The topic of this article is the closure of a priori knowability under a priori knowable material implication: if a material conditional is a priori knowable and if the antecedent is a priori knowable, then the consequent is a priori knowable as well. This principle is arguably correct under certain conditions, but there is at least one counterexample when completely unrestricted. To deal with this, Anderson proposes to restrict the closure principle to necessary (...) truths and Horsten suggests to restrict it to formulas that belong to less expressive languages. In this article it is argued that Horsten’s restriction strategy fails, because one can deduce that knowable ignorance entails necessary ignorance from the closure principle and some modest background assumptions, even if the expressive resources do not go beyond those needed to formulate the closure principle itself. It is also argued that it is hard to find a justification for Anderson’s restricted closure principle, because one cannot deduce it even if one assumes very strong modal and epistemic background principles. In addition, there is an independently plausible alternative closure principle that avoids all the problems without the need for restriction. (shrink)

Based on the dispute between Protagoras and Socrates on the origin of ethics, one can ask the question of whether the principle of ethics is reason orfeeling/emotion, or whether ethics is grounded on reason or feeling/emotion. The development of Kant’s thoughts on ethics shows the tension between reason and feeling/emotion. In Kant’s final critical ethics, he held to a principle of “rational a priori.” On the one hand, this is presented as the rational a priori principle being the (...) binding principle of judgment. On the other hand, it is presented as the doctrine of “rational fact” as the ultimate argument of his ethics. Husserl believed that Kant’s doctrine of a rational a priori totally disregarded the a priori essential laws of feeling. Like Husserl, Scheler criticized Kant’s doctrine of a rational a priori, and therefore developed his own theory of an “emotional a priori”. Both of them focused their critiques on the grounding level of ethics. Scheler, however, did not follow Husserl all the way, but criticized him and reflected on his thoughts. At last, he revealed the primary status of a phenomenological material ethics of value. (shrink)

We propose an account of the subject’s cognition that allows for a full articulation of the phenomenon of ideology. We argue that ideology operates at the level of the a priori: it transcendentally conditions the intelligibility of thought and practice. But we draw from strands of post-Kantian philosophy of science and social philosophy in repudiating Kant’s view that the a priori is necessary and fixed. Instead, we argue, it is contingent, and therefore revisable. More precisely, it is conditioned (...) materially: it must be understood as an activity, continuous with and shaped by material social practice. We conclude with some remarks about the possibility of agency over one’s relativized, materially conditioned a priori; that is, over the possibility of critique. (shrink)

In this dissertation, I present a novel account of the components that have a peculiar epistemic role in our scientific inquiries, since they contribute to establishing a form of coordination. The issue of coordination is a classic epistemic problem concerning how we justify our use of abstract conceptual tools to represent concrete phenomena. For instance, how could we get to represent universal gravitation as a mathematical formula or temperature by means of a numerical scale? This problem is particularly pressing when (...) justification for using these abstract tools comes, in part or entirely, from knowledge which is not independent from them, thus leading to threats of circularity. Achieving coordination between some abstract conceptual tools and the concrete phenomena that they are supposed to represent is usually a complex process, which involves several epistemic components. Some of these components eventually provide stable conditions for applying those abstract representations to concrete phenomena. It is in this sense of providing certain conditions of applicability that different philosophical traditions, as well as some contemporary reappraisals, view these components as constitutive or a priori. In this work, I present a new gradualist, contextualist, and relational approach to understand these constitutive components of scientific inquiry. It is gradualist inasmuch as the degree to which some component is constitutive depends on three quantifiable features: quasi-axiomaticity, generative potential, and empirical shielding. Since the quantification of these three features impinges on the history and practice of using these components in a scientific context, my approach is a contextualist one. Finally, my approach is relational in a double sense: first, it identifies ordinal relationships among epistemic components with respect to their constitutive character; second, these relationships are relative to a scientific framework of inquiry. After introducing my account and a classic example of constitutively a priori principles, i.e., Friedman’s (2001) analysis of Newtonian mechanics, I turn to my own case studies to demonstrate the advantages of my approach. Firstly, I discuss Okasha’s (2018) view of endogenization as a pervasive theoretical strategy in evolutionary biology and suggest that the constitutive character of the core Darwinian principles progressively increases with endogenization. Secondly, I apply a conceptual distinction between two varieties or scopes of coordination – general coordination and coordination in measurement – to Ohm’s work on electrical conductivity. This distinction allows me to pinpoint to what extent components along different dimensions (e.g., instrumentation, measurement, theorising, etc.) were constitutive of the forms of coordination which Ohm relied on. Thirdly, I discuss the epistemic function of the Hardy-Weinberg principle in the history and practice of population genetics. I assess this principle in terms of my account and identify approximation and stability as two components that are highly constitutive, in that they contribute to justifying its use in population genetics. Finally, applying my account to these case studies enables me to identify at least three qualitatively different types of constitutive components: domain-specific theoretical principles, material components, and domain-independent assumptions underlying reasoning abilities. In the light of my results, I draw some general conclusions on epistemic justification and scientific knowledge. (shrink)

On the one hand, Scheler's critique of Kant's concept of a priori benefits from Husserl to a large extent, and it complements and deepens Husserl's. On the other hand, Scheler also critiques Husserl's definition of a priori. Husserl's material a priori as ideal object primarily thanks to his so-called "Bolzano- turn". In this connection, Scheler grabs hold of the relation of Husserl to Bolzano from the very beginning. For Scheler, Husserl thinks in a "platonic" way, and (...) still falls in a new type of "Platonism", or rather, logical Platonism, although he correctly refuses the ordinary Platonism. In Scheler's view, Husserl's phenomenological reduction is "not purely" executed, and therefore his phenomenological experience is problematic, or more precisely, the relation between categorial intuition and sensuous intuition is problematic. The final aim of Scheler's critique of Husserl's phenomenological understanding of "objective a priori" is to win the primary position of categorial intuition and its content , ethical insight and its correlate , and ultimately of phenomenological ethics of material value.Einerseits nimmt Schelers Kritik an Kant bezüglich des Begriffs des Apriori die Einsichten Husserls in großem Umfang auf. Schelers Kritik an Kant ergänzt und vertieft die Husserlsche Kant-Kritik. Andererseits kritisiert er aber auch Husserls Bestimmung des Apriori. Vor allem verdankt sich das materiale Apriori als idealer Gegenstand bei Husserl der sogenannten “Bolzano’schen Wendung”. Von Anfang an kritisiert Scheler Husserl in diesem Punkt, indem er dem Verhältnis zwischen Bolzano und Husserl immer präziser nachging. Für Scheler unterliegt Husserl mit Recht keinem platten Platonismus. Aber dennoch verfahre Husserl immerhin “platonistisch”, er unterliege einem “Neoplatonismus”, bzw. einem logischen Platonismus. Weil die phänomenologische Reduktion bei Husserl nach Schelers Meinung “nicht reinlich” durchgeführt wird, ist die phänomenologische Erfahrung bei Husserl problematisch, genauer gesagt ist das Verhältnis zwischen der kategorialen Anschauung und der sinnlichen Anschauung problematisch. Der Endzweck von Schelers Kritik an der phänomenologischen Auffassung des gegenständlichen Apriori bei Husserl besteht darin, die primäre Stelle der kategorialen Anschauung und ihrer Gehalte , sowie der sittlichen Einsicht und ihrer Korrelate und zuletzt der phänomenologisch materialen Wertethik zu gewinnen.S jedne strane, Schelerova kritika Kantova pojma a priori u velikoj mjeri duguje Husserlu, te dopunjuje i produbljuje Husserlovu. S druge strane, Scheler kritizira i Husserlovu definiciju apriorija. Husserlov materijalni a priori kao idealni predmet prvenstveno proizlazi iz njegova takozvanog bolzanovskog obrata. Prema Scheleru, Husserl razmišlja na "platonski" način te upada u novi tip "platonizma" ili, točnije, logičkog platonizma, iako s pravom odbacuje obični platonizam. Scheler smatra da Husserlova fenomenološka redukcija nije izvedena "čisto" te da je stoga njegovo fenomenološko iskustvo proble- matično ili, točnije, problematičan je odnos između kategorijalnog zora i osjetilnog zora. Krajnji cilj Schelerove kritike Husserlova fenomenološkog shvaćanja "objektivnog a priori" jest zadobivanje primarne pozicije kategorijalnog zora i njegova sadržaja , etičkog uvida i njegova korelata te, na koncu, fenomenološke etike materijalne vrijednosti. (shrink)

Where Humeans rule out the possibility of material or non-logical necessity, and thus of any associated knowledge a priori, the German legal philosopher Adolf Reinach defends the existence of a wide class of material necessities falling within the domain of what can be known a priori, for example in fields such as color and shape, rational psychology, law and economics. Categories such as promise or claim or obligation are, in Reinach’s view, exist as nodes in a (...) system of necessary relations, so that anyone who has experience of relevant instances of these categories is implicitly aware also of a corresponding family of relations to certain other categories – as for example that every promise implies a mutually correlated claim and obligation. Midway between the two extremes of Hume and Reinach stands Searle, who accepts necessary relations of the mentioned sorts, but sees them as human creations, following from ‘constitutive rules’ analogous to the rules of chess. We seek to demonstrate that Searle does not occupy a stable and acceptable half-way house between Hume and Reinach; that he, too, if he is to do justice to the very constitutive rules which form the center of his approach, must on pain of circularity embrace something like the Reinachian position. (shrink)

Descartes and Boyle were the most influential proponents of strict mechanist accounts of the physical world, accounts which carried with them a distinction between primary and secondary (or sensible) qualities. For both, the distinction is a piece of natural philosophy. Nevertheless the distinction is quite differently articulated, and, especially, differently grounded in the two thinkers. For Descartes, reasoned reflection reveals to us that bodies must consist in mere extension and its modifications, and that sensible qualities as we conceive of them (...) based on sense perception can pertain only to the mind. Just how we are supposed to arrive at this realization is, this essay will argue, a deep puzzle that brings us to the basic assumptions of Descartes' metaphysics. For Boyle, by contrast, while reflection can reveal the unique explanatory status of mechanism, and, thus, the primary/secondary quality distinction, only experience can confirm its truth. Our central focus will be on Descartes, and on the question: How does he intend to remove the sensible qualities from the physical world, how does he strip them from bodies? I will try to show that Descartes has an argument that he takes to show a priori that sensible qualities cannot be attributed to the material world (as foundational qualities, or, as we conceive of them based on sense experience). The argument fails, however, leaving him with at best a partly empirical case for removing the sensible qualities, based on the purported explanatory success of his physics. (shrink)

By extending Husserl’s own historico-critical study to include the conceptual mathematics of more contemporary times – specifically category theory and its emphatic development since the second half of the 20th century – this paper claims that the delineation between mathematics and philosophy must be completely revisited. It will be contended that Husserl’s phenomenological work was very much influenced by the discoveries and limitations of the formal mathematics being developed at Göttingen during his tenure there and that, subsequently, the rôle he (...) envisaged for his material a priori science is heavily dependent upon his conception of the definite manifold. Motivating these contentions is the idea of a mathematics which would go beyond the constraints of formal ontology and subsequently achieve coherence with the full sense of transcendental phenomenology. While this final point will be by no means proven within the confines of this paper it is hoped that the very fact of opening up for the possibility of such an idea will act as a supporting argument to the overriding thesis that the relationship between mathematics and phenomenology must be problematised. (shrink)

This article presents an ontological proof that God is impossible.I define an ‘impossibility’ as a condition which is inconceivable due to its a priori characteristics (e.g. a ‘square circle’). Accordingly, said conditions will not ever become conceivable, as they could in instances of a posteriori inconceivability (e.g. the notion that someone could touch a star without being burned). As the basis of this argument, I refer to an a priori observation (Primus, 2019) regarding our inability to imagine inconsistency (...) (difference) within any point of space. This observation renders the notion of absolute power to be inconceivable, a priori.I briefly discuss the moral implications of religious faith in the context of Purism: a moral rationalist paradigm. I conclude that whilst belief in God can be aesthetically expressed it should not be possessed as a material purpose, due to the illogicality of the latter category of belief and/or expression. With this article I provide conceptual delineation between harmless religious belief and expression—which, I argue, should be protected from persecution, as per any other artistic expression— and religious belief and expression which is materially harmful to society. Whilst I aim to protect religious freedom of expression on one hand, I duly aim to reduce instances of material faith in God(s) on the other. Finally, I aim to bring hope in the possibility for human salvation via technology—such that they should exist indefinitely as ‘demigods,’ defined by conditional, relative power over their environment. (shrink)

While there is considerable disagreement on the precise nature of material objecthood, it is standardly assumed that material objects must be spatial. In this paper, I provide two arguments against this assumption. The first argument is made from largely a priori considerations about modal plenitude. The possibility of non-spatial material objects follows from commitment to certain plausible principles governing material objecthood and plausible principles regarding modal plenitude. The second argument draws from current philosophical discussions regarding (...) theories of quantum gravity and the emergence of spacetime. When it is appreciated what possible worlds these current theories commit us to, the possibility of non-spatial material objects will follow. Thus, either route will lead us to the possibility of non-spatial material objects. The significance of this result is that we need to revise our accounts of material objecthood to both accommodate these possibilities and the theories that lead to them. (shrink)

-/- FILOSOFIA: CRÍTICA À METAFÍSICA -/- PHILOSOPHY: CRITICISM TO METAPHYSICS -/- Por: Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva - UFRPE Alana Thaís Mayza da Silva - CAP-UFPE RESUMO: A Metafísica (do grego: Μεταφυσική) é uma área inerente à Filosofia, dito isto, é uma esfera que compreende o mundo e os seres humanos sob uma fundamentação suprassensível da realidade, bem como goza de fundamentação ontológica e teológica para explicação dos dilemas do nosso mundo. Logo, não goza da experiência e explicação científica com (...) base na matemática, ciências, observação, análise, etc. e sim da explicação apenas teorética sem a análise empírica. Por fim, filósofos de divergentes escolas e eras da história da filosofia fundamentaram suas críticas quanto a Metafísica; e este breve trabalho tem como objetivo analisar as críticas dos filósofos e trazer uma conclusão clara e objetiva para os leitores, sejam leigos ou não. Palavras-chave: Metafísica. Crítica. Teoria. Suprassensível. Empírico. Experiência. ABSTRACT Metaphysics is an area inherent to philosophy, that is, it is a sphere that comprises the world and human beings under a supersensitive foundation of reality, as well as enjoying ontological and theological foundations for explaining the dilemmas of our world. Therefore, it does not enjoy the scientific experience and explanation based on mathematics, science, observation, analysis, etc., but only the theoretical explanation without empirical analysis. Finally, philosophers from divergent schools and eras in the history of philosophy based their criticism of Metaphysics, and this brief work aims to analyze the criticism of philosophers and bring a clear and objective conclusion to readers, whether lay or not. Keywords: Metaphysics. Criticism. Theory. Supersensitive. Empirical. Experience. INTRODUÇÃO Para uma fundamentação alicerçada na observação, análise e conclusões pragmáticas, é imprescindível aclarar o conceito de Metafísica como esfera inerente da Filosofia, bem como disciplina primordial para o currículo do Filósofo formado nas Universidades globais. Para isso, discorro acerca do conceito de Metafísica desde a alcunha aristotélica de 'Filosofia primeira', passando à análise modernista, em especial à kantiana e seu criticismo (Crítica da Metafísica é a alma desse trabalho), sob análise de autores didáticos e, por fim, sob a elucidação da esfera Metafísica mediante os dicionários de Filosofia de Japiassú e Marcondes, e de Nicola Abbagnano. No conjunto de obras aristotélicas entituladas de Metafísica, Aristóteles buscou elucidar 'o ser enquanto ser', isto é, buscar a objetividade das coisas e do mundo mediante a subjetividade e a realidade suprassensível dessas coisas. Logo, a explicação dos fenômenos que cercavam a Grécia clássica eram explicados além do alicerce das Ciências tradicionais da época (Física, Química, Biologia, etc.). Todavia, para Aristóteles, a Metafísica consiste na 'ciência primeira' no que se refere o fornecimento de um fundamento único para todas as demais ciências, ou seja, dar-lhes o objeto ao qual elas se referem e os princípios dos quais todas elas dependem. Por fim, a Metafísica implica ser uma enciclopédia das ciências um inventário completo e exaustivo de todas as ciências, em suas relações de coordenação e subordinação, nas tarefas e nos limites atribuídos a cada uma, de modo definitivo. Na modernidade, a Metafísica perde a centralidade do mundo da Filosofia, quem é o precursor de tal declínio é Immanuel Kant e seu criticismo. Tal descendência é elucidada e aclarada posteriormente no presente trabalho. A Metafísica moderna ganha uma nova interpretação, sendo alcunhada e levada por analogia à Ontologia, expressada, segundo Kant, como conceito de gnosiologia. Para Kant, Metafísica é a fonte inerente do estudo e explicação das formas alicerçadas na razão, bem como fundamento de toda realidade suprassensível que se deve basear para elucidar e aclarar o mundo moderno. Ainda segundo o filósofo, a Metafísica é a fonte de todos os princípios reais para a explicação da realidade. Sendo ela, por fim um 'sistema filosófico' alicerçado sobre uma perspectiva ontológica, teológica e/ou suprassensível da realidade. No nosso finalismo, a inerência da Metafísica à filosofia transcende a explicação de todo o universo e sua totalidade (matéria e forma como alcunha Aristóteles). Logo, na Filosofia Clássica com Platão e, especialmente em Aristóteles, o Mito passou a ser ciência e essa ciência era determinada de Metafísica. Vale salientar que a alcunha 'Metafísica' foi, primeiramente, usada por Andrônico de Rodes . Por fim, a Metafísica primordial para fundamentar as explicações necessárias para os fenômenos que se decorrera na Grécia antiga, foi perdendo centralidade ao passo da história da filosofia e, na modernidade, com Hume e Kant passa por uma grande crise, discorrida agora no trabalho. -/- DA CRÍTICA À METAFÍSICA Platão criou um sistema metafísico de explicação da realidade e do mundo que influenciou muitos pensadores e religiosos. Boa parte da história da filosofia foi composta de sistemas metafísicos. Mas, se, por um lado, o pensamento metafísico tem uma vida longa e profícua, por outro, é alvo de críticas constantes, principalmente por filósofos modernos e contemporâneos, que questionam a validade das teses metafísicas, seja porque tratam de coisas que não podem ser conhecidas, como alma, Deus e formas inteligíveis, seja porque suas conclusões são consideradas enganosas. ARISTÓTELES E A FILOSOFIA PRIMEIRA As ciências teóricas ou teoréticas são aquelas que produzem um saber universal, válido em qualquer situação, e necessário, isto é, que não pode ser de outro modo. Essas ciências estão voltadas para a contemplação da verdade. O sábio que se dedica a elas encontra um fim em si mesmo, pois o resultado de sua investigação não gera nenhum objeto exterior, como uma construção ou uma escultura, mas beneficia sua própria alma. Elas estão organizadas em Metafísica, Matemática e Física, que inclui a Psicologia ou a ciência da alma. As principais obras teoréticas escritas por Aristóteles são Física, De anima e Metafísica. Filosofia Primeira, que chegou até nós com o nome de Metafísica, também chamada muitas vezes por Aristóteles de Teologia .com a ressalva de que Teologia aqui não tem o sentido que é dado a ela contemporaneamente), é a expressão que designava a mais elevada das ciências teoréticas, diferenciando-se da chamada Filosofia Segunda, ou Física. Aristóteles abre o Livro I da Metafísica com a célebre passagem: Todos os homens têm, por natureza, desejo de conhecer: uma prova disso é o prazer das sensações, pois, fora até da sua utilidade, elas nos agradam por si mesmas e, mais que todas as outras, as visuais [...l. (ARISTÓTELES, 1969). A busca pelo conhecimento encontra-se na própria natureza humana, desde o nascimento, mesmo que se manifeste em seu grau mais rudimentar. Prova disso é o conhecimento por meio das sensações ou dos sentidos, entre os quais se destaca o da visão. É o chamado conhecimento por empiria ou saber empírico, que não pode ser ensinado porque é adquirido imediata e concretamente quando percebemos as coisas sensíveis. Também há um saber que vem da técnica. O técnico é aquele que tem o conhecimento dos meios para chegar a um fim. Como ensina o historiador da Filosofia, Julián Marias, apesar de o saber técnico ser superior ao saber empírico, ambos são necessários em nossa vida: 1..l Portanto, a tékhne [técnica) é superior à empeiria; mas esta também é necessária, por exemplo, para curar, porque o médico não tem de curar o homem, e sim Sócrates, e o homem apenas de modo mediato. (MARIAS, J. 2015). O conhecimento metafísico é menos necessário em nossa vida cotidiana, mas nenhum outro lhe é superior. A Metafísica é o conhecimento pelas causas e, como vimos, o conhecimento é científico quando ele nos dá os princípios e as causas das coisas. Para Aristóteles, tudo o que existe é efeito de uma causa e ela é a responsável por esse algo ser necessariamente de um jeito e não de outro. De acordo com Aristóteles, conhecer algo é conhecer pela causa. Dessa forma, a explicação de algo ou o seu conhecimento deve sempre dizer por que algo é necessariamente de determinado modo. Sem esse tipo de explicaçào, não pode haver propriamente conhecimento. Daí se constata o caráter rigoroso da explicação científica: ela não apenas sabe que "algo é isto", mas é capaz de explicar por que algo é necessariamente isto. A definição aristotélica de Metafísica Chauí indaga em seu livro Iniciação à Filosofia a questão central do que Aristóteles entende por sua alcunha ou Metafísica. Chauí explana: Embora Aristóteles admita que para cada tipo de Ser e suas essências existe uma ciência teorética própria (física, biologia, psicologia, matemática, astronomia), ele também defende a necessidade de uma ciência geral, mais ampla, mais universal, anterior a todas essas, cujo objeto não seja esse ou aquele tipo de Ser, essa ou aquela modalidade de essência, mas o Ser em geral, a essência em geral. Essa ciência, para Aristóteles, é a Filosofia Primeira ou metafísica, que investiga o que é a essência e aquilo que faz com que haja essências particulares diferenciadas, que estuda o Ser enquanto Ser. (CHAUÍ, 2010). O objeto investigado pela Metafísica também é muito diferente do objeto conhecido pelo saber empírico ou pelo saber técnico. O saber empírico nos faz conhecer as coisas particulares, como Sócrates, o Oráculo de Delfos e a caneta esferográfica; o saber técnico nos faz conhecer as diversas técnicas, como os procedimentos médicos e a engenharia de construir templos. O que o saber metafísico, então, nos permite conhecer? Segundo Aristóteles, a Metafisica estuda o ser enquanto ser. Não considera o ser de modo particular como fazem as demais ciências — por exemplo, ao investigar Sócrates, os procedimentos médicos etc. mas busca o que é universal, o que envolve tanto Sócrates quanto os procedimentos médicos, tanto o Oráculo de Delfos quanto a arte de construir templos. Segundo Aristóteles, a Metafísica trata das causas primeiras, que são as quatro seguintes: • a causa material, que é a matéria de que é feita alguma coisa. Em uma escultura, por exemplo, a causa material pode ser o bronze ou o mármore; • a causa formal, que é a forma ou a essência das coisas. No exemplo da escultura, é a forma ou a aparência que possibilita que a reconheçamos como uma escultura (e não como um poste, por exemplo); • a causa eficiente, que é o agente que produz a coisa. Uma escultura é produzida por um artista; • a causa final, que é a razão ou a finalidade das coisas, A finalidade da escultura é o prazer estético. A Metafísica também se ocupa da substância. A substância responde pelos significados do ser. Mas o que é a substância? Trata-se de uma questão complexa no pensamento aristotélico. Aristóteles recusa-se a entender a substância como sendo a forma platónica. Ela nào é o suprassensível. Seria entao a substância o sensível individual? As coisas são matéria e forma; amatéria é o substrato da coisa (por exemplo, o mármore é a matéria da estátua). Sem sua forma, ela é apenas potencialidade, mas sem a matéria qualquer realidade sensível se desvaneceria. Assim, a matéria pode ser dita substância em sentido impróprio. A forma, por seu turno, é aquilo que determina a matéria, é a sua essência; ela é substancia em sentido próprio. Mas a matéria é também matéria enformada. As coisas sensíveis são, a um só tempo, matéria e forma. E esse composto também pode ser legitimamente chamado de substância. Aristóteles apresenta três gêneros de substâncias: • as substâncias sensíveis, que nascem, morrem e, por isso, passam por todo tipo de mudança; • as substancias sensíveis e incorruptíveis, que não passam por nenhum tipo de mudança, como os planetas e as estrelas; • a substância suprassensível, que é superior às outras duas: o Primeiro Motor Imóvel, o deus aristotélico, causa de todo movimento, mas sendo ele mesmo imóvel. (Ele precisa ser imóvel porque se ele também se movesse precisaria haver uma causa para esse movimento, o que levaria a uma espécie de regressão ao infinito). Assim como o demiurgo de Platão, o deus aristotélico nao é um deus criador. Não criou o Universo nem gerou o movimento dos corpos. Ao contrário, o deus de Aristóteles exerce uma atraçáo sobre o Universo, motivando sua existência, e sobre os corpos, gerando seu movimento, ou seja, atrai tudo para si como objeto de amor. Não é, portanto, causa eficiente do mundo e do movimento do mundo, mas causa final. O deus aristotélico nao cria o mundo do nada por um ato de vontade. Ele nao é causa eficiente do mundo, como indicamos ser o artista causa eficiente de sua escultura. A METAFÍSICA CLÁSSICA OU MODERNA Grandes revoluções no pensamento do século XVII deram estopim à uma grande crise na esfera metafísica. De modo resumido a Metafísica sofreu uma grande transformação e uma nova elaboração, sem a fundamentação embasada no pensamento platônico, aristotélico ou neoplatônico. Sendo assim a nova metafísica é caracterizada por: [...] afirmação da incompatibilidade entre fé e razão, acarretando a separação de ambas, de sorte que a religião e a filosofia possam seguir caminhos próprios, mesmo que a segunda não esteja publicamente autorizada a expor ideias que contradigam as verdades ou dogmas da fé [...] [...] redefinição do conceito de Ser ou substância. Os modernos conservam a definição tradicional da substância como o Ser que existe em si e por si mesmo, que subsiste em si e por si mesmo. Porém, em lugar de considerar que a substância se define por gênero e espécie, havendo tantos tipos de substâncias quantos gêneros e espécies houver, passa-se a definir a substância levando em consideração seus predicados essenciais ou seus atributos essenciais, isto é, aquelas propriedades ou atributos sem os quais uma substância não é o que ela é. Após o supracitado, os cartesianos e Descartes dirão que há somente três substâncias essenciais, divergindo totalmente do pensamento aristotélico, as substâncias cartesianas são a Alma, a matéria dos corpos e Deus. Para empiristas, só se é possível conhecer a substância corpórea, logo não se é possível elaborar uma metafísica, e sim uma geometria ou uma física que se ocupa do estudo dessas matérias corpóreas. Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) explanou a primordialidade de se elaborar uma definição genérica e universal, comumente aceita por toda a comunidade de filósofos de Aristóteles a modernidade. Podemos reduzir o conceito proposto da seguinte maneira: “substância é aquilo que existe em si e por si e não depende de outros para existir”.Logo, diz Espinosa, que há apenas uma substância no Universo que não depende de outra para existir, tal substância é o próprio Deus ou a natureza. Nessa revolução do pensamento filosófico, em peculiar à metafísica, houve também a redefinição do conceito de causa e causalidade. Em Aristóteles haviam quatro tipos de causas, agora, na modernidade, se propunha apenas dois tipos: a eficiente e a final. Chauí explana que a Causa eficiente é aquela na qual uma ação anterior determina como consequência necessária a produção de um efeito, e que seu alcance é universal na natureza. Causa final é aquela que determina, para os seres pensantes, a escolha da realização ou não realização de uma ação, e que só opera na ação de Deus e nas ações humanas. Houve também, nessa revolução, uma quebra do paradigma metafísico, isto é, a metafísica não se dividia mais entre a teologia, a psicologia racional e a cosmologia racional. Agora, a metafísica ganha um novo rumo, um rumo próprio de estudo embasado em suas próprias fundamentações. Logo, a metafísica se apropria de três e apenas três ideias de substância. A substância infinita, ou o próprio Deus. A substância pensante que é a consciência como faculdade de reflexão e de representação da realidade alicerçada na razão. E, por fim, a substância extensa que é a natureza embasada nos princípios e leis regidas pela matemática e a mecânica. DAVID HUME E A CRISE DA METAFÍSICA O filósofo escocês David Hume (1711-1776) nos ajuda a entender em parte o teor das críticas ao pensamento metafísico. "Se tomarmos em nossas mãos um volume qualquer, de teologia ou metafísica escolástica, por exemplo, façamos a pergunta: contém ele qualquer raciocínio abstrato referente a números e quantidades? Não. Contém qualquer raciocínio experimental referente a questões de fato e de existência? Não. Às chamas com ele, então, pois não pode conter senão sofismas e ilusão." (HUME, 2004) Hume critica a teologia e a metafísica escolástica, que foi a metafísica praticada principalmente nas escolas cristãs durante a Idade Média, porque suas concepções não tratam nem de conceitos matemáticos, que são formais e podem levar a conclusões seguras - por exemplo, "2 + 2 = 4" -, nem de afirmações sobre fatos, que podem ser verificados empiricamente, isto é, pelos órgãos dos sentidos —como "a aceleração de um corpo em queda livre é de 9,8 metros por segundo", Assim, Hume aconselha o leitor a jogar as afirmações metafísicas na fogueira, pois são consideradas ilusões, fantasias ou produto de erros de raciocínio e nada têm a acrescentar ao conhecimento humano. A partir de Hume, a metafísica, tal como existira desde os gregos, tornara-se impossível. O CRITICISMO KANTIANO E O FIM DA METAFÍSICA CLÁSSICA Entre a Dissertação de 1770 e a Crítica da razão pura, mais de dez anos se passaram. Apesar de a obra ser volumosa, a redaçào da Crítica da razão pura não chegou a cinco meses de trabalho. De início, Kant pretendia apenas revisar sua dissertação, mas o trabalho acabou por levá-lo a figurar entre os grandes nomes do pensamento filosófico, como Aristóteles e Descartes. Kant fez um diagnóstico bastante negativo da situação da Filosofia de sua época, em particular da Metafísica, que, embora fosse considerada a Filosofia Primeira, patinava em questões impossíveis de serem resolvidas. Ao mesmo tempo, buscou inserir a Filosofia no rumo seguido pelas Ciências Naturais, pela Lógica e pela Matemática, que já tinham encontrado o caminho da Ciência. Em alguns pontos, o projeto kantiano se aproximou de algumas características do projeto cartesiano. Descartes duvidou de todo o saber conhecido, pois queria encontrar um fundamento seguro que sustentasse a edificação da Filosofia e, mais particularmente, da Ciência. Diferentemente de Descartes, contudo, Kant nào duvidou de todo o conhecimento que havia aprendido. Para ele, bastava estabelecer os limites do conhecimento racional, ou seja, o que a razão podia conhecer e o que era impossível de ser conhecido. No fim do século XVIII, de acordo com a proposta de Wolff, a Metafísica era dividida em duas partes: Metafísica geral e Metafísica especial. A primeira tratava da Ontologia (ciência do ser enquanto ser, como definido por Aristóteles), e a segunda se ocupava do ser humano (Psicologia), do mundo (Cosmologia) e de Deus (Teologia racional), Os principais temas in-vestigados eram a imortalidade da alma, a liberdade a finitude ou infinitude do mundo e a existência de Deus. No entanto, de acordo com Kant, as questões metafísicas clássicas extrapolavam as capacidades de conhecimento do ser humano, pois estavam tão afastadas da experiência que a razão só podia pensá-las, sem conhecê-las realmente. As questões postas pela Metafísica clássica extrapolavam o terreno de qualquer experiência possível e, no entanto, a razão, por sua própria natureza, apresenta questões que não pode evitar, mas que também náo pode responder por não terem nenhuma pedra de toque na experiência. Disso decorre a pergunta fundamental sobre a possibilidade de haver um conhecimento metafísico. Publicada em 1781, a Crítica da razão pura foi uma tentativa de responder a essa pergunta. A obra instituiu um "tribunal da razao" para examinar a própria razão, e não para tomar partido no conflito entre racionalistas, como Descartes e Leibniz, que elaboraram sistemas metafísicos, e empiristas, como Locke e Hume, que basearam o conhecimento unicamente nos sentidos. Criticar a razão é determinar as possibilidades, os limites e o alcance do próprio conhecimento. A transformação foi tao grande para a Filosofia que essa obra nao pôde ser ignorada. A situação da Metafísica No texto a seguir, retirado do célebre prefácio à primeira edição de Crítica da razão pura, podemos ver o diagnóstico de Kant sobre a situaçao da Metafísica no período em que vivia. A razão humana, num determinado dominio dos seus conhecimentos, possui o singular destino de se ver atormentada por questões, que náo pode evitar, pois lhe são impostas pela sua natureza, mas às quais também não pode dar resposta por ultrapassarem completamente as suas possibilidades. Não é por culpa sua que cai nessa perplexidade. Parte de princípios, cujo uso é inevitável no decorrer da experiência e, ao mesmo tempo, suficientemente garantido por esta. Ajudada por estes princípios eleva-se cada vez mais alto (como de resto lho consente a natureza) para condições mais remotas. Porém, logo se apercebe de que, desta maneira, a sua tarefa há de ficar sempre inacabada, porque as questões nunca se esgotam; vê-se obrigada, por conseguinte, a refugiar-se em princípios, que ultrapassam todo o uso possível da experiência e, não obstante, estão ao abrigo de qualquer suspeita, pois o senso comum está de acordo com eles. Assim, a razão humana cai em obscuridades e contradições, que a autorizam a concluir dever ter-se apoiado em erros, ocultos algures, sem contudo os poder descobrir. Na verdade, os princípios de que se serve, uma vez que ultrapassam os limites de toda experiência, já não reconhecem nesta qualquer pedra de toque. O teatro destas disputas infindáveis chama-se Metafísica. (KANT, I. 2010). O fim da Metafísica clássica Podemos agora retomar o questionamento sobre os motivos pelos quais a física newtoniana é possível como ciência e entender também por que a metafísica racionalista tradicional não é conhecimento científico, segundo a teoria kantiana. A física trata de regras e leis dos fenômenos, das representações conformadas pela sensibilidade e pelo entendimento, ou seja, refere-se a objetos do conhecimento humano. A metafísica clássica, por sua vez, trata de coisas que não fazem parte da experiência sensível. Deus e a alma, por exemplo, não são apreendidos pela sensibilidade, não são impressões conformadas ou fenômenos e, portanto, não podem ser conhecidos pelo ser humano. Ideias ou conceitos dessa espécie podem ser pensados pela razão, mas é impossível conhecê-los, pois estão além da capacidade humana de conhecimento. Por esse motivo, a física é possível como ciência e a metafísica tradicional não. Com base nisso, Kant provocou uma revolução na teoria do conhecimento, que ele mesmo designou como "virada copernicana na filosofia", Se Copémico mudou a forma de entender o mundo ao defender a ideia de que o Sol está no centro do sistema solar, Kant mudou a forma de o ser humano compreender o mundo e a si próprio ao estabelecer a ideia de que o ser humano, e não os objetos externos, é o centro do conhecimento, O ser humano não é um agente passivo, que só recebe informações, mas atua decisivamente na constituição do conhecimento e do que se compreende como realidade. Os elementos a priori que determinam essa constituição do conhecimento são o escopo da filosofia kantiana, também conhecida como transcendental. Logo, o pensamento kantiano alterou profundamente a Metafísica. A existência de Deus ou a imortalidade da alma, por exemplo, passaram a ser questões que já não podiam ser respondidas. Se percebemos apenas as coisas que ocorrem em um tempo específico (antes, agora, depois), como seremos capazes de perceber algo que está na eternidade (Deus)? Como afirmar que a alma é imortal se não conseguimos percebê-la com os nossos sentidos? O conhecimento a partir de Kant, então, é sempre conhecimento de objetos, isto é, de conteúdos elaborados e modificados pelo sujeito que conhece. O conhecimento passou a se ocupar, assim, de fenómenos, e não mais da própria coisa, como pretendiam os metafísicos clássicos. Com a crítica kantiana, tornou-se impossível conhecer efetivamente os temas da Metafísica clássica e emitir qualquer opinião segura sobre assuntos que não podem ser assentados na experiência. Podemos pensar sobre Deus, podemos querer que nossa a seja imortal, mas jamais teremos a possibilidade de verificar esses assuntos em nossa experiência ou mesmo ter sobre eles verdadeiro conhecimento. Nada nos impede de acreditar em Deus ou na imortalidade da alma, porém não podemos exigir que a Filosofia se pronuncie a respeito desses temas. Na verdade, a crítica kantiana não diz que Deus existe nem que não existe, mas apenas que não é capaz de saben Deus, não obstante sua importância para a Filosofia do próprio Kant, é uma questão de fé. AUGUSTE COMTE E A METAFÍSICA NO SÉCULO XIX O filósofo francês Auguste Comte (1798-1857), considerado o pai do positivismo, fundamenta sua filosofia também em oposição às concepções metafísicas. Em seu entendimento, a busca por princípios gerais ou essências, entidades que estão além do que podemos observar ou perceber pelos órgãos dos sentidos, é algo infrutífero. Comte explana: "[...] não é supérfluo assinalar agora, de modo direto, a preponderância contínua da observação sobre a imaginação, como o principal caráter lógico da sã filosofia moderna, dirigindo nossas pesquisas, não para causas essenciais, mas para leis efetivas, dos diversos fenômenos naturais. Sem ser doravante imediatamente contestado, permanece este princípio fundamental muitas vezes desconhecido nos trabalhos especiais. Embora as diferentes ordens de especulações concedam, sem dúvida, à imaginação uma alta participação, isto é, constan temente empregada para criar ou aperfeiçoar os meios da vinculação entre os fatos constatados, mas o ponto de partida e a sua direçào não lhe poderiam pertencer em nenhum caso. Ainda quando procedemos verdadeiramente a priori, é claro que as considerações gerais que nos guiam foram inicialmente fundadas, quer na ciência correspondente, quer em outra, na simples observação, única fonte de sua realidade e também de sua fecundidade. Ver para prever: tal é o caráter permanente da verdadeira ciência. Tudo prever sem ter nada visto constitui somente uma absurda utopia metafísica, ainda muito seguida." (COMTE, 1978). A observação é considerada a única fonte de realidade. Abandonando a observação e apoiando-se única e exclusivamente na imaginação, como seria característico das especulaçôes metafísicas, o pensamento pode levar não para o conhecimento das coisas, mas para a fantasia. A ciência, então, deve ter como base as coisas que podem ser observadas. Todas as especulações e as teorias científicas, em última instância, devem ter como fundamento a realidade observável. LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN E A METAFÍSICA CONTEMPORÂNEA O filósofo austríaco Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) também se opõe às afirmações metafísicas por considerar que estas tratam de problemas (ou pseudoproblemas) que não podem ser formulados claramente e, portanto, não podem ser respondidos. “O método correto da filosofia seria o seguinte: só dizer o que pode ser dito, ou seja, as proposições das ciências naturais [...] e depois, quando alguém quisesse dizer algo metafísico, mostrar-lhe que nas suas proposições existem sinais aos quais não foi dada uma denotação.” (WITTGENSTEIN, 1995). Quer dizer, as sentenças ou os termos metafísicos se referem a coisas, objetos ou seres enigmáticos ou misteriosos, que não podem ser tratados com clareza, isto é, não se sabe exatamente o que são, o que impossibilitaria a formulação de problemas e soluções reais. "Deus", "alma" ou "vida após a morte", por exemplo, são termos que se referem especificamente a quê? Os "problemas" metafísicos estariam no campo do mistério e não no da investigação racional. Por isso, como afirma Wittgenstein, "acerca daquilo de que se não pode falar, tem que se ficar em silêncio". CONCLUSÃO (ÕES) Ora, a Metafísica na Grécia antiga foi imprescindível para o entendimento dos mais variados dilemas do mundo antigo, sejam perguntas simples, ou complexas. Iniciada como um sistema filosófico platônico, passando a ser filosofia primeira em Aristóteles, a metafísica incorporou elementos teológicos, psicológicos e cosmológicos durante o mundo antigo, e ainda mais durante o período medieval e a hegemônica Igreja Católica. No mundo moderno e embasado pelo “Luz da razão”, a metafísica começa a ser refutada pelos pensadores da época em questão, dentre eles o célebre cético Hume, e o emblemático Kant, além de Descartes e seus cartesianistas. Kant e seu criticismo incorporaram à Metafísica uma nova interpretação, esta que fez a mesma entrar em declínio e sair da centralidade do mundo filosófico. Kant, graças às indagações e refutações de Hume, pôde acordar do célebre “sono dogmático”. O que fez Kant se importa com a Metafísica. Kant trouxe à luz o fim da Metafísica clássica e deu legado ao início da metafísica contemporânea alcunhada de Ontologia. No decorrer da história da filosofia, a Metafísica teve intensa ascenção e vertiginosos declives, sendo seu maior declive o crítico Kant. Por fim, muitos filósofos se apropriaram de ser heterodoxos e enfrentaram de frente o mundo metafísica e a base do catolicismo sobre a realidade. Posta realidade que hoje, com o legado de Kant, da fenomenologia de Husserl, etc., originaram a nova escola filosófica chamada de Ontologia. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ABBAGNANO, N. Dicionário de filosofia. 5ª. ed. Trad. Ivone Castillo Benedetti. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2007. ARANHA, M. L. de A.; MARTINS, M. H. P. Filosofando: introdução à filosofia. 5ª. ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2013. ARISTÓTELES. Metafísica. Trad. L. Vallandro. Porto Alegre: Globo, 1969. BELO, R. dos S. Filosofia. Vol. Único. 2ª. ed. São Paulo: FTD, 2016. (Coleção Filosofia). BENOIT, L. O. Augusto Comte: fundador da física social. 1ª. ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2002. CHAUÍ, M. Iniciação à Filosofia. 1ª. ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2010. COMTE, A. Curso de filosofia positiva. In: FERNANDES, F.; FILHO, E. de M. Comte: sociologia. São Paulo: Ática, 1978. (Coleção Grandes Cientistas Sociais). COTRIM, G.; FERNANDES, M. Fundamentos de filosofia. 2ª. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2013. FERREIRO, H. Siete ensayos sobre la muerte de la Metafísica: Una introducción al idealismo absoluto a partir de la ontología. 1ª. ed. Porto Alegre: Editora Fi, 2016. FIGUEIREDO, V. de. (Org.); et. al. Filosofia: Temas e Percursos. Vol. Único. 2ª. ed. São Paulo: Berlendis & Vertecchia, 2016. FILHO, J. S. Filosofia e filosofias: existência e sentidos. 1ª. ed. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, 2016. HUME, D. Investigações sobre o entendimento humano e sobre os principios da moral. São Paulo: Unesp, 2004. ________. Tratado da natureza humana: uma tentativa de introduzir o método experimental de raciocínio nos assuntos morais. São Paulo: Unesp, 2001. JAPIASSÚ, H.; MARCONDES, D. Dicionário básico de filosofia. 3ª. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2001. KANT, I. Crítica da razão prática. Lisboa: Edições 70, 1989. [Textos filosóficos]. ______. Crítica da razão pura. São Paulo: Abril Cultural, 1979. (Col. Os Pensadores). MARIAS, J. História da filosofia. 2ª. ed. Trad. Claudia Berliner. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2015. MELANI, R. Diálogo: primeiros estudos em filosofia. Vol. Único. 2ª. ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2016. OTERO, J. G. Compendio de filosofía: para uso de los jóvenes estudiosos. 1ª. ed. Bogotá: Imprensa de San Bernardo, 1919. SILVA, F. L. e. Descartes, a metafísica da modernidade. 1ª. ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2006. WITTGENSTEIN, L. Tratado lógico-filosófico. 2ª. ed. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1995. -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva – estudante, pesquisador, professor, agropecuarista, altruísta e defensor dos direitos humanos e dos animais. -/- Alana Thaís Mayza da Silva – estudante, potterhead, pesquisadora, projetista, musicista, filantropa, defensora dos direitos humanos e dos animais, LGBT. (shrink)

This dissertation concerns the methodology Kant employs in the first two sections of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Groundwork I-II) with particular attention to how the execution of the method of analysis in these sections contributes to the establishment of moral metaphysics as a science. My thesis is that Kant had a detailed strategy for the Groundwork, that this strategy and Kant’s reasons for adopting it can be ascertained from the Critique of Pure Reason (first Critique) and his (...) lectures on logic, and that understanding this strategy gains us interpretive insight into Kant’s moral metaphysics. At the most general level of methodology, Kant says there are four steps for the establishment of any science: 1) make distinct the idea of the natural unity of its material 2) determine the special content of the science 3) articulate the systematic unity of the science 4) critique the science to determine its boundaries The first two of these steps are accomplished by the genetically scholastic method of analysis, paradigmatically the method whereby confused and obscure ideas are made clear and distinct, thereby logically perfecting them and transforming them into possible grounds of cognitive insight that are potentially complete and adequate to philosophical purposes. The analysis of Groundwork I is a paradigmatic analysis that makes distinct what is contained in common understanding, i.e. its Inhalt or intension, making distinct the higher partial concepts that together define the concept of morality. The analysis of Groundwork II is an employment more specifically of the method of logical division, which makes distinct what is contained under the concept, i.e. its Umfang, by which the extension or object of morality is determined. Part I introduces Kant’s conception of moral metaphysical science and why he took it to be in need of establishment, explains the general method for establishing science and the scholastic method of analysis by which its first two steps are to be accomplished, then provides an interpretation of Groundwork I as an execution of this method. Part II details Kant’s determination of the special content of moral science in Groundwork II in relation to the central problem for moral metaphysics – how synthetic a priori practical cognition is possible. (shrink)

Orthodox neural materialists think mental states are neural events or orthodox material properties of neutral events. Orthodox material properties are defining properties of the “physical”. A “defining property” of the physical is a type of property that provides a necessary condition for something’s being correctly termed “physical”. In this paper I give an argument against orthodox neural materialism. If successful, the argument would show at least some properties of some mental states are not orthodox material properties of (...) neural events. Opposing philosophical orthodoxy, I show there are no posteriori identities -- identities that cannot be known of a priori. (shrink)

The thesis of experiential revelation—Rev for brevity—in the philosophy of mind claims that to have an experience—i.e., to be acquainted with it—is to know its nature. It is widely agreed that although at least moderate versions of Rev might strike one as plausible and perhaps even appealing, at least up to a certain extent, most of them are nonetheless inconsistent with almost any coherent form of physicalism about the mind. Thus far, the issue of the alleged tension between Rev and (...) physicalism has mostly been put in the relevant literature in terms of phenomenal concepts—those concepts which refer to phenomenal properties, or qualia, and characterize them in terms of the peculiar quality(ies) they exhibit—and some kind of “special feature” those concepts allegedly possess. I call this version of Rev C-Rev. This paper aims to suggest that while it is true that phenomenal concepts reveal the nature of their referent(s)—i.e., it is a priori, for a subject possessing the concept and just in virtue of possessing it, what it is for the referent(s) of the concept to be part of reality—this feature of them, in turn, rests on a non-conceptual non-propositional kind of knowledge, namely, sui generis introspective knowledge by acquaintance of one’s own phenomenally conscious states. I call this version of Rev A-Rev. §1 provides some introductory material. In §2 I discuss two arguments that have recently been put forth to undermine the cogency of C-Rev against physicalism. §3 elaborates on the historical roots of C-Rev. §4 presents some of the major arguments which have been offered for A-Rev. A few concluding remarks close the paper. (shrink)

In this article I present the phenomenological tradition as a new grounding for human rights as universal rights. The hypothesis defended is to conciliate Husserl’s phenomenological method and Reinach’s a priori law in order to offer a new grounding to human rights. In order to combine Husserl and Reinach’s ideas, I propose to expand the comprehension of a priori. It would be present as eidos of each object and I name it as material a priori; it (...) also be present in the eidetic relations and I name it as formal a priori. Yet the object would have an essence, a necessary content, a material a priori, and necessary states of affairs, necessary relations and connections, a formal a priori. Reinach, in The A priori Foundations of the Civil Law, describes eidetic relations, such as, the relation between promise, claim and obligation. I propose three eidetic universalities to ground law, these are what I will call human rights. I also face a few difficulties presented by DuBois and De Vecchi derived from the amoral approach of a priori laws. Then, I highlight the difference between this proposition and Albert’s. Finally, I defend the proposition that a priori laws are beyond natural and positive laws. (shrink)

The ontological determination of the movement in its quality of way of Being incessantly moves the critic affirmed to denial it through come to be which affirms new critics, unity of continuities and discontinuities with the previous critic. Therefore, it is important to unveil the material determinations in which are rooted the conception of Being dissociated from Non-being consolidated in insurmountable distinction between Being and Entity in its quality of expression of ideas in an inverted reality, falsely apprehended. Ideally (...) reproduced reality that, nevertheless, allows alternatives corresponding to the realization of aims targeted to satisfy historically determined necessities. The confrontations in the production and reproduction of purposes to guide social relations cross-dress debility of determined and impotent movement to impose determinations to the full virtuosity of immobility that moves the transitory. The difference between Being e Entity conforms in a formal logic deprived from/of contradiction to affirm the development of knowledge in what, in truth, hindered and limit it to remain, reducing the movement to stationary, to what moves to what moves without moving, to what isolate the knowledge of reality, to what detaches idea and material, to what conserves and incarcerates and not to what transform and set free. The treatment conceived as a movement from radical critic brings together the ontological primacy to underpin the root of the constitution of social existence to establish the ontological determinations of the existence to consciousness is stated in Marx – being reaffirmed in Lukács – by affirming that categories are forms of Being, determinations from/of existence. The category of totality, as a result of it, constitute expression of form of Being from reality in movement and synthesis from multiples and mutual determinations of negated diversities in an unitarity which affirm them. Therefore, the dialectical reflexive movement refuses as an ineliminable condition to the movement which affirms to mould identity with unitarity between identity and non-identity or don’t conceive relation of identity with dialectic, with the existence of reality to express a contradiction and incessant transmutation between Being and Non-being. The totality by transmuting itself while remain totality albeit not identical to the previous moment embraces a category to synthesize the unity of diversity. This diversity moved and moving from/by unity contemplates the relation of identity ratio (nowadays totality) between the identity (continuity with the preceding totality) and the non-identity (discontinuity with the preceding totality). To ignore the identity of identity with a non-identity conforms the impotence of category to constitute an expression of existence for not affording the contradiction immanent to the existence of reality moving from transport incessant of Being to come to be which puts itself from Non-being to Being. In short, concomitantly the being is transposed to Non-being to a Being come to be transpose from Non-being to a Being whilst ontological determination is constituted and constitutive of movement. The realization of critic conditioned the self-critic that ontologically determines the denial of self-preservation because it constitutes roots in social conditions that limit the intended transformation through critic. The critique of science as an ideological and material condition of reproduction and realization of capital is not effective with the auto-conservation of Geography for conforming the necessity of conservation of science to be rooted in the conception of distinction idealized by superiority that would affirm the permanence and nullity of transcending the limitations to denial the inhumanity of alienation concomitantly affirm the conditions to recognition of necessities and possibilities oriented to an emancipatory purposes. The progressive compressing of expenditure of time on production and productivity of results in various fields of scientific knowledge – which do not realize strictly in the extent of knowledge or it would be equivalent to affirm the fallacy of isolation and to deny the material and historical determinations that constitutes the quality of form of Being -, expressed in the quality of objective necessity and possibility concomitantly to fragment the form and content of the orientation of aims for investigation and for apprehension of reality. The convergence of the movements above-mentioned conforms the constitution of consensus positivity of complexifying of knowledge, delimitating the conceiving of reality and the supposed objective determinations a priori that constraint the conscious apprehension of necessities and of purposes that manifestate in the immediacy by the quality of developing individual and humankind potentialities of social being. Therefore, the conception of suprahistorical and insuppressible ontological determination depriving from social intentionalities in naturalize the impute of greater speed and complexity with lesser time and size of fragmented reality to be known, strengthening the conditions of inversion of reality. Reversed reality deforms the conscious apprehension of corresponding reduce the humanity of individual and gender social sphere of Being for alienating the necessities and goals of theory and practice, consciously aimed to the development of conditions for impoverishment humanity cross-dress in fallaciously things provided by humanity. Things that would had identity with men humanization obfuscating the unifying the developing of thing in the developing of men in the quality of thing, to conceive the most primary theoretical and practical necessity for the purpose of development of thing as an irrevocable necessity from human activity. The confrontation in the sphere of ideas constitutes itself while conceiving the real and, in this direction, the domination of necessities and purposes of material (re)production of society requires the domination of the categories of space and time as forms of Being of substance in motion. The detachment between Being and Entity conceives the indetermination of the dominant conception of reality that determines the conditions for the reproduction of life and the come to be of individuals and humankind. (shrink)

Consider a set of shuffled observations drawn from a fixed probability distribution over some instance domain. What enables learning of inductive generalizations which proceed from such a set of observations? The scenario is worthwhile because it epistemically characterizes most of machine learning. This kind of learning from observations is also inverse and ill-posed. What reduces the non-uniqueness of its result and, thus, its problematic epistemic justification, which stems from a one-to-many relation between the observations and many learnable generalizations? The paper (...) argues that this role belongs to any complexity regularization which satisfies Norton’s Material Theory of Induction (MTI) by localizing the inductive risk to facts in the given domain. A prime example of the localization is the Lottery Ticket Hypothesis (LTH) about overparameterized neural networks. The explanation of MTI’s role in complexity regularization of neural networks is provided by analyzing the stability of Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM), an inductive rule that controls the learning process and leads to an inductive generalization on the given set of observations. In cases where ERM might become asymptotically unstable, making the justification of the generalization by uniform convergence unavailable, LTH and MTI can be used to define a local stability. A priori, overparameterized neural networks are such cases and the combination of LTH and MTI can block ERM’s trivialization caused by equalizing the strengths of its inductive support for risk minimization. We bring closer the investigation of generalization in artificial neural networks and the study of inductive inference and show the division of labor between MTI and the optimality justifications (developed by Gerhard Schurz) in machine learning. (shrink)

Many philosophers have found in Hume’s skeptical doubts concerning the operations of the understanding the materials for an argument that generalizes from induction to other domains, like our beliefs in the external world, other minds, and the past. This chapter offers a novel reconstruction of that argument and identifies the principles that are responsible for its capacity to generalize beyond induction. Next, it presents a classical reading of Hume’s skeptical solution and shows that Crispin Wright’s entitlement theory is close in (...) spirit to it. After that, it develops two objections to entitlement theory: it relies on the truth of deeply contingent propositions that are not a priori rational, and it does not manage to redefine the concept of epistemic rationality while offering an effective anti-skeptical response. The chapter concludes with a constructive suggestion: some passages that support a non-classical reading of Hume’s positive views on induction offer the materials to reject the steps of the skeptical argument that cause trouble for entitlement theory. (shrink)

[What It’s Like, or What It’s About? The Place of Consciousness in the Material World] Summary: The book is both a survey of the contemporary debate and a defense of a distinctive position. Most philosophers nowadays assume that the focus of the philosophy of consciousness, its shared explanandum, is a certain property of experience variously called “phenomenal character,” “qualitative character,” “qualia” or “phenomenology,” understood in terms of what it is like to undergo the experience in question. Consciousness as defined (...) in terms of its phenomenal aspect is often called “phenomenal consciousness.” The major issue that occupies most thinkers is whether this phenomenal character happens to be a physical property, or whether it is rather sui generis. Those who believe the former are materialists; those who conclude the latter are dualists. As the currently dominant metaphysic is materialism – also sometimes called physicalism – the challenge appears to be to slot phenomenal properties among the physical properties that ultimately make up the world. David Chalmers argued powerfully that we can go very far in situating many mental properties in the physical world – namely, the properties that can be understood in functional terms – but that phenomenal properties resist such a treatment. Chalmers calls this “the hard problem” of consciousness. But there are also some quite powerful positive arguments for dualism. The two most influential ones are the modal argument, also offered by Chalmers, and the knowledge argument invented by Frank Jackson. Chalmers invites us to conceive of creatures that are exactly like human beings – physically, functionally, behaviorally – only bereft of phenomenal consciousness. If such creatures are conceivable, says Chalmers, they are metaphysically possible. And if they are metaphysically possible, materialism is false. Jackson, for his part, suggests we imagine Mary who has spent her entire life inside a black-and-white room and has seen the world through a black-and-white TV screen. But she also happens to know everything there is to know about the physics of color. And yet, Jackson suggests that once Mary is finally released from her room and sees a lawn outside, she learns something new: that this is what it is like to experience green color. The current work on consciousness is by and large characterized by attempts to answer these two dualistic arguments. I try to make sense of the positions within the domain of philosophy of consciousness by means of two major distinctions that mutually intersect. First, there is a distinction between dualism and materialism. An apparent third alternative currently on offer, the so-called Russellian monism, is unstable, collapsing into either dualism (panpsychism) or materialism (Russellian physicalism). Materialism comes in two main flavors: either the a posteriori physicalism, which detects an epistemic gap between phenomenal and physical truths, hence denying that the former could be derived from the latter; or the a priori physicalism, which does not acknowledge any such obstacle. The second major distinction is between phenomenism and representationalism. It’s true that Ned Block, who introduced this contrast, meant to distinguish between two kinds of materialism. But I believe that the distinction actually intersects the one between materialism and dualism. We thus arrive at a table with six slots, representing six main positions in the philosophy of consciousness: (1) dualist phenomenism (Chalmers, the early Jackson, and Tyler Burge); (2) dualist representationalism (René Descartes); (3) aposteriori materialist phenomenism (Block); (4) a posteriori materialist representationalism (Michael Tye, Fred Dretske, David Rosenthal); (5) a priori materialist phenomenism (David Lewis); and (6) a priori materialist representationalism (Daniel Dennett, Derk Pereboom). However, this scheme is in fact somewhat misleading. It is true that Dennett is usually classified as an apriori materialist (or, more precisely an apriori materialist representationalist), but I believe that needs to be corrected. In order to understand why, I first analyze varieties of materialist representationalism in detail, in particular various construals of phenomenal character in terms of representation, or intentionality, which includes a discussion of the identity of its content (the issue of externalism). By contrast, Dennett rejects the concept of phenomenal character. Consciousness has no intrinsic, publicly inaccessible properties. On that ground, Dennett builds an empirical, fully functionalist theory of consciousness, which he also tries to integrate within a general Darwinian framework. From that point of view, one can contrast Dennettian and representationalist views on the issue of animal consciousness. In addition to his rejection of phenomenal character, Dennett also abstains from the regular metaphysical departure point of regular materialism. He does not so much ask how an enigmatic property of consciousness fits an antecedently characterized world, but rather how far we can investigate all aspects of the world, including consciousness, using the scientific method. He is thus a methodological naturalist, rather than a metaphysical materialist. While this approach removes obstacles to the science of consciousness, it does not solve what might be called “the hardest problem” – of intentionality, not phenomenal consciousness. The hardest problem consists in the fact that our intentional discourse involves conflicting commitments that prevent a coherent metaphysic of representational states. However, it does not follow that we should give up on this discourse as a theoretical means of reduction as well as a practical tool of explanation. But it might be that intentional discourse is a somewhat pseudo one. (shrink)

Argues against several influential a priori arguments for individualism in the philosophy of mind that were influential in the 1980s.

n this paper, I analyse Rahel Jaeggi’s socio-ontological account of forms of life. I show that her framework is a two-sided one, since it involves an understanding of forms of life both as inert bundles of practices and as having a normative structure. Here I argue that this approach is based on an a priori argument which assumes normativity as the condition of intelligibility of social criticism. I show that the intimate tension between these two sides is reflected in (...) the socio-ontological model of the constitution of social phenomena, which on the one side is understood in terms of habituation and materialization, and on the other side in terms of constitution through norms. The second side in the end prevails and leads to some sort of normative essentialism which involves a prescriptive meta-theoretical understanding of normativity combined with a socio-ontological model of constitutive rules. I then analyse two arguments that Jaeggi offers in support of her assumption that normative constitution is the deep structure of social practices. I name these the functional- teleological argument, and the crisis developmental argument, and argue that neither succeeds in proving that practices are not normatively underdetermined. (shrink)

Since his Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft was first published in 1786, controversy has surrounded Immanuel Kant’s conception of matter. In particular, the justification for both his dynamical theory of matter and the related dismissal of mechanical philosophy are obscure. In this paper, I address these longstanding issues and establish that Kant’s dynamism rests upon Leibnizian, metaphysical commitments held by Kant from his early pre-Critical texts on natural philosophy to his major critical works. I demonstrate that, throughout his corpus and inspired (...) by Leibniz, Kant endorses the a priori law of continuity of alteration as a truth of metaphysics, according to which all alterations in experience must occur gradually through all intervening degrees. The principle thus legislates against mechanical philosophy’s absolutely impenetrable atoms, as they would would involve instantaneous changes of velocity in impact. This reveals the metaphysical incoherencies in mechanical philosophy and leaves Kant’s own dynamical theory of matter, grounded on material forces, as the only viable approach to physical explanation. Subsequently, I demonstrate that Kant nevertheless made conceptual space in his system for the theoretical consideration of mechanical explanations, which makes manifest one of the positive roles that the faculty of reason can play with respect to natural science. (shrink)

The origin of languages was a hotly debated topic in the eighteenth century. This paper reconstructs a distinctively Kantian account according to which the origination, progression, and diversification of languages is at bottom reason’s self-development under certain a priori constraints and external environments. The reconstruction builds on three sets of materials. The first is Herder’s famous prize essay on the origin of languages. The second includes Kant’s explicit remarks about language – especially his notion of “transcendental grammar,” his argument (...) that language cannot be innate, his contrast of “Oriental” symbolic (intuitive) and “Occidental” discursive languages, and his treatment of the latter as a sine qua non of humanity’s cultural and moral progress. The third includes the concepts that we need to make sense of those remarks, such as Kant’s epigenetic theory of biological formation and his account of categories as originally acquired. (shrink)

In this work, I discuss the role of Husserl’s phenomenology in Paolo Parrini’s philosophical view. In the first section, I highlight the presence of both empiricist and constructivist elements in Parrini’s anti-foundationalist and anti-absolutist conception of knowledge. In the second section, I stress Parrini’s acknowledgement of the crucial role of phenomenology in investigating the empirical basis of knowledge, thanks to its analysis of the relationship between form and matter of cognition. In the third section, I point at some lines of (...) development of phenomenology that are revealed by Parrini’s reflection, through the comparison between Husserl’s genetic phenomenology, Mary Hesse’s network model, and the tradition of neutral monism. (shrink)

This article discusses the role of a priori and a posteriori knowledge and methods in metaphysics and metametaphysics. Issues discussed include the viability of the distinction, the continuity of a priori and a posteriori methods, connections to modal epistemology, and the role of the distinction for science and naturalistic metaphysics.

In what respects is Western civilization superior or inferior to its rivals? In raising this question we are addressing a particularly strong form of the problem of relativism. For in order to compare civilizations one with another we would need to be in possession of a framework that is neutral and objective, a framework based on principles of evaluation which would be acceptable, in principle, to all human beings. Morality will surely provide one axis of such a framework (and we (...) note in passing that believers in Islam might quite reasonably claim that their fellow-believers are characteristically more moral than are many in the West). Criteria such as material wellbeing, too, will need to play a role, as also will happiness or pleasure (and again we note that it is not clear a priori that there is more happiness in the West than there is among the citizens of other civilizations). Since, however, these axes of evaluation do not run in tandem, we cannot expect to be able to formulate some single criterion which would enable us to rank civilizations in a simple unilinear order. Even happiness (pace some proponents of the utilitarian philosophy) comes in different types, and to count in the civilization stakes the happiness involved would presumably need to be of the right kind. Thus it is not clear that happiness derived from, say, taking drugs or torturing small animals is going to be able to count in favor of a civilization as much as, say, happiness derived from reading poetry or planting corn. Hence, for these and other reasons, we will have to deal with a multidimensional framework, in which some civilizations may excel along some axes but do badly on others. A further problem turns on the fact that there is no such relation as better than. Rather, when A is better than B then this is always in some respect C. Yet even when we compare one thing with another in some given respect we are not always dealing with a simple linear order. This is because the relation ‘being better than in respect C’ is not in every case transitive.. (shrink)

This paper attempts to shed light on three sets of issues that bear directly on our understanding of Locke and Kant. The first is whether Kant believes Locke merely anticipates his distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments or also believes Locke anticipates his notion of synthetic a priori cognition. The second is what should we as readers of Kant and Locke should think about Kant’s view whatever it turns out to be, and the third is the nature of Kant’s (...) justification for the comparison he draws between his philosophy and Locke’s. I argue (1) that Kant believes Locke anticipates both the analytic-synthetic distinction and Kant’s notion of synthetic a priori cognition, (2) that the best justification for Kant’s claim draws on Locke’s distinction between trifling and instructive knowledge, (3) that the arguments against this claim developed by Carson, Allison, and Newman fail to undermine it, and (4) that Kant’s own justification for his claim is quite different from what many commentators have thought it was (or should have been). (shrink)

The last decade has witnessed the beginnings of a remarkable convergence of Husserlian phenonenology and analytic philosophy of language, and the present volumes provide original and important texts of the phenomenological philosophy of language. Powerfully influenced by the writings of the early Husserl, Reinach fashioned Husserl’s ideas into a rigorous analytical methodology of his own, which he applied in particular to problems in logic and the theory of knowledge, and to the philosophies of law and psychology. The central role of (...) the concept of state of affairs in Reinach’s philosophy will bring to mind immediately the formal ontology of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Reinach’s most significant contribution, however, is contained in his The a priori foundations of civil law (1913), above all in the detailed analysis of the a priori structure of the act of promising. This amounts to an elaborate phenomenological theory of speech acts which anticipates, and in some respects goes beyond, the later theories of Austin and Searle. The present edition is in two volumes. Volume 1, which includes a biographical and thematic introduction by the editors, contains critical editions of those pieces published by Reinach himself. Volume II is a collection of all those items in Reinach’s surviving Nachlass which are in publishable form, including a number of important pieces not hitherto obtainable on such themes as ethical predicates, speech acts (“soziale Akte”), perception and the theory of number, together with a comprehensive sketch of the problems in the theory of knowledge, logic and ethics. Appended to this is a text-critical apparatus which also contains extensive discussions of the origins and sources of the materials in question. (shrink)

Is it possible to compare civilizations one with another? Is it possible, in other words, to construct some neutral and objective framework in terms of which we could establish in what respects one civilization might deserve to be ranked more highly than its competitors? Morality will surely provide one axis of such a framework (and we note in passing that believers in Islam might quite reasonably claim that their fellow-believers are characteristically more moral than are many in the West). Criteria (...) such as material well-being will need to play a role, too, as also will happiness or pleasure (and again we note that it is not clear a priori that there is more happiness in the West than there is in other civilizations). But even happiness (pace some proponents of the utilitarian philosophy) comes in different types, and to count in the civilization stakes the happiness involved would presumably need to be of the right kind. We explore what this might mean in terms of the idea of a self-chosen life plan. (shrink)

I argue that you can have a priori knowledge of propositions that neither are nor appear necessarily true. You can know a priori contingent propositions that you recognize as such. This overturns a standard view in contemporary epistemology and the traditional view of the a priori, which restrict a priori knowledge to necessary truths, or at least to truths that appear necessary.

The idea that the epistemology of modality is in some sense a priori is a popular one, but it has turned out to be difficult to precisify in a way that does not expose it to decisive counterexamples. The most common precisifications follow Kripke’s suggestion that cases of necessary a posteriori truth that can be known a priori to be necessary if true ‘may give a clue to a general characterization of a posteriori knowledge of necessary truths’. The (...) idea is that whether it is contingent whether p can be known a priori for at least some broad range of sentences ‘p’. Recently, Al Casullo and Jens Kipper have discussed restrictions of such principles to atomic sentences. We show that decisive counterexamples even to such dramatically restricted Kripke-style principles can be constructed using minimal logical resources. We then consider further restrictions, and show that the counterexamples to the original principles can be turned into counterexamples to the further restricted principles. We conclude that, if there are any true restrictions of Kripke-style principles, then they are so weak as to be of little epistemological interest. (shrink)

For Kant, inquiry into nature properly requires seeking to explain all material wholes merely mechanically, in terms of their parts. There is no consensus on how he justifies this Principle of Mechanism. I argue that Kant seeks to derive this claim about part and wholes neither from his laws or mechanics, nor from the mere discursivity of our understanding (two standard options in the literature), but instead from a priori principles laid out in the first Critique, which govern (...) parts, wholes, and magnitudes. These principles are also fundamental to Kant’s account of mathematics. Therefore, Kant’s Principle of Mechanism and his philosophy of mathematics have common foundations. (shrink)

Kant describes logic as “the science that exhaustively presents and strictly proves nothing but the formal rules of all thinking”. (Bviii-ix) But what is the source of our cognition of such rules (“logical cognition” for short)? He makes no concerted effort to address this question. It will nonetheless become clear that the question is a philosophically significant one for him, to which he can see three possible answers: those representations are innate, derived from experience, or originally acquired a priori. (...) Although he gives no explicit argument for the third answer, he seems committed to it—especially given his views on the source of pure concepts of the understanding and on the nature of logic. It takes careful preparatory work to gather all the essential materials for motivating and reconstructing Kant’s “original acquisition” account of logical cognition. I shall proceed in two sections. In section 1, I analyze Kant’s argument that pure concepts of the understanding (or intellectual concepts)—as one kind of pure cognition—must be acquired originally and a priori. My analysis partly concerns his varied attitudes toward Crusius’s and Leibniz’s versions of the nativist account of such concepts. I give special attention to how Kant characterizes the nativist account and his own “original acquisition” account in terms of “preformation” and “epigenesis”. My goal is, firstly, to tease out the sense in which Kant grants that there must be an innate ground (or preformation) for the derivation of pure concepts and, secondly, to introduce—and pave the way for answering—the question about the source of logical cognition. In section 2, in light of Kant’s reference to Locke and Leibniz as the greatest reformers of philosophy (including logic) in their times (Log, AA 9: 32), I examine the Lockean and Leibnizian approaches to logic, respectively. Both approaches are “physiological” by Kant’s standard and are directly opposed to his own strictly critical method. I explain how this methodological move shapes Kant’s view that representations of logical rules must be originally acquired a priori. This acquisition involves a kind of radical epigenesis of pure reason: unlike the acquisition of pure concepts, it presupposes no further innate ground (or preformation). This view will have important consequences for issues such as the ground of the normativity of logical rules and the boundaries of their rightful use. (shrink)

The distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge has been the subject of an enormous amount of discussion, but the literature is biased against recognizing the intimate relationship between these forms of knowledge. For instance, it seems to be almost impossible to find a sample of pure a priori or a posteriori knowledge. In this paper, it will be suggested that distinguishing between a priori and a posteriori is more problematic than is often suggested, and that (...) a priori and a posteriori resources are in fact used in parallel. We will define this relationship between a priori and a posteriori knowledge as the bootstrapping relationship. As we will see, this relationship gives us reasons to seek for an altogether novel definition of a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Specifically, we will have to analyse the relationship between a priori knowledge and a priori reasoning , and it will be suggested that the latter serves as a more promising starting point for the analysis of aprioricity. We will also analyse a number of examples from the natural sciences and consider the role of a priori reasoning in these examples. The focus of this paper is the analysis of the concepts of a priori and a posteriori knowledge rather than the epistemic domain of a posteriori and a priori justification. (shrink)

The UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas between Theise and Menas’ ideas (2016) and my ideas (2002-2008) in Physics and Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy (the mind-brain problem, quantum mechanics, etc.) -/- (2016) Theise D. Neil (Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA) and Kafatos C. Menas (bDepartment of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; cSchmid College of Science & Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA) (2016), REVIEW - Fundamental awareness: A (...) framework for integrating science, philosophy and metaphysics, in COMMUNICATIVE & INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY, 2016, VOL. 9, NO. 3, e1155010 (19 pages), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1155010 -/- A friend of mine indicated me the strike similarities between Theise and Kafatos’ ideas in their book (Fundamental awareness: A framework for integrating science, philosophy and metaphysics) and my ideas in 2002-20008! I do not have access to this book, but I investigate the ideas that are in a review about this work. Let me introduce the abstract of that Review: -/- The ontologic framework of Fundamental Awareness proposed here assumes that non-dual Awareness is foundational to the universe, not arising from the interactions or structures of higher level phenomena. The framework allows comparison and integration of views from the three investigative domains concerned with understanding the nature of consciousness: science, philosophy, and metaphysics. In this framework, Awareness is the underlying reality, not reducible to anything else. Awareness and existence are the same. As such, the universe is non-material, self-organizing throughout, a holarchy of complementary, process driven, recursive interactions. The universe is both its own first observer and subject. Considering the world to be non-material and comprised, a priori, of Awareness is to privilege information over materiality, action over agency and to understand that qualia are not a “hard problem,” but the foundational elements of all existence. These views fully reflect main stream Western philosophical traditions, insights from culturally diverse contemplative and mystical traditions, and are in keeping with current scientific thinking, expressible mathematically. (shrink)

In this article I attempt to overcome extant obstacles in deriving fundamental, objective and logically deduced definitions of personhood and their rights, by introducing an a priori paradigm of beings and morality. I do so by drawing a distinction between entities that are sought as ends and entities that are sought as means to said ends. The former entities, I offer, are the essence of personhood and are considered precious by observers possessing a logical system of valuation. The latter (...) entities – those sought only as a means to an end – I term ‘materials.’ Materials are sought for their conditional value: Important for achieving sought ends, they are not considered precious in and of themselves. A normative system for how this dichotomy of entities should interact is consequently derived and introduced. This paradigm has applicability for modern humanism and beyond. Assuming societal technological progression whereby human bodies and their surrounding infrastructures continue to evolve and integrate, the distinction between beings and their supporting materials, and a moral code for their interactions, will become ever more relevant. (shrink)

Most literature on religious beliefs and disagreements among traditions focuses on a bit of mainstream assumptions: religions should be construed in substantive terms; religions are to be individuated by their core belief systems; adherents to a single tradition assent to the same belief system; religious beliefs have factual content; incompatible religious beliefs cannot be both true; and so on. In my work I question all these claims in order to defend a non kantian approach to deep pluralism. In the first (...) part I develop a narrative theory of doxastic practices. My fundamental intuition is that ambiguity, vagueness, and indeterminacy of meaning are non amendable features of any ordinary belief. Consequently, no proposition has a definite meaning, and there is no a priori reason to assume that if two believers assume the same belief, they both hold the same content. What I'm trying to do is to argue in support of a realist epistemology, without assuming a normative and rationalist stance. My evidential body is mainly drawn from psychology and psychoanalysis. In the second part I apply such a narrative theory to the study of the doxastic character of religions. I reject both functionalist and substantive approaches to religion, and I defend my own viewpoint which I label experentialism. After providing a characterization of religious beliefs, I refute how Alston, Ward and Hick account for the the doxastic features of religions. I then propose a definition of religious diversity which turns out to be alternative to the mainstream one. I work by empirical evidence from semiotics, sociology of religion and history of religions. In the third and conclusive part of my book, I give reasons against the mainstream approach to religious diversity, and I explain how my definition can be more appropriate to the sociological study of religious beliefs than the mainstream one. Finally, I provide an account of deep pluralism, I show that my approach to religious epistemology and religions is compatible with (and recommended by) deep pluralism, I differentiate kantian from non kantian pluralism, and I explain why non kantian deep pluralism resists the traditional objections to pluralism. Throughout the book I discuss relevant materials from Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. (shrink)

Amongst the entities making up social reality, are there necessary relations whose necessity is not a mere reflection of the logical connections between corresponding concepts? We distinguish three main groups of answers to this question, associated with Hume and Adolf Reinach at opposite extremes, and with Searle who occupies a position somewhere in the middle. We first set forth Reinach’s views on what he calls ‘material necessities’ in the realm of social entities. We then attempt to show that Searle (...) has not identified a sustainable position somewhere between the Humean and the Reinachian extremes. This is because Searle’s position is threatened by circularity, and to steer clear of that danger it must incorporate at least some elements of Reinach’s essentialism. (shrink)

Objective: Reference values have gained universal acceptance as the most powerful material that helps the decision-making-implementation process of the clinical laboratory. These values ​​may be affected by the geographical location, dietary habits, and other lifestyle changes of individuals applying to the clinical laboratory. Our study aims to determine the reference ranges for the biochemistry test panel, thyroid function tests, and insulin hormone levels, which are frequently needed by clinicians for the province of Gaziantep, with samples obtained from healthy individuals. (...) -/- Materials and Methods: In the study phase, the selection of reference individuals was carried out using the direct method a priori. For the study group, healthy individuals (224 men, 243 women) aged 18-45 were selected. Reference intervals (95% limit) were calculated according to the non-parametric method. -/- Results: When the reference intervals obtained in our study were compared with the reference intervals of the manufacturer, there were differences (> 10% lower or higher) in the upper and lower limits in urea (female and male), creatinine (male), HDL (female), AST (female and male), ALT (female), GGT (female), ALP (common), Lipase (common), CK (male), iron (male), TSH (female and male) markers. Male and female reference intervals for HDL, AST, ALT, and TSH differed significantly. Manufacturer reference ranges for these parameters were common to both sexes. -/- Conclusion: As a result, differences were determined between most of the reference intervals obtained in our study and the reference intervals we routinely use. We think the difference in the reference intervals is due to the differences in dietary habits and environmental factors. (shrink)

In his recent book Constructing the World, David Chalmers defends A Priori Scrutability, the thesis that there is a compact class of truths such that for any truth p, a Laplacian intellect could know a priori that if the truths in that class hold, then p. In this paper, I develop an objection to Chalmers’ thesis that focuses on his treatment of a so-called that’s-all truth. My objection draws on Theodore Sider’s discussion of border-sensitive properties, and also on (...) the causal phenomenon of double prevention. (shrink)

It is common to think that state enforcement is a restriction on freedom that is morally permitted or justified because of the unfortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves. Human frailty and material scarcity combine to make the compromise of freedom involved in exclusive state enforcement power necessary for other freedoms or other goods. In the words of James Madison, ‘if men were angels, no government would be necessary’ (1990: 267). But there is an opposing tradition, according to which (...) the very idea of freedom in society entails the necessity of state enforcement. However morally good human beings are, or whatever material conditions they find themselves in, on this view, the ideal of freedom we ought to be concerned to realise is such that it cannot be attained without state enforcement. It follows a priori from an important ideal of freedom that a state with exclusive enforcement power is necessary for individual liberty in society. In this paper, I argue against what I take to be the strongest argument of the a priori kind, which begins from the neo-republican ideal of freedom as non-domination, and thereby in (partial) defence of the alternative, Madisonian, view. Insofar as it is true that some sort of problematic domination will inevitably be present in a stateless society, I argue, the introduction of a state can do nothing to eliminate it. For the state to improve on even an ideal stateless society, it would need to give individuals control over the interference of potential dominators of a sort that could not be achieved in the ideal stateless society. -/- . (shrink)

The primary aim of this chapter is to evaluate whether considerations about a priori domains and abstract objects favor atheism over theism.

Sober and Elgin defend the claim that there are a priori causal laws in biology. Lange and Rosenberg take issue with this on Humean grounds, among others. I will argue that Sober and Elgin don’t go far enough – there are a priori causal laws in many sciences. Furthermore, I will argue that this thesis is compatible with a Humean metaphysics and an empiricist epistemology.

I argue that current projects in ‘naturalized metaphysics’ fail to be properly naturalistic, and thereby fail in their stated aim to take one’s metaphysics from science. I argue that naturalism must involve the idea of taking science seriously, and that this can only be spelled out in terms of taking not only the theories of science seriously, but also its practice and its socio-linguistic situatedness seriously as well. This accords with naturalism because not doing so draws an artificial (non-natural) distinction (...) between the epistemic products of science as essence, and its socio-linguistic and practical features as accidents. The picture of naturalism which falls out of this is a form of pragmatism. Once this is spelled out, the question becomes, what is the appropriate attitude for the pragmatist/naturalist to have toward ontology? It is not the same as that of traditional metaphysics, since such an attitude (that metaphysical theorizing can make positive epistemic contributions) requires a priori commitments which themselves are (1) not subject to empirical review, and (2) are anthropocentric and so potentially distorted. But the pragmatist/naturalist will not go the opposite way, and say that metaphysics is meaningless either, since (true to their pragmatic commitments) ontology does things for the scientist and the layperson. It is a mistake to reject it wholesale, since the task of asserting what there is, exposing such an ontology to criticism, both empirical and logical, and revising it, has both small-scale and large-scale consequences. On the small-scale, ontologies are a guide for thinking—scientists, engineers, and lay people can and do use models of existence to navigate occurent problems in their day-to-day lives. Whether this is posing research hypotheses, developing protocols for generating new materials, or cooling off a cup of coffee, ontology plays a role. Large-scale consequences are more weighty, and more difficult to see. These large-scale consequences have to do with the aims and values which individuals and societies possess, and their interrelation with ontology. This certainly was at the forefront of the earliest ontologies—the Epicureans and Stoics built their moral philosophy on the basis of what ontology they thought was correct. This sort of practice goes on, unabated, today, though with virtually no overt acknowledgement of this important interdependency. How, for the pragmatist, do we make sense of ontological talk, if we are to eschew traditional metaphysics? Ontology—the naturalist/pragmatist declares—is a tool. Ontology helps us do things, whether it be predict behavior, understand phenomena, blame or forgive someone, and hope or despair about a life after this one (for example). Building an ontology is about building our own concepts, and this, in turn is a negotiation between our beliefs, experiences, and commitments, and the beliefs, experiences, and commitments of with whom we’re discursively engaged. (shrink)

By transcendental aesthetic, Kant means “the science of all principles of a priori sensibility” (A 21/B 35). 1 These, he argues, are the laws that properly direct our judgments of taste (B 35 – 36 fn.), i.e. our aesthetic judgments as we ordinarily understand that notion in the context of contemporary art. Thus the first part of the Critique of Pure Reason, entitled the Transcendental Aesthetic, enumerates the necessary presuppositions of, among other things, our ability to make empirical judgments (...) about particular works of art. These presuppositions are sensible rather than intellectual because on Kant’s view, all intellection that considers objects of any kind, whether abstract or concrete, must at base connect to actual, material objects with which we come into direct contact; and this we can do only through sensibility (A 19/B 33). Thus the following discussion explores what Kant claims must be true of us in order to make the sorts of aesthetic judgments we make, rather than any particular class or quality of aesthetic judgments itself. On Kant’s view, what must be true of us in order to make aesthetic judgments is not different from what must be true of us in order to make any other kind of judgment about empirical objects. (shrink)

All statements describing physical reality are derived through interpretation of measurement results that requires a theory of the measuring instruments used to make the measurements. The ultimate measuring instrument is our body which displays its measurement results in our mind. Since a physical theory of our mind-body is unknown, the correct interpretation of its measurement results is unknown. The success of the physical sciences has led to a tendency to treat assumption in physics as indisputable facts. This tendency hampers the (...) development of new theories capable of addressing the foundations of mind. To show the possibility that false interpretations of experimental results have lead to equally false projections onto physical reality may have happened, the double slit experiment and special relativity experiments are examined in detail. I will show that strongly held a-priory beliefs characterizing measurement instruments have lead to unjustified but widely held concepts in physical theories. For example the assumption that material bodies have minds can change the interpretation of experiments to produce alternative physical theories. Since some material bodies have minds this paper calls for a review of the conscious observer’s role in the execution and interpretation of fundamental physics experiments in order to verify or challenge the basic beliefs adopted in standard physical theories. (shrink)

This paper examines popular‘conventionalist’explanations of why philosophers need not back up their claims about how‘we’use our words with empirical studies of actual usage. It argues that such explanations are incompatible with a number of currently popular and plausible assumptions about language's ‘social’character. Alternate explanations of the philosopher's purported entitlement to make a priori claims about‘our’usage are then suggested. While these alternate explanations would, unlike the conventionalist ones, be compatible with the more social picture of language, they are each shown (...) to face serious problems of their own. (shrink)

This paper argues there are crucial points in Nietzsche’s texts where he offers a priori epistemic justification for views he believes are correct. My reading contrasts with the dominant view that Nietzsche’s philosophical naturalism is incompatible with a priori justification. My aim is to develop Nietzsche’s brand of a priori justification, show that he employs this account of justification in the texts, and suggest how it might be compatible with naturalism.