώνει την ομοιογένεια των αισθητικών γνώσεων τέθηκαν από τον David Hume. Ο Hume διαπίστωσε ότι όλοι έχουμε μέσα μας ένα έμφυτο προγνωστικό κριτήριο, το οποίο μας επιτρέπει να προσλαμβάνουμε τα συναισθήματα των συνανθρώπων μας. Διαμέσου της Συμπάθειας (empathy) όπως ονόμασε ο Hume την ενέργεια αυτή του νου, αλληλεπιδρούμε με τον συναισθηματικό κόσμο των συνανθρώπων μας, ακόμη και όταν δεν έχουμε ίδια γνώση των εμπειριών τους. Πρόκειται για έναν ενσυναίσθητο τρόπο επικοινωνίας, βασισμένο στην -κατά κύριο λόγο- ανάμνηση βιωμάτων καταγεγραμμένων στην προ-λογική περιοχή της εμπειρίας μας. Σήμερα η γενετική έχει ερμηνεύσει τη δυνατότητα αναγνώρισης των συναισθημάτων μεταξύ των ανθρώπων ως ειδική εκδήλωση ενός έμφυτου αλτρουισμού, ο οποίος είναι προγραμματισμένος να προσανατολίζει το θυμικό προς ό,τι ωφελεί το είδος μας, ενώ η νευροβιολογία ερευνά το ενδεχόμενο ύπαρξης εγκεφαλικών δομών που επεξεργάζονται και ενσωματώνουν τις ηθικές αξίες διαμέσου διαδικασιών ανταλλαγής-αφομοίωσης συμπεριφορών. Είναι επομένως, το συναίσθημα ενδιάθετος τρόπος επικοινωνίας; Παρόλο που ο Hume υπέθεσε ορθά μία προλογική λειτουργία, στην οποία «απευθύνεται η σκέψη», δηλαδή μία λειτουργία που προϋπάρχει και επιβεβαιώνει κάθε εννοιολογική αρχή, στην συνέχεια συνέδεσε αυτή την λειτουργία όχι με προλογικά χαρακτηριστικά, δηλαδή γνώσεις, αλλά με συναισθηματικές ποιότητες, δηλαδή ψυχολογικά αποτυπώματα εμπειριών. Δεν είναι ωστόσο το συναίσθημα ό,τι μεταδίδει την ενσυναίσθηση, αλλά η αισθητική εποπτεία. Συναισθηματικές εκδηλώσεις παρατηρούνται και σε άλογα είδη, συνδεδεμένες μάλιστα με συγκεκριμένες εμπειρίες ωφέλιμων ή μη ωφέλιμων καταστάσεων. Σε καμία περίπτωση ωστόσο αυτές οι εκδηλώσεις δεν είναι να δυνατόν να γενικευθούν μεταξύ των ζώων, να αποτελέσουν δηλαδή γνώση. Το συναίσθημα δεν λειτουργεί ως παραγωγός αισθητικών γνώσεων, ούτε ως γνωσιακός αναμεταδότης μεταξύ των κοινωνικών ατόμων, αλλά μάλλον ως λειτουργικός εκδείκτης του γεγονότος της αισθητικής εποπτείας. Συνοψίζουμε λοιπόν, αναφέροντας ότι με τον όρο αισθητική εποπτεία, φιλοσοφικά, συχνά εννοούμε την άμεση επιβεβαιωμένη εμπειρία, η οποία δεν χρειάζεται την λογική ανάλυση προκειμένου να αποκτήσει καθολική ισχύ: η βεβαιότητα για τον χρόνο, τον χώρο, τη μορφή των αντικειμένων, προέρχεται από παραστάσεις του νου που έχουμε σχηματίσει διαμέσου αισθητικής εποπτείας της πραγματικότητας, δηλαδή γνώσης των μορφών. Σύμφωνα με τον Croce, η λογική, όπως και η αισθητική εποπτεία, αποτελούν κατηγορίες του θεωρητικού μας νου. Η αισθητική εποπτεία αφορά στην ατομική στιγμή, ενώ η λογική στην καθολική. Αντίστοιχα, η βούληση και η ηθική, αναφέρονται στο πρακτικό επίπεδο του νου, και λειτουργούν η πρώτη ατομικά και η δεύτερη καθολικά. Η ατομικότητα του πρακτικού νου, της βούλησης, κατά τη γενίκευσή της, παράγει ηθική. Το γεγονός ότι τα κίνητρα των πράξεών μας μπορούν να αναλυθούν εννοιολογικά, να επιβεβαιωθούν διασκεπτικά ως προς το κύρος, την καθαρότητα και την αποτελεσματικότητά τους, είναι δηλωτικό του ότι η πρακτικότητα αλληλεπιδρά με τη λογική· πρόκειται για μία αλληλεπίδραση τόσο έντονη, ώστε κάθε διαχωρισμός της βούλησης από τη λογική, του σκοπού από τη γνώση που συνεπάγεται η ενέργειά της, να καθίσταται δυσχερής. Γιατί; Ο νους χρησιμοποιεί τις δυνάμεις του μεμονωμένα ή σε συνδυασμό, προκειμένου να εξυπηρετεί κατ’ αρχήν, τις ανάγκες της στιγμής. Αυτή η λειτουργία, παρόλο που αποτελεί a priori προδιάθεση, η οποία προηγείται κάθε σκοπού, εντούτοις αποτελεί ταυτόχρονα και σκοπό. Καταλήγουμε επομένως στο πρώτο συμπέρασμα, ότι η τάση του ανθρώπου να θέτει σκοπούς, αποτελεί παρακλάδι του ίδιου κορμού από τον οποίο προέρχονται οι φυσικές προδιαθέσεις. Και δεν θα ήταν δύσκολο να απαντούσαμε στο πώς η τάση αυτή μπορεί να συμπλεύσει με τη νοητότητα, εάν εξειδικεύαμε το ερώτημα από το γενικό στο ειδικό. Λέμε λοιπόν ότι, σημασία δεν έχει η πρώτη ύλη που χρησιμοποιεί ο νους, ούτε η προέλευσή της, αλλά η επεξεργασία της: αντίθετα με τα άλογα είδη, ο άνθρωπος μπορεί να παρατηρεί και να αναγνωρίζει τα δεδομένα των παρατηρήσεών του. Παρατηρώντας τον εαυτό του ως ειδικό μέρος του περιβάλλοντος στο οποίο ανήκει, ο άνθρωπος συνειδητοποιεί ότι είναι αυτόνομος ως προς το να σκέπτεται, να προβλέπει, να κρίνει, να θέτει σκοπούς και να πράττει. Η εμπειρία είναι η στέρεη βάση των αισθητικών προσλήψεων, των λογικών προβλέψεων και της βουλητικής πρακτικότητας, της ίδιας της ηθικής: διαμέσου των αποτελεσμάτων των μετρήσεων των φυσικών φαινομένων αναγνωρίζουμε τις ποιότητες, τις διαστάσεις και τις δυνάμεις της ύλης και κατανοούμε το περιβάλλον. Τι είναι όμως η ύλη και κατ’ επέκταση το περιβάλλον; Ύλη είναι η εμπειρία της αλληλεπίδρασης των δυνάμεων της περιρρέουσας ενέργειας στον τρισδιάστατο χώρο και μονοδιάστατο προς τα εμπρός χρόνο, τα συγχρονισμένα αποτελέσματα των οποίων αναγνωρίζουμε διαμέσου των αισθήσεών μας ως μορφές. Ό,τι λοιπόν δίνει υπόσταση στην ύλη είναι ο τρόπος με τον οποίο την προσλαμβάνουμε αισθητικά· και ο τρόπος με τον οποίο συσχετίζουμε τα αποτελέσματα των αισθητικών προσλήψεων είναι η λογική. Κατέχουμε επομένως την καθαρή γνώση των πραγμάτων; Αυτό είναι αδύνατο να συμβαίνει, δεδομένου ότι η φύση μας έχει εφοδιάσει με πρωταρχικά με μηχανισμούς παραγωγής γνώσεων μόνο χρήσιμων για την επιβίωσή μας. Η υπό όρους επαφή μας με τη γνώση, περιχαρακώνει τα όρια της εμπειρίας μας: μπορούμε να είμαστε βέβαιοι για την ύλη που μας περιβάλλει και για τον νου μας, δεδομένου ότι βιώνουμε τα αποτελέσματα της μεταξύ τους αλληλεπίδρασης. Η γνώση επομένως, ορίζεται και ορίζει την εμπειρία: την εμπειρία των αισθητικών μορφών, και την εμπειρία των εννοιών. Και η ειδική κατηγορία του νου που μας ωθεί να μεταβάλλουμε τις δυνάμεις του περιβάλλοντος σύμφωνα με τις επιδιώξεις μας είναι η βούληση, η οποία στη γενίκευσή της παράγει ηθική. Επομένως η βούληση καθοδηγεί την εμπειρία μας να κατακτά ό,τι είναι χρήσιμο για το συμφέρον του ατόμου και κατ’ επέκταση του είδους. Και πώς ο άνθρωπος οριοθετεί τα τις γνώσεις του; Οι νόμοι των φαινομένων, δεν είναι παρά τα αισθητικά αποτελέσματα των ενορατικών βεβαιοτήτων προς ορισμένες αρχές, οι οποίες μας φαίνονται αδιαπραγμάτευτες: η εναλλαγή ημέρας-νύχτας, η εναλλαγή των εποχών, η πορεία του χρόνου προς τα εμπρός, αποτελούν εμπειρικές επιβεβαιώσεις που αποδεχόμαστε, προκειμένου να προδιαγράψουμε τις ζωές, τα έργα μας και να περιχαρακώσουμε τα όρια των βουλήσεων και των πράξεών μας. Τι γίνεται όμως όταν η ίδια η νόηση ανατρέπει αυτούς τους κανόνες θέτοντας τη λογική υπεράνω της αισθητικής εποπτείας; Η σύγχρονη επιστήμη μπορεί να είναι βέβαιη για τη σχετικότητα του χώρου και του χρόνου μέσα στον οποίο υπάρχουμε και κινούμαστε. Ο χρόνος, παρόλο που είναι σχετικός, εντούτοις η κίνησή του γίνεται αντιληπτή από τις αισθήσεις μας ως σταθερή, με μονογραμμική πορεία προς τα εμπρός∙ λειτουργεί δηλαδή, η κίνηση στον χρόνο, ως κριτήριο εντοπισμού της θέσης μας στον τρισδιάστατο χώρο· απαντά, επομένως ο υπολογισμός του χρόνου, στο ερώτημα πότε, σε σχέση με το ερώτημα που∙ και αντίστροφα: ο υπολογισμός του χώρου απαντά στο ερώτημα που, σε σχέση με το πότε. Η σχετικότητα του χώρου και του χρόνου είναι -πέρα για πέρα- πραγματική, όσο πραγματική είναι η κίνηση της Γης γύρω από τον Ήλιο. Πρόκειται για μία αλήθεια η οποία, σε καμία περίπτωση δεν μπορεί να γίνει αντιληπτή από τις αισθήσεις, αλλά μόνον από τη λογική. Ας προσπαθήσουμε να φανταστούμε αισθητικά την σχετικότητα του χώρου και του χρόνου∙ ενός χρόνου που στρεβλώνεται, που δεν έχει αρχή, τέλος, που κινείται προς κάθε κατεύθυνση∙ και αντίστοιχα ενός χώρου αεικίνητου, ασταθή, και άμορφου. Πώς μπορεί να περιγραφεί μία τέτοια πραγματικότητα; Η απάντηση είναι ότι δεν μπορεί· και δεν μπορεί, γιατί, η αισθητική εποπτεία μας είναι κατασκευασμένη να αναγνωρίζει μόνο τρισδιάστατες μορφές. Η διαπίστωση ότι ο νους έχει την τάση να υπερβαίνει τα στενά δεσμά της αισθητικής εποπτείας, αν και φιλοσοφικά παραπέμπει στις πλατωνικές Ιδέες και το παράδειγμα του Σπηλαίου, εντούτοις ωθεί προς μία κατεύθυνση εντελώς διαφορετική από εκείνη της μεταφυσικής: στην κατεύθυνση μιας απαίτησης για διεύρυνση των ορίων της αισθητικής εποπτείας υπό την κατεύθυνση των λογικών συμπερασμάτων. Μπορεί, ωστόσο, ο άνθρωπος να υπερβεί τα εμπειρικά όρια των αισθητικών πληροφοριών και να κατανοήσει την βαθύτερη πραγματικότητα της εννοιολογικής γνώσης; Συνδυάζοντας αισθητικές μορφές, η φαντασία μπορεί να σχηματίζει ό, τι σύνθεση επιθυμεί: απλή, πολύπλοκη, αλλόκοτη, υπερβολική, ακόμη και νοσηρή ή αποτρόπαιη, αρκεί η πρώτη ύλη που χρησιμοποιεί να προέρχεται από το περιβάλλον της επιβεβαιωμένης αισθητικής εποπτείας. Πέρα από αυτά τα όρια, ο νους μας δεν μπορεί να αναγνωρίζει, να φαντάζεται, να συλλογίζεται. Πώς όμως η -επίσης ασύλληπτη για το νου μας- έννοια του απείρου γινόταν κατανοητή αιώνες πριν ανακαλυφθεί η θεωρία της σχετικότητας; Η κατανόηση της έννοιας του απείρου δεν αφορά στην εμπειρία της πραγματικότητας, αλλά στον τρόπο τακτοποίησης και υπολογισμού των όρων της με βάση τη οργάνωση συγκεκριμένων αισθητικών σημείων που αντιστοιχούν στη λογική γνώση: των αριθμών και των συμβόλων τους. Από τη μαθηματική σύνθεση εξαρτάται η λογική πορεία προς την απόδειξη. Όλοι οι αριθμοί εκφράζονται σύμφωνα με τα κριτήρια που εμείς επιλέγουμε. Μπορούμε ωστόσο να φανταστούμε άπειρους αριθμούς; Η απάντηση είναι όχι. Ο νους μας δεν είναι προγραμματισμένος να αποσαφηνίζει αισθητικά το άπειρο, επομένως δεν μπορεί ούτε να το φαντάζεται. Τότε, εφόσον δεν μπορούμε να φανταζόμαστε το άπειρο και -ως εκ τούτου- να το εκφράζουμε αισθητικά, πώς είναι δυνατό να συζητάμε για αυτό; Το γεγονός ότι δεν έχουμε αισθητική γνώση της του άπειρου, δεν σημαίνει ότι δεν μπορούμε να υποθέσουμε την ύπαρξή του. Επειδή η υπόθεση, ως διασκεπτική ενέργεια, αφορά καθαρά στην εννοιολογική γνώση, έπεται πως ό, τι υποθέτουμε, πρέπει να είμαστε σε θέση να το αποδεικνύουμε ή να το απορρίπτουμε, με βάση τη λογική. Πώς όμως ο θεωρητικός νους, μπορεί να λειτουργήσει κατευθείαν στο επίπεδο της λογικής, χωρίς προηγουμένως να έχει σχηματίσει το αισθητικό περίγραμμα, δηλαδή την μορφή του αποτελέσματος και της πορείας του προς αυτό; Η απάντηση είναι ότι το λογικό επίπεδο του νου μας μπορεί να υποθέσει χωρίς να μορφοποιήσει, εφόσον αντικαταστήσει τις αισθητικές μορφές με σύμβολα, με αισθητικο-λογικές παραστάσεις, που στην σύνθεσή τους μπορούν να περιχαρακώσουν λογικά τα όρια της ιδέας που υποθέτουμε. Οι παραστάσεις αυτές είναι οι αριθμοί και τα σύμβολά τους, ενώ η σύνθεσή τους είναι η μαθηματική πράξη. Είναι προφανές ότι η μαθηματική ανάλυση, εφόσον οδηγεί σε λογικά συμπεράσματα συνιστά γλώσσα, δηλαδή σύμβαση συνεννόησης, η οποία εξαρτάται από την ειδική γνώση των κανόνων της. Και πώς λειτουργεί η αισθητική γνώση στο επίπεδο αυτό; Η μαθηματική υπόθεση δεν περιέχει το προγνωστικό αισθητικό κριτήριο του αποτελέσματός της, επομένως, ουδόλως ενδιαφέρεται για την έκφραση. Η μαθηματική γλώσσα εικονοποιείται και αποτυπώνεται διαμέσου μορφών, η σύνθεση των οποίων γενικεύεται αναφορικά προς έναν συγκεκριμένο σκοπό: εκείνον της απόδειξης. Είναι επομένως, οι αριθμοί και τα μαθηματικά σύμβολα αισθητικά μεταδοτές μορφές, προσανατολισμένες να ολοκληρώνουν την λογική απαίτηση. Και η βούληση δίνει την εντολή στον θεωρητικό νου να περιορίζει κάθε αυθορμητισμό, ώστε οι μαθηματικές μορφές να προσανατολίζονται μόνο προς τον λογικό σκοπό της απόδειξης. Παρόλο λοιπόν που οι αριθμοί και τα μαθηματικά σύμβολα περιέχουν την αισθητική βεβαιότητα που παράγεται από την ενέργεια της απεικόνισής τους, σε καμία περίπτωση δεν αποτυπώνουν αισθητικά την γνώση του μαθηματικού αποτελέσματος. Η διασκεπτική ενέργεια, επομένως, όταν λειτουργεί μαθηματικά, δεν μπορεί να φανταστεί το αποτέλεσμά της, παρά μόνο να το διατυπώσει αριθμητικά. Αυτό συμβαίνει γιατί οι ίδιοι οι αριθμοί, παρόλο που αναφέρονται στην πραγματικότητα, εντούτοις δεν αποτελούν πρωτογενείς μορφές ζώσας εμπειρίας, αλλά δευτερογενείς μορφές συμβάσεων διευθέτησής της, δηλαδή αναπαραστάσεις εμπειριών. Επομένως: δεν μπορούμε να φανταστούμε ένα μαθηματικό αποτέλεσμα, παρά μόνο να οδηγηθούμε λογικά σε αυτό, δεδομένου ότι δεν μπορούμε να έχουμε αισθητική γνώση των μαθηματικών υπολογισμών, αλλά μόνον αισθητική γνώση της εικονικής αναπαράστασής τους και εμπειρία της εφαρμογής των αποτελεσμάτων τους. Για παράδειγμα: όταν σκέφτομαι την πράξη 2 x 2 = 4, κατανοώ τον υπολογισμό, συμπεραίνω λογικά ότι με τον ίδιο τρόπο 4 x 4 = 16 και, κατ’ επέκταση, φαντάζομαι την εφαρμογή της αρχής του πολλαπλασιασμού σε ολόκληρο το φάσμα της εμπειρίας μου· μπορώ μάλιστα λειτουργώντας αντίστροφα, να φανταστώ τη μαθηματική πράξη της διαίρεσης. Παρόλο όμως, που, σε αλληλεπίδραση με τη βούληση μπορώ να προσανατολίσω τη λογική μου στην αποκάλυψη και άλλων μαθηματικών αναλογιών, δεν μπορώ να διαισθανθώ το αποτέλεσμά τους, παρά μόνο να το υπολογίσω, να το συσχετίσω δηλαδή με αντίστοιχες αναλογίες και να το διατυπώσω-περιγράψω με βάση τη μαθηματική απεικόνιση. Το ερώτημα είναι εάν, στον μαθηματικό συλλογισμό περιορίζεται η χρησιμότητα της εκφραστικής δραστηριότητας σε ένα σημείο καθαρά απεικονιστικό, και είναι η βεβαιότητα του συμπεράσματος ό, τι ρυθμίζει τις βουλήσεις των υποκειμένων προς την κατεύθυνση της μεταβολής της πραγματικότητας. Ο νους υποθέτει ένα αποτέλεσμα και πηγαίνει προς αυτό, όχι βάσει μορφών ή εκφράσεων, αλλά βάσει αποδεικτικών κανόνων: οι μαθηματικοί κανόνες, σε αντίθεση με τους κανόνες της λογικής που προϋποθέτουν την αλήθεια του κριτηρίου της αισθητικής εποπτείας, μπορούν να προχωρήσουν σε λογικές συνθέσεις και ανασυνθέσεις, χωρίς να γνωρίζουν ενορατικά την πορεία προς το αποτέλεσμα. Το έλλειμμα της αισθητικής βεβαιότητας όπως είπαμε, αναλαμβάνουν οι αριθμοί και τα μαθηματικά σύμβολα, τα οποία προσλαμβάνονται από το νου ως καθολικά αναγνωρισμένες ποιότητες, ως γλώσσα. Απομακρύνοντας την φιλοσοφία από τον παλιό θεωρητικό μανδύα των κατηγοριών μπορεί, ο καθαρός νους, να θέσει τα θεμέλια για μία νέα βάση, η οποία θα αντέχει στα συμπεράσματα της μαθηματικής σχετικότητας. Μία τέτοια κατεύθυνση θα απομάκρυνε την αισθητική αλλά και την ηθική φιλοσοφία από τον από τον εφιάλτη της αποπραγματοποίησης. Πράγματι λοιπόν, η επιστημονική γνώση μπορεί να οδηγήσει στην παραγωγή λογικών συμπερασμάτων ανεξάρτητα και όχι δίπλα στην αισθητική εποπτεία, όπως μέχρι σήμερα παραδέχεται η φιλοσοφία. Η αισθητική εποπτεία, παρόλο που αποτελεί ανεξάρτητη μορφή γνώσης, δεν μπορεί να δημιουργήσει μορφές πέρα από τα όρια των αισθήσεων, επομένως δεν μπορεί να ακολουθήσει τις επιστημονικές αρχές. Ωστόσο, το ότι η λογική υπερισχύει των αισθήσεων -βάζοντας έτσι ερωτηματικό στα όσα μέχρι σήμερα συζητάμε σε φιλοσοφικό επίπεδο γύρω από την αισθητική εποπτεία- δεν είναι ενδεικτικό του γεγονότος, ότι η φιλοσοφία έχει πάψει πλέον στην ολότητά της, να αποτελεί την θεωρητική μήτρα της επιστήμης. Αρκεί να αναλογιστούμε ότι η απάντηση στο λεγόμενο καρτεσιανό παράδοξο που έχουμε ήδη αναφερθεί, ως σημείο κορύφωσης της διαμάχης μεταξύ μονισμού και δυϊσμού, δόθηκε κυρίως από φιλοσόφους, Γάλλους εγκυκλοπαιδιστές και οι Γερμανούς υλιστές, οι θέσεις των οποίων οδήγησαν σταδιακά στην αποπνευματοποίηση της νόησης. Ήρθε λοιπόν η στιγμή που η φιλοσοφία πρέπει να αναλάβει πρωτοβουλία, επανεκκινώντας τις αρχές της επινοώντας νέες κατηγορίες ή νέους συσχετισμούς κατηγοριών, με βάση τα αδιαπραγμάτευτα πορίσματα της επιστήμης. Υποστηρίζουμε το σημείο αυτό ανατρέχοντας δειγματοληπτικά σε κάποιες εύστοχες παρατηρήσεις επιστημόνων, ο εννοιολογικός προσανατολισμός των οποίων εμπίπτει και στην μελέτη του φάσματος των φιλοσοφικών προοπτικών. Ξεκινάμε με την παραδοχή του βιολόγου-ζωολόγου Nikolaas Tinbergen (1907-1988), ότι η ηθολογία, ως μελέτη της συμπεριφοράς των ζώων και των ανθρώπων, δεν έχει ακόμη αποδείξει ότι η επίδραση του περιβάλλοντος μπορεί να επηρεάσει τις συμπεριφορές πέρα από τα όρια των φυσικών καταβολών μας. Αποφεύγοντας τη θετικιστική προοπτική και ανοίγοντας ένα μονοπάτι συνεργασίας μεταξύ θετικών και ανθρωπιστικών επιστημών, ο Ολλανδός ζωολόγος παραδέχεται ότι, ένα τέτοιο ενδεχόμενο -το οποίο πρέπει να εξεταστεί σε σχέση με την εξελικτική θεωρία- αφορά στους κλάδους της φυσιολογίας, της ψυχολογίας και εν γένει των ανθρωπιστικών επιστημών. Ωστόσο, συμπληρώνουμε εδώ, ότι παρόλες τις γενικές αρχές τους, βιολογία και θετικές επιστήμες δεν μπορούν να εισδύσουν στον πυρήνα της ατομικότητας καθενός. Σε όλα τα βιολογικά είδη, η μελέτη της ατομικής αντίδρασης στα ερεθίσματα του περιβάλλοντος είναι αρκετή ώστε να συναχθούν συμπεράσματα αντιπροσωπευτικά για το σύνολο του είδους. Κάτι τέτοιο όμως δεν ισχύει για τον άνθρωπο, δεδομένου ότι η ατομικότητά του αποτελεί ξεχωριστή, προσωποποιημένη παρουσία, συνειδητά ολοκληρωμένη ψυχική, σωματική και νοητική οντότητα. Έργο δε, της ανθρώπινης ατομικότητας είναι η παραγωγή γνώσεων, με βάση το προσωπικό αισθητήριο και η μετάδοσή της στο περιβάλλον της ομάδας. Το γεγονός ότι η ομάδα μπορεί να αναγνωρίζει την αλήθεια των ατομικών γνώσεων και να θεμελιώνει στην βάση της καθολικές εννοιλογικές αρχές, αποτελεί πάγια φιλοσοφική θέση γύρω από το γεγονός ότι οι συμπεριφορές, δεν προϋπάρχουν του νου, αλλά εξελίσσονται, η δε ομοιότητά τους δεν οφείλεται σε μία ακαθόριστη λογική οντότητα που υφίσταται ανεξάρτητα από την ατομική υπόσταση του προσώπου που σκέπτεται και βούλεται, αλλά εξελίσσεται επιλεκτικά μέσα από συνειδητές διεργασίες επιβιωμάτων και αναβιώσεων. Η θέση τουTinbergen και στην επικαιροποιείται και επαληθεύεται σαράντα περίπου έτη μετά από τον Ζωολόγο Richard Dawkins. Αναφερόμενος κυρίως στο επίπεδο της σχέσης μεταξύ Ηθολογίας και Ανθρωπιστικών Επιστημών ο Dawkins επισημαίνει ήδη από τις πρώτες γραμμές του έργου του Εγωιστικό Γονίδιο, την αναγκαιότητα συνεργασίας μεταξύ των δύο παραπάνω κλάδων, σημειώνοντας ότι οι Θετικές Σχολές των Πανεπιστημίων, δεν καταπιάνονται με τη φιλοσοφική αξία της Ζωολογίας· και αντίστροφα, ότι οι Σχολές των Ανθρωπιστικών Επιστημών δεν αναφέρονται στα συμπεράσματα της σύγχρονης επιστήμης. Ίσως λοιπόν, το γεγονός ότι η μελέτη λογικών συμπερασμάτων σύμφωνα με το εννοιολογικό κριτήριο της επιστήμης, στην εξέλιξή του δημιουργεί μία νέα ανάγκη εξισορρόπησης του προλογικού-αισθητικού και λογικού επιπέδου του νου μας, αρχικά όχι με βάση την κατανόηση των μορφών, αλλά της δημιουργίας ενός κοινωνικο-πολιτισμικού περιβάλλοντος, ικανού να υποδεχτεί απροκατάληπτα και χωρίς πολιτισμικό δέος, τις επιστημονικές αλήθειες. Μπορεί κάτι τέτοιο να καταστεί εφικτό; Εφόσον η ανθρώπινη διάνοια μπορεί να ξεπερνά την εμπειρία της υπολογίζοντας διαστάσεις πέρα από τα όριά της, σημαίνει ότι είναι προγραμματισμένη από τη φύση να λειτουργεί στο επίπεδο αυτό. Και ο νους μας, όντας αρχή που αυτοκαθορίζεται αλλά και εξελίσσεται, αποτελεί το αίτιο των προβλημάτων που θέτει στον εαυτό του. Άλλωστε οι φιλοσοφικές κατηγορίες όπως τις έχουμε κατατάξει σε αισθητική, λογική, ατομική-βουλητική και ηθική, είναι όροι προσαρμοσμένοι στις ανάγκες του φιλοσοφικού συστήματος και όχι το ίδιο το φιλοσοφικό σύστημα. Παρόλο λοιπόν που φαίνονται πεπερασμένες και οικουμενικές, οι λογικές λειτουργίες υπόκεινται στις αρχές της οργάνωσης και δημιουργούν απεριόριστους αριθμούς ειδικών ταξινομήσεων. Ολοκληρώνουμε λοιπόν αφήνοντας ανοικτή την παρακαταθήκη των Tinmbergen και Dawkins και την από κοινού επισήμανσή τους, όσον αφορά στην προσέγγιση της Επιστήμης από την Φιλοσοφία και αντίστροφα. Η επισήμανση-πρόταση αυτή αφορά στην εξέταση του ρόλου των συμπερασμάτων της επιστήμης ως κριτηρίου διαμόρφωσης συμπεριφορών, αλλά και διεύρυνσης των ορίων του νου, σε μία ολότελα διαφορετική βάση από αυτές που έχουν ακολουθηθεί μέχρι σήμερα: στη βάση της δημιουργίας νέων ευκαιριών για φυσική επιλογή. ΒΙΒΛΙΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ 1) Γρηγόρης Γκιζέλης, Το πολιτισμικό σύστημα, ο σημειωτικός και επικοινωνιακός χαρακτήρας του, εκδόσεις Γρηγορόπουλος, Αθήνα, 1980. 2) Benedetto Croce, Estetica come scienza dell’ espressione e linguistica generale, Adelphi, Milano, 2005 (seconda edizione). 3) Dawkins Richard, Το εγωιστικό γονίδιο, μετάφραση-επιμέλεια-εισαγωγή στην ελληνική έκδοση, Μαργαρίτης Λουκάς, Τσουκαλαδάκης Αθανάσιος, φιλολογική επιμέλεια Μπουκάλας Παντελής, εκδόσεις Σύναλμα, Αθήνα, 1988. 4) Hume David, Κείμενα αυτοβιογραφικά, γνωσιολογικά, ηθικά, μετάφραση Μ. Γούναρη, Χ. Μησοπούλου, εισαγωγή-επιμέλεια Μαρία Πουρνάρη, εκδόσεις Εκκρεμές, Αθήνα, 2006. 5) Victor Kraft, Ο κύκλος της Βιέννης και η γέννηση του νεοθετικισμού, εκδόσεις Γνώση, Αθήνα, 1986. 6) Θεοδόσης Πελεγρίνης, Ηθική φιλοσοφία, εκδόσεις Ελληνικά Γράμματα, β΄ έκδοση, Αθήνα, 1997. 7) Θεοδόσης Πελεγρίνης, Οι πέντε εποχές της φιλοσοφίας, εκδόσεις Ελληνικά Γράμματα, β΄έκδοση, Αθήνα, 1997. 8) Nikolaas Tinbergen et al, Ηθολογία, «Επιστημονική Σκέψη 1900-1960», επιμέλεια R. Harré, μετάφραση Δημοσθένης Κούρτοβικ, εκδόσεις Μορφωτικού Ιδρύματος Εθνικής Τράπεζας, Αθήνα, 1982. 9) Windelband W., Heimsoeth H., Εγχειρίδιο της Ιστορίας της Φιλοσοφίας, Β΄ Τόμος. «Η Μεσαιωνική Φιλοσοφία - η φιλοσοφία της Αναγέννησης - η φιλοσοφία του Διαφωτισμού», μετάφραση Ν. Σκουτερόπουλος, Γ΄ ανατύπωση, εκδόσεις Μορφωτικού Ιδρύματος Εθνικής Τράπεζας, Αθήνα, 2003. 10) John Z. Young, Ο εγκέφαλος και οι φιλόσοφοι, Εκδόσεις Κάτοπτρο, Μετάφραση Μυρτώ Αντωνοπούλου, Αθήνα, 1991. (shrink)

Predication is a lingual relation. We have this relation when a term is said (λέγεται) of another term. This simple definition, however, is not Aristotle’s own definition. In fact, he does not define predication but attaches his almost in a new field used word κατηγορεῖσθαι to λέγεται. In a predication, something is said of another thing, or, more simply, we have ‘something of something’ (ἓν καθ᾿ ἑνὸς). (PsA. , A, 22, 83b17-18) Therefore, a relation in which two terms are posited (...) to each other in a way that one is said (predicated) of the other is a predication. The term of which the other term is said is called a subject (ὑποκειμένον) and the other, which is said about the subject, is called the predicate. Thus, in a predication the predicate is predicated of the subject; given that being predicated is almost as the same as being said. The relation between being said and being predicated is so close that ‘if something is said of a subject both its name and its definition are necessarily predicated of the subject.’ (Cat., 5, 2a19-26) This, however, is true only about the second genera and not the accidents. a) Nature of relation in predication What is Aristotle’s theory about the nature of the relation in a predication? How does he fundamentally understand this relation? Phil Corkum distinguishes between predication logic and traditional term logic and argues that the relation between subject and predicate in Aristotle is of the latter kind. While in predicate logic, subjects and predicates have distinct roles, they have the same role in traditional term logic. In predication logic, subjects refer, but predicates characterize. Thereupon, a sentence expresses a truth if the object to which the subject refers is correctly characterized by the predicate. In traditional term logic, both subjects and predicates refer and a sentences expresses a truth if both name one and the same thing. He concludes that Aristotle ‘problematically conflates prediction and identity claims’ because while he thinks both subjects and predicates refer, he would deny that a sentence is true just in case the subject and the predicate name one and the same thing. Based on this, Corkum believes that Aristotle’s core semantic is not identity but the weaker relation of constitution, which is a mereological interpretation: ‘All men are mortal’ is true just in case the mereological sum of humans is part of the mereological sum of mortals. b) Aristotle’s theory of predication: one or two theories? Frank Lewis finds an inconsistent gap between the theory of predication in the Categories and that in the later books of the Metaphysics VII, 6. So too Joan Kung, Terry Irwin, Daniel Graham. c) Distinction of ‘being said of’ and ‘being in’ Owen enumerates the texts in which Aristotle’s distinction between ‘being said of’ and ‘being in’ is asserted: OI. 11b38-12a17; To., 127b1-4; Cat. 1a20-b9; 2a11-14; 2a27-b6; 2b15-17; 3a7-32; 9b22-24 d) Predication in Aristotle and the standard ‘S is P’ Marie De Rijk Lambertus thinks that the ‘S is P’ pattern is misleading when it comes to express predication in Aristotle. In his view, ‘The Aristotelian procedure should be described in terms of appositively assigning an attribute (κατηγορούμενον) to a substrate (ὑποκείμενον), rather than ascribing a predicate to a subject by means of a copula…. The comment should be considered an attribute which is said to fall to a substrate, without understanding this procedure in terms of sentence predication.’ e) Aristotle’s predication: bipartite or tripartite? It is a difficulty to make Aristotle’s theories of name-verb predication and tripartite predication consistent. The reason is that tripartite is not consistant with his name-verb structure based on which he says that the predicate term is the ‘verb.’ (20a31; 20b1-2; 16a13-5) The problem is that in a tripartite form like ‘Socrates is white’ we cannot take ‘is white’ as the verb because, based on Aristotle himself, no part of a verb can be significant itself. (16b6-7) However, his assertions about the equivalences between the two structures (OI. 12, 21b9-10; PrA. 51b13-16; Met., 1017b22-30) must mean that they are not inconsistent in his own view. Thus, as Allen Bāck points, ‘Aristotle seems to think that he has a single, consistent theory.’ The sense of saying or speaking as the root sense of rhema makes the relation between predication (saying something of something) and verb more interesting. The use of rhema in the sense of a long expression approves this. In Plato’s work (399ac) where Socrates claims that the name anthropos derives from anthron ha opopen (‘he who examines what he has seen’) we have an onoma from, or in place of, a rhema. 1) Subject The subject (ὑποκειμένον) is that of which another term is said or predicated. Aristotle’s own definition is of a much more philosophical value: ‘By subject I mean that which is expressed by an affirmative term (λέγω δὲ ὑποκείμενον τὸ κάταφάσει δηλούμενον).’ (Met., K, 1067b18) Throughout Aristotle’s work, three kinds of subjects can be found: possible, prime and absolute subject. a) Possible subject Those things that can take the position of a subject in a predication we call possible subjects, no matter they can or cannot take the position of predicate in any predication. All terms except the ultimate predicates are possible subjects because they can take the position of subject. b) Prime subject Those that in any predication can only take the position of a subject and not the position of a predicate are prime subjects. (Cat., 5, 3a36-b2; Met., Z, 1028b36-1029a1) This is the truest sense of subject and belongs only to substances. (Met., Z, 1029a1-2) In fact, ‘that which is not predicated of a subject, but of which all else is predicated’ is a substance. (Met., Z, 1029a7-9) In Categories, besides primary substances (Cat., 2, 1b3-6), individual qualities are also said not to be able to be said of anything else. (Cat., 2, 1a23-29) Aristotle’s examples are a certain ‘knowledge-of-grammar’ (τὶς γράμματικὴ) and ‘an individual white’ (τὸ τὶ λευκὸν). Thus, although substances are indeed in the truest sense individuals and, thereby, in the truest sense primary subjects, other individuals can take the position of subject as well. c) Absolute subject While substances are prime subjects of all other things, there is still something of which substances can be predicated and this predication is not an accidental predication: matter. (Met., Z, 1029a21-24) This predication is, indeed, the predication of a ‘form or this’ on matter and material substance. (Met., Θ, 1049a34-36) The only thing that is absolutely a subject, therefore, and can be a predicate is prime matter (πρώτη ὓλη). (Met., Θ, 1049a24-27) d) Subject and substance The most important thing in being a substance is being a subject: ‘It is because the primary substances are subjects for all the other things and all the other things are predicated of them or are in them, that they are called substances most of all.’ (Cat., 5, 2b15-17) And what is nearer to this position is more a substance as a species is more a substance than a genus.’ (Cat., 5, 2b7-8) e) Primary versus accidental subject A subject is a primary subject in a predication when the predicate is predicated of it as itself. In such a case, the subject is the subject of the predicate qua itself and not qua something else. A subject, on the one hand, is an accidental subject when it is not the primary subject of the predicate that is predicated on it. It means that a subject is an accidental subject when the predicate is predicated of it not qua itself but qua something else. An accidental subject is, therefore, anything other than a substance. 2) Predicate as universal It is evident from our discussion of kinds of subjects that except matter, primary substances (if we ignore both accidental predication and cases of absolute subjects) and other individuals, everything else can take the position of a predicate. Since primary substances are individuals, it results that everything except matter and individuals are capable to take the position of predicate. The immediate consequence of this is that the predicate must be a universal. When individuals cannot take the position of predicate, this position cannot be taken by any particular. Therefore, only universals can be predicated of others. Moreover, albeit universals can be a simple subject (for another universal), they are not prime subjects. The closeness of universal and predicate is to the extent that Aristotle differentiates universal from subject. (Met., Θ, 1049a27-30) 3) Categories or classes of predicates Aristotle distinguishes ten highest classes into one of which each predicate must necessarily fall: substance (or what a thing is), quality, quantity, relation, place, time, position, state, activity and passivity. (Cat., 4, 1b25-27; To., I, 9, 103b20- ; PsA., A, 22, 83b13-23) The substance counted among predicates must refer to secondary and not primary substances not only because Aristotle insists that primary substances cannot be predicated but also from his own examples of the category of substance: man and animal. (To., I, 9, 103b25) However, if a predicate be asserted of itself or its genus be asserted of it, the predicate signifies substance or what is; but if ‘one kind of predicate is asserted of another kind,’ it signifies one of the other nines. (To., I, 9, 103b30) These categories are so comprehensive that no predicate can remain outside them so that even non-being has as many senses as categories. (Met., M, 1089a26-30) a) That whether Aristotle’s categories are merely linguistic or fundamentally ontological is a so much controversial dispute. Some like G. E. R. Lloyd believe that ‘categories are primarily intended as a classification of reality … rather than of the signifying terms themselves.’ b) Although Aristotle’s categories have been historically regarded as a classification of predications, there are some recent commentators like Jonathan Barnes that think it is classifying predicates and not predications. 4) Kinds of predicates In his introduction of Categories, as J. W. Thorp truly points out , Aristotle distinguishes between the category of substance and the other categories using μὲν ... δὲ construction. This construction illustrates that beside tenfold classification of categories, there is an even more crucial differentiation between two kinds of predicates: substance or what is on the one hand and the other nine ones on the other hand: the distinction between what is predicated of the subject as what it is and what is predicated of it as an accident. Therefore, we have three kinds of classification - a twofold, a fourfold and a tenfold-complicatedly classifying the same thing, viz. the predicate. Predicates can be divided also to four kinds: property, definition, genus and accident. (To., I, 4, 101b11-20) A property is that predicate that is convertible with its subject and does not signify its essence. A definition is that predicate that is convertible with its subject and signifies its essence. It is a genus if it is not predicated convertibly and is contained in the definition of its subject. And it is an accident if it is neither convertible nor contained in the definition of its subject. (To., I, 8, ^103b3) All of these four kinds are among categories. (To., I, 9, 103b20) It seems that there might be some kind of relation between the twofold and the fourfold distinction: whereas genus and definition are predicated as what it is, accidents are not so predicated. There seems to be some rules that determine to each of these four kinds each predicate belongs. At To., IV, 123b30ff. Aristotle asserts: ‘If B has a contrary and A does not, then B does not belong to A as its genus.’ There is a dispute around per se accidents (τὰ καθ’ αὑτὰ συμβεβηκότα) (Topics., 102a18) whether they must be regarded as either of the four kinds or as a fifth kind. Barnes (1970) argued that they ‘do not fit at all neatly into the fourfold classification.’ He argues that based on the definition of accidents at A, 5, 102b4-5, they must be accidents but based on another definition, A, 5, 102b6-7, they cannot be accidents. He also defends the view that they are not properties. Barnes concludes: ‘This shows that the two definitions are not equivalent, and hence that the ‘predicables’ are not well-defined.’ Demetris J. Hadgopoulos defends the view that the two definitions of accidents are equivalent and per se accidents are properties. 5) Five types of predications We have five kinds of predications based on our division of subjects and our discussion of predicates: simple, primary (itself divided to substantial and accident), accidental (itself divided to primary and secondary), aoincidental and absolute predication. a) Simple predication. This is a predication in which a universal is predicated of either a particular or a universal subject. This sense of predication includes all other senses except the first kind of accidental predication. b) Primary predication. This is a predication in which a universal is predicated of a primary subject, namely a substance. A primary predication is of two kinds: i) Substantial predication. A primary predication in which the predicate is part of, or is included in, the definition of the subject. The universal that is the predicate here is the definition or the genus or the species or the diferentia of the subject. It is this predication that Aristotle calls a unity: ‘A statement may be called a unity … because it exhibits a single predicate as inhering not accidentally in a single subject.’ (PsA., B, 10, 93b35-37) It is only substantial predicates that can be predicated of each other: ‘Predicates which are not substantial are not predicated of one another.’ (PsA., A, 22, 83b18-19) Aristotle defines a substantial predication also in another way. A predication in which a higher genus is predicated on a lower genus, species, a substance or an individual, (or a species is predicated on an individual) is a substantial predication. Therefore, a substantial predication is a predication in a series that has individuals on one of its ends and a general category on its other end. In fact, only substantial predicates can be predicated of one another. (PsA., A, 22, 83b17-19) This series cannot be an infinite series because otherwise not only substances would not be definable but also a genus would be equal to one of its own species. (PsA., A, 22, 83b7-10) -/- ii) Accident predication. A primary predication in which the predicate is not part of, or is not included in, the definition of its subject. The universal that is the predicate here is the property or the accident of the subject. c) Accidental predication. This is a predication in which the subject is not a primary subject and its predicate is a substance. This predication is of two kinds: i) Primary accidental predication. This is a predication in which an accident is predicated of substance. Such a predication can go ad infinitum, which is inferable from Aristotle’s assertion that the secondary accidental predication cannot go ad infinitum. ii) Secondary accidental predication. It is a predication in which an accident is predicated of another accident. Such a predication, Aristotle asserts, cannot go ad infinitum because even more than two accidents cannot be combined. Now what is the meaning of Aristotle’s assertion that we cannot continue this ad infinitum? Does it mean that we cannot continue the predication ‘The musician is white’ and say ‘The white is Athenian?’ But why not? Or maybe he means that by adding any predication, we are still in a condition of predicating two accidents of a substance on each other. -/- As primary subjects, substances can also take the position of predicate though not essentially but accidentally. In propositions like ‘the white is a log’ or ‘That big thing is a log’ we observe substance taking the position of predicate but this is only accidentally: ‘When I affirm ‘the white is a log,’ I mean that something which happens to be white is a log- not that white is the subject in which log inheres (οὐχ ὡς τὸ ὑποκείμενον τῷ ξύλῳ τὸ λευκόν ἐστι), for it was not qua white or qua a species of white that the white (thing) came to be a log (οὔτε λευκὸν ὄν οὔθ᾿ ὃπερ λευκόν τι ἐγἐνετο ξύλον), and the white (thing) is consequently not a log except incidentally.’ (PsA., 22, 83a3-9) Aristotle compares this accidental use of substance in the position of predicate with the substantial use of it in the place of a subject: ‘On the other hand, when I affirm ‘the log is white,’ I do not mean that something else, which happens to be a log, is white (οὐχ ὃτι ἓτερόν τί ἐστι λευκόν, ἐκείνῳ δὲ συμβέβηκε ξύλῳ εἶναι), (as I should if I said ‘the musician is white,’ which would mean ‘The man who happens also to be a musician is white’); on the contrary, log is here the subject- the subject which actually came to be white, and did so qua wood or qua a species of wood and qua nothing else.’ (PsA., 22, 83a8-14) Aristotle asks us not to call propositions like ‘The white is a log’ a predication at all or at least call them accidental predication instead of simple (ἁπλως) predication. (PsA., A, 22, 83a14-17) An accidental predication, in which we have a substance in the place of predicate, is different from an essential predication in that while the subject of an accidental predication is said to be the predicate not by itself but as something different with which it coincides, the subject of an essential predicate is said to be the predicate by itself and not because it is something else: ‘Since there are attributes which are predicated of a subject essentially and not accidentally- not, that is, in the sense in which we say ‘That white (thing) is a man,’ which is not the same mode of predication as when we say ‘The man is white’: the man is white not because he is something else but because he is man, but the white is man because ‘being white’ coincides with ‘humanity’ within one subject. Therefore, there are terms such as are essentially subjects of predicates. (PsA., A, 19, 81a24-29) This capability of ‘non-essentially and only accidentally’ being a subject does belong, in fact, to all sensible things. (PsA., A, 27a32-36) d) Coincidental predication. this is a predication in which none of the subject and predicate are a substance or an individual. In this predication, one of the accidents of a substance or individual is predicated of one of the other accidentals of the same substance or individual. For example, when it is said that ‘The white is musical,’ there is an individual, say Socrates, for which both of white and musical are accidents. e) Absolute predication. This is a predication in which a form or a substance is predicated of a matter or a material substance. Some commentators like Loux and Lewis regarded this predication as close to accident predication, both based on inherence. As R.M. Dancy points out, these predications make Aristotle’s theory of predication immanentist: not only accident predications are explained by the immanence of accidents in substances, some of the substantial predications, which were not explained in Categories, are also explained by the immanence of form in matter. It is interesting that in this kind of predication, it is the predicate and not the subject, which is in the strictest sense substance. As the central books of Metaphysics claim, the form is the substance. Thus, in this predication, substance gets away from the sense of ὑποκείμενον. Corkum mentiones 68a19 as the only instance where Aristotle explicitly claims that a term may be predicated of itself, a passage that is, in Corkum’s view, problematic. 6) Demonstrable predicates Those predicates are demonstrable that are so related to their subjects that there are other predicates prior to them predicable of their subjects (ἔτι δ᾿ ἄλλος, εἰ ὧν πρότερα ἄττα κατηγορεῖται). (PsA., A, 22, 83b32-34) 7) Series of predications Since it is possible for a predicate to be itself the subject of another predication, we can have a series of predications in which the predicate of a predication is the subject of the next predication. This series has the following features: a) It has a limit (in number) (PsA., A, 22, 83b14-16) on the side of subjects: there are subjects that cannot themselves be predicated (PsA., A, 27, 43a39-41), which are, as we noted, prime subjects: particulars, i.e. prime substances and other individuals. (PsA., A, 19-22) Aristotle calls them ultimate (ὓστατον). (PsA., 21, 82a36-b1) b) It has a limit (in number of kinds) (PsA., A, 22, 83b14-16) also on the side of predicates: there must be predicates that cannot be subjects. (PsA., A, 19-22; PsA., A, 27, 43a36-39) Aristotle calls them primary (πρῶτον). (PsA., A, 21, 82b1-4) These are the highest categories or the highest genera of categories. (PsA., A, 22, 83b14-16) c) The series has an escalating shape from mere subjects at its downside to mere predicates at its upside. It is Aristotle himself whos uses the words up and down in this sense. (e.g. PsA., A, 22, 83b2-3) d) The predications that lie between lowest and highest ones must be finite in number. (PsA., A, 19-22 especially: 20, 82a21-35) These have subjects and predicates, each capable of both of the roles of being subject and being predicated. A result of this fitness is that neither demonstration can go to infinity nor everything is demonstrable, the two points Aristotle always insist on. e) The upward side includes the more universal ones and the downward the more particular ones. (PsA., 20, 82a21-23) f) It follows from the above features that ‘neither the ascending nor the descending series of predications … are infinite.’ (PsA., A, 22, 83b24-25) g) Reciprocation and convertibility. Except in case of terms (i.e. subjects and predicates) that are at each of the ends of series of predications, namely ultimates and primaries, it is possible to reciprocate (ἀντιστρέφειν) terms and convert the predication. (PsA., A, 19, 82a15-20) h) Antipredication. Antipredication means that in a predication (S is P), the subject becomes the predicate of its predicate (P is S) in the same category its predicate was predicated on it. For example, if P is in the category of quality, antipredication means that S be predicated of P in the category of quality. In other words, P is a quality of S and S is a quality of P. Aristotle rejects this. (PsA., A, 22, 83a36-b3) i) Self-predication versus other-predication. Aristotle distinguishes between a predication in which a term is said of itself and a predication in which a term is said of another. (Phy., Δ, 2, 209a31-33) j) Predicablity (Cat., 5, 3a36-b2): 1) Primary substances and individuals are not predicable. 2) Secondary substances are of two kinds: genus and species i) Genus is predicable able both of the species and of the individuals. ii) Species is predicable of the individual. 3) Differentiae are predicable both of the species and of the individuals. 8) Predication as classification a) Richard Patterson believes that Aristotle’s so repeated construction using hoper (estin A hoper B) in Topics (120a23 sq., 122b19, 26sq., 123a, 124a18, 125a29, 126a21, 128a35. Also in Posterior Analytics (83a24-30) (Brunschwig’s list. ‘expresses the fact that A is a kind of B (esti A B tis), that A is a species of the genus B.’ 9) Universal predication Aristotle defines universal predication (κατὰ παντὸς κατηγορεῖσθαι) as such: ‘wherever no instance of the subject (τῶν τοῦ ὑποκειμέμνου) can be found of which the other term cannot be asserted.’ (PrA., A, 24b27-29) In this predication, the subject is included in another as in a whole (ἐν ὃλῳ εἶναι) and the predicate is predicated of all of the subject (κατὰ παντὸς κατηγορεῖσθαι). (PrA., A, 24b26-27) Attach another discussion we had about ἐν ὃλῳ here. 10) Quantity of predication A predication, truly stated, has a quantity, which is the number of objects under the name of the subject of which the predicate is predicated. The quantity of subject can be stated in four ways: a. Indefinite: when the predicate belongs or does not belong to the subject without any mark to show to haw many of the particulars under the name of the subject it does or does not belong. E.g. ‘Man is white’; ‘Man is not white.’ (PrA., A, 24a20; OI., I, 7, 17b8-12) b. Universal quantity: When the predicate belongs to all or none of the subject. E.g. ‘Every man is animal’; ‘No man is animal.’ (PrA., A, 24a18-19; OI., I, 7, 17b5-6) The contrary of a predication of a universal quality is a predication of a universal quality. E.g. the contrary of ‘Every man is white’ is ‘No man is white.’ (OI., I, 7, 17b20-23) c. Particular quantity: When the predicate belongs (or does not belong) to some of the subject. E.g. ‘Some men are white’; ‘Some men are not white.’ (PrA., A, 24a19-20) d. Single quantity: when the subject is a proper name of only one object. E.g. ‘Socrates is white’; ‘Socrates is not white.’ The contrary of this predication is of a single quantity: ‘Socrates is not white.’ (OI., I, 7, 17b38-18a4) 11) Convertibility of predication. Some predications are convertible, that is, it is possible to change the place of subject and predicate in a true proposition so that the converted proposition remains true. This is supposed to mean that given the truth of a predication, the truth of the converted predication is inferable. The convert form of a predication depends on its quantity. a. Indefinite quantity: This predication has no strictly true convert because its quantity is not stated. b. Universal quantity: It can be converted in two ways: i) A negative universal can be converted to a negative universal in which the terms are changed. E.g. ‘No pleasure is good’ can be converted to ‘No good is pleasure.’ (PrA., A, 2, 25a5-8 and a14-19) ii) An affirmative universal can be converted to an affirmative particular in which the terms are changed. E.g. ‘Every pleasure is good’ can be converted to ‘Some good is pleasure.’ (PrA., A, 2, 25a7-9) c. Particular quantity: If it is negative, it cannot be converted but if it is affirmative, it can be converted to an affirmative predication with particular quantity. E.g. ‘Some pleasure is good’ can be converted to ‘Some good is pleasure.’ (PrA., A, 2, 25a10-13 and a20-24) d. Single quantity: It cannot be converted. 12) Characteristics of relations between subject and predicate 1. A predicate is of a wider range than its subject. It is based on this fact that Aristotle: a) Prevents individuals to be predicate because there is nothing of which an individual be of a wider range. In other words, it is due to the fact that since an individual is only ‘one particular’ thing and, thus, cannot be of a wider extent than anything that Aristotle prevents them of being a predicate. Matthews, however, thinks we cannot use Socrates, a substance and an individual, in the place of predicate and say it of Socrates because ‘Socrates does not classify Socrates: it names him.’ b) Prevents differentia, species and things under species to be predicated of genus. (To., Z, 6, 144a27-) c) Prevents the species and the things under it to be predicated of the differentia. (To., Z, 6, 144b1-4) d) Also about the effect because it is wider than its subject. (PsA., B, 17, 99a) e) Each attribute is wider than every individual it is predicated on, though several attributes, collectively considered, might not be wider but exactly the substance of a thing. (PsA., B, 13, 96a32-b1) 2. The predicate of a predicate of a subject will be predicated of the subject too: ‘whenever one thing is predicated of another as of a subject, all things said of what is predicated will be said of the subject too.’ (Cat., 3, 1b10-15) In fact, it is due to its predication of the subject that it is predicated of its predicate. (Cat., 5, 2a36-b1) Moreover, what is not predicated of the predicate of a subject cannot be predicated of it as well. (PrA., A, 27, 43b22-27) Thus, what, for example, is not predicated of animal, cannot be predicated of man. 3. The predicate of a subject can be predicated of its predicates as well. (Cat., 5, 3a1-6) For example, you call the individual man grammatical and, thence, you call both a man and an animal grammatical. Nonetheless, the predicate of a subject belongs to it more properly than to its higher predicates. (PrA., A, 27, 43a27-32) 4. It is only the subject that can be distributed and not the predicate. (PrA., A, 27, 43b16-22; OI, I, 7, 17b12-16) Therefore, we can say e.g. ‘Every man is animal’ but we cannot say ‘Every man is every animal.’ 5. It is the reason of the relation between subjects and predicates, that is the reason of predication, which is the subject of inquiry. (Met., Z, 1041a20-24) In other words, since it is a meaningless inquiry to ask why a thing is itself (Met., Z, 1041a14-15), the only remaining meaningful inquiry is to ask why something is something else, i.e. to ask about the reason of predication. 6. A subject cannot categorize its predicate in the same category in which it is categorized by it. If e.g. A is a quality of B, B cannot be a quality of A. Therefore, there is no reciprocation in the same category. (PsA., A, 22, 83a36-39) 13) Characteristics of series of predications 1. A series of secondary accidental predication cannot go ad infinitum for not even more than two terms can be comnbined. For an accident is not an accident of an accident, unless it be because both are accidents of the same subject. (Met., Γ, 1007b1-4) 2. Infinite series cannot be traversed in thought. (PsA., A, 22, 83b6-7) 3. The predications of genera on each other must be ended and cannot go to infinity because otherwise not only substances would not be definable but also a genus would be equal to one of its own species. (PsA., A, 22, 83b7-10) Therefore, a series of predication of genera on each other must be limited on both sides. There must be an upward limit in general categories as well as a downward limit in individual because they cannot be predicated of others. Whatever lies between these limits can both be predicated of others and others be predicated of them. (PrA., A, 27, 43a36-43) 4. The order of predicates matters: it makes a difference whether the series be ABC or BAC. (PsA., B, 13, 96b25-32) . (shrink)

This seventh volume of Collected Papers includes 70 papers comprising 974 pages on (theoretic and applied) neutrosophics, written between 2013-2021 by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 122 co-authors from 22 countries: Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Abdel-Nasser Hussian, C. Alexander, Mumtaz Ali, Yaman Akbulut, Amir Abdullah, Amira S. Ashour, Assia Bakali, Kousik Bhattacharya, Kainat Bibi, R. N. Boyd, Ümit Budak, Lulu Cai, Cenap Özel, Chang Su Kim, Victor Christianto, Chunlai Du, Chunxin Bo, Rituparna Chutia, Cu Nguyen Giap, Dao The (...) Son, Vinayak Devvrat, Arindam Dey, Partha Pratim Dey, Fahad Alsharari, Feng Yongfei, S. Ganesan, Shivam Ghildiyal, Bibhas C. Giri, Masooma Raza Hashmi, Ahmed Refaat Hawas, Hoang Viet Long, Le Hoang Son, Hongbo Wang, Hongnian Yu, Mihaiela Iliescu, Saeid Jafari, Temitope Gbolahan Jaiyeola, Naeem Jan, R. Jeevitha, Jun Ye, Anup Khan, Madad Khan, Salma Khan, Ilanthenral Kandasamy, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Darjan Karabašević, Kifayat Ullah, Kishore Kumar P.K., Sujit Kumar De, Prasun Kumar Nayak, Malayalan Lathamaheswari, Luong Thi Hong Lan, Anam Luqman, Luu Quoc Dat, Tahir Mahmood, Hafsa M. Malik, Nivetha Martin, Mai Mohamed, Parimala Mani, Mingcong Deng, Mohammed A. Al Shumrani, Mohammad Hamidi, Mohamed Talea, Kalyan Mondal, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Gulistan, Farshid Mofidnakhaei, Muhammad Shoaib, Muhammad Riaz, Karthika Muthusamy, Nabeela Ishfaq, Deivanayagampillai Nagarajan, Sumera Naz, Nguyen Dinh Hoa, Nguyen Tho Thong, Nguyen Xuan Thao, Noor ul Amin, Dragan Pamučar, Gabrijela Popović, S. Krishna Prabha, Surapati Pramanik, Priya R, Qiaoyan Li, Yaser Saber, Said Broumi, Saima Anis, Saleem Abdullah, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Abdulkadir Sengür, Seyed Ahmad Edalatpanah, Shahbaz Ali, Shahzaib Ashraf, Shouzhen Zeng, Shio Gai Quek, Shuangwu Zhu, Shumaiza, Sidra Sayed, Sohail Iqbal, Songtao Shao, Sundas Shahzadi, Dragiša Stanujkić, Željko Stević, Udhayakumar Ramalingam, Zunaira Rashid, Hossein Rashmanlou, Rajkumar Verma, Luige Vlădăreanu, Victor Vlădăreanu, Desmond Jun Yi Tey, Selçuk Topal, Naveed Yaqoob, Yanhui Guo, Yee Fei Gan, Yingcang Ma, Young Bae Jun, Yuping Lai, Hafiz Abdul Wahab, Wei Yang, Xiaohong Zhang, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Lemnaouar Zedam. (shrink)

This eighth volume of Collected Papers includes 75 papers comprising 973 pages on (theoretic and applied) neutrosophics, written between 2010-2022 by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 102 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 24 countries: Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Abduallah Gamal, Firoz Ahmad, Ahmad Yusuf Adhami, Ahmed B. Al-Nafee, Ali Hassan, Mumtaz Ali, Akbar Rezaei, Assia Bakali, Ayoub Bahnasse, Azeddine Elhassouny, Durga Banerjee, Romualdas Bausys, Mircea Boșcoianu, Traian Alexandru Buda, Bui Cong Cuong, Emilia Calefariu, Ahmet Çevik, Chang Su Kim, Victor (...) Christianto, Dae Wan Kim, Daud Ahmad, Arindam Dey, Partha Pratim Dey, Mamouni Dhar, H. A. Elagamy, Ahmed K. Essa, Sudipta Gayen, Bibhas C. Giri, Daniela Gîfu, Noel Batista Hernández, Hojjatollah Farahani, Huda E. Khalid, Irfan Deli, Saeid Jafari, Tèmítópé Gbóláhàn Jaíyéolá, Sripati Jha, Sudan Jha, Ilanthenral Kandasamy, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Darjan Karabašević, M. Karthika, Kawther F. Alhasan, Giruta Kazakeviciute-Januskeviciene, Qaisar Khan, Kishore Kumar P K, Prem Kumar Singh, Ranjan Kumar, Maikel Leyva-Vázquez, Mahmoud Ismail, Tahir Mahmood, Hafsa Masood Malik, Mohammad Abobala, Mai Mohamed, Gunasekaran Manogaran, Seema Mehra, Kalyan Mondal, Mohamed Talea, Mullai Murugappan, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Aslam Malik, Muhammad Khalid Mahmood, Nivetha Martin, Durga Nagarajan, Nguyen Van Dinh, Nguyen Xuan Thao, Lewis Nkenyereya, Jagan M. Obbineni, M. Parimala, S. K. Patro, Peide Liu, Pham Hong Phong, Surapati Pramanik, Gyanendra Prasad Joshi, Quek Shio Gai, R. Radha, A.A. Salama, S. Satham Hussain, Mehmet Șahin, Said Broumi, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Selvaraj Ganesan, Shahbaz Ali, Shouzhen Zeng, Manjeet Singh, A. Stanis Arul Mary, Dragiša Stanujkić, Yusuf Șubaș, Rui-Pu Tan, Mirela Teodorescu, Selçuk Topal, Zenonas Turskis, Vakkas Uluçay, Norberto Valcárcel Izquierdo, V. Venkateswara Rao, Volkan Duran, Ying Li, Young Bae Jun, Wadei F. Al-Omeri, Jian-qiang Wang, Lihshing Leigh Wang, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas. (shrink)

This ninth volume of Collected Papers includes 87 papers comprising 982 pages on Neutrosophic Theory and its applications in Algebra, written between 2014-2022 by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 81 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 19 countries: E.O. Adeleke, A.A.A. Agboola, Ahmed B. Al-Nafee, Ahmed Mostafa Khalil, Akbar Rezaei, S.A. Akinleye, Ali Hassan, Mumtaz Ali, Rajab Ali Borzooei , Assia Bakali, Cenap Özel, Victor Christianto, Chunxin Bo, Rakhal Das, Bijan Davvaz, R. Dhavaseelan, B. Elavarasan, Fahad Alsharari, T. (...) Gharibah, Hina Gulzar, Hashem Bordbar, Le Hoang Son, Emmanuel Ilojide, Tèmítópé Gbóláhàn Jaíyéolá, M. Karthika, Ilanthenral Kandasamy, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Huma Khan, Madad Khan, Mohsin Khan, Hee Sik Kim, Seon Jeong Kim, Valeri Kromov, R. M. Latif, Madeleine Al-Tahan, Mehmat Ali Ozturk, Minghao Hu, S. Mirvakili, Mohammad Abobala, Mohammad Hamidi, Mohammed Abdel-Sattar, Mohammed A. Al Shumrani, Mohamed Talea, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Aslam Malik, Muhammad Gulistan, Muhammad Shabir, G. Muhiuddin, Memudu Olaposi Olatinwo, Osman Anis, Choonkil Park, M. Parimala, Ping Li, K. Porselvi, D. Preethi, S. Rajareega, N. Rajesh, Udhayakumar Ramalingam, Riad K. Al-Hamido, Yaser Saber, Arsham Borumand Saeid, Saeid Jafari, Said Broumi, A.A. Salama, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Songtao Shao, Seok-Zun Song, Tahsin Oner, M. Mohseni Takallo, Binod Chandra Tripathy, Tugce Katican, J. Vimala, Xiaohong Zhang, Xiaoyan Mao, Xiaoying Wu, Xingliang Liang, Xin Zhou, Yingcang Ma, Young Bae Jun, Juanjuan Zhang. (shrink)

This thirteenth volume of Collected Papers is an eclectic tome of 88 papers in various fields of sciences, such as astronomy, biology, calculus, economics, education and administration, game theory, geometry, graph theory, information fusion, decision making, instantaneous physics, quantum physics, neutrosophic logic and set, non-Euclidean geometry, number theory, paradoxes, philosophy of science, scientific research methods, statistics, and others, structured in 17 chapters (Neutrosophic Theory and Applications; Neutrosophic Algebra; Fuzzy Soft Sets; Neutrosophic Sets; Hypersoft Sets; Neutrosophic Semigroups; Neutrosophic Graphs; Superhypergraphs; Plithogeny; (...) Information Fusion; Statistics; Decision Making; Extenics; Instantaneous Physics; Paradoxism; Mathematica; Miscellanea), comprising 965 pages, published between 2005-2022 in different scientific journals, by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 110 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 26 countries: Abduallah Gamal, Sania Afzal, Firoz Ahmad, Muhammad Akram, Sheriful Alam, Ali Hamza, Ali H. M. Al-Obaidi, Madeleine Al-Tahan, Assia Bakali, Atiqe Ur Rahman, Sukanto Bhattacharya, Bilal Hadjadji, Robert N. Boyd, Willem K.M. Brauers, Umit Cali, Youcef Chibani, Victor Christianto, Chunxin Bo, Shyamal Dalapati, Mario Dalcín, Arup Kumar Das, Elham Davneshvar, Bijan Davvaz, Irfan Deli, Muhammet Deveci, Mamouni Dhar, R. Dhavaseelan, Balasubramanian Elavarasan, Sara Farooq, Haipeng Wang, Ugur Halden, Le Hoang Son, Hongnian Yu, Qays Hatem Imran, Mayas Ismail, Saeid Jafari, Jun Ye, Ilanthenral Kandasamy, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Darjan Karabašević, Abdullah Kargın, Vasilios N. Katsikis, Nour Eldeen M. Khalifa, Madad Khan, M. Khoshnevisan, Tapan Kumar Roy, Pinaki Majumdar, Sreepurna Malakar, Masoud Ghods, Minghao Hu, Mingming Chen, Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Mohamed Talea, Mohammad Hamidi, Mohamed Loey, Mihnea Alexandru Moisescu, Muhammad Ihsan, Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Shabir, Mumtaz Ali, Muzzamal Sitara, Nassim Abbas, Munazza Naz, Giorgio Nordo, Mani Parimala, Ion Pătrașcu, Gabrijela Popović, K. Porselvi, Surapati Pramanik, D. Preethi, Qiang Guo, Riad K. Al-Hamido, Zahra Rostami, Said Broumi, Saima Anis, Muzafer Saračević, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Selvaraj Ganesan, Shammya Shananda Saha, Marayanagaraj Shanmugapriya, Songtao Shao, Sori Tjandrah Simbolon, Florentin Smarandache, Predrag S. Stanimirović, Dragiša Stanujkić, Raman Sundareswaran, Mehmet Șahin, Ovidiu-Ilie Șandru, Abdulkadir Șengür, Mohamed Talea, Ferhat Taș, Selçuk Topal, Alptekin Ulutaș, Ramalingam Udhayakumar, Yunita Umniyati, J. Vimala, Luige Vlădăreanu, Ştefan Vlăduţescu, Yaman Akbulut, Yanhui Guo, Yong Deng, You He, Young Bae Jun, Wangtao Yuan, Rong Xia, Xiaohong Zhang, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Zayen Azzouz Omar, Xiaohong Zhang, Zhirou Ma.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬. (shrink)

This twelfth volume of Collected Papers includes 86 papers comprising 976 pages on Neutrosophics Theory and Applications, published between 2013-2021 in the international journal and book series “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 112 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 21 countries: Abdel Nasser H. Zaied, Muhammad Akram, Bobin Albert, S. A. Alblowi, S. Anitha, Guennoun Asmae, Assia Bakali, Ayman M. Manie, Abdul Sami Awan, Azeddine Elhassouny, Erick González-Caballero, D. Dafik, Mithun Datta, Arindam Dey, (...) Mamouni Dhar, Christopher Dyer, Nur Ain Ebas, Mohamed Eisa, Ahmed K. Essa, Faruk Karaaslan, João Alcione Sganderla Figueiredo, Jorge Fernando Goyes García, N. Ramila Gandhi, Sudipta Gayen, Gustavo Alvarez Gómez, Sharon Dinarza Álvarez Gómez, Haitham A. El-Ghareeb, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa, Masooma Raza Hashmi, Ibrahim M. Hezam, German Acurio Hidalgo, Le Hoang Son, R. Jahir Hussain, S. Satham Hussain, Ali Hussein Mahmood Al-Obaidi, Hays Hatem Imran, Nabeela Ishfaq, Saeid Jafari, R. Jansi, V. Jeyanthi, M. Jeyaraman, Sripati Jha, Jun Ye, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Abdullah Kargın, J. Kavikumar, Kawther Fawzi Hamza Alhasan, Huda E. Khalid, Neha Andalleb Khalid, Mohsin Khalid, Madad Khan, D. Koley, Valeri Kroumov, Manoranjan Kumar Singh, Pavan Kumar, Prem Kumar Singh, Ranjan Kumar, Malayalan Lathamaheswari, A.N. Mangayarkkarasi, Carlos Rosero Martínez, Marvelio Alfaro Matos, Mai Mohamed, Nivetha Martin, Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Mohamed Talea, K. Mohana, Muhammad Irfan Ahamad, Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Saqlain, Muhammad Shabir, Muhammad Zeeshan, Anjan Mukherjee, Mumtaz Ali, Deivanayagampillai Nagarajan, Iqra Nawaz, Munazza Naz, Roan Thi Ngan, Necati Olgun, Rodolfo González Ortega, P. Pandiammal, I. Pradeepa, R. Princy, Marcos David Oviedo Rodríguez, Jesús Estupiñán Ricardo, A. Rohini, Sabu Sebastian, Abhijit Saha, Mehmet Șahin, Said Broumi, Saima Anis, A.A. Salama, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Seyed Ahmad Edalatpanah, Sajana Shaik, Soufiane Idbrahim, S. Sowndrarajan, Mohamed Talea, Ruipu Tan, Chalapathi Tekuri, Selçuk Topal, S. P. Tiwari, Vakkas Uluçay, Maikel Leyva Vázquez, Chinnadurai Veerappan, M. Venkatachalam, Luige Vlădăreanu, Ştefan Vlăduţescu, Young Bae Jun, Wadei F. Al-Omeri, Xiao Long Xin.‬‬‬‬‬‬. (shrink)