This paper has two aims. The first is to describe several sources of the moral responsibility to remedy or alleviate global poverty—reasons why an agent might have such a responsibility. The second is to consider what sorts of agents bear the responsibilities associated with each source—in particular, whether they are collective agents like states, societies, or corporations, on the one hand, or individual human beings on the other. We often talk about our responsibilities to the poorest people in the world, (...) or what we owe them. So the question is who this we is. I shall argue that the answer depends on the source of the responsibility. Some responsibilities—one species of causal responsibilities—belong in the first instance to collectives, although they will also trickle down to at least some individuals within the collective. Other responsibilities—humanitarian responsibilities, and a different species of causal responsibilities—belong in the first instance to individuals, but can, I shall argue, “trickle up” to collectives of which individuals are members. (shrink)

When people act to aid others, they get something in return—at the very least, the satisfaction of having their desire to help fulfilled. Some conclude from this and other puzzles about motivation that people always act simply to benefit themselves. But this is an error: there is altruism in the world, although it is often inextricably linked with the well-being of the agent who does good.

Cartesians and Lichtenbergians have diverging views of the deliverances of introspection. According to the Cartesians, a rational subject, competent with the relevant concepts, can come to know that he or she thinks – hence, that he or she exists – on the sole basis of his or her introspective awareness of his or her conscious thinking. According to the Lichtenbergians, this is not possible. This paper offers a defence of the Lichtenbergian position using Peacocke and Campbell's recent exchange on Descartes'scogitoas (...) a framework for discussion. A thought-experiment will be presented involving two communities with radically different conceptions of the metaphysics of the self. The purpose of the thought-experiment is to suggest that a substantive metaphysical thesis, whose truth cannot be a priori known, is presupposed by any justified transition from one's introspective awareness of a certain mental activity to the self-ascription of that activity. (shrink)

Nur weil Goethes letzter Brief an den Aufklärer und versierten Experimentalphysiker Lichtenberg nicht mehr beantwortet worden ist, sind viele Interpreten zu dem Ergebnis gelangt, dass Lichtenberg den Briefwechsel aus Unwillen über Goethes unbelehrbare Newton-Kritik abgebrochen hätte; Goethe selbst hat diese Interpretation nahegelegt. Doch bei gründlicher Neulektüre ergibt sich ein optimistischeres Bild. Goethe stand damals am Anfang seiner Farbenforschung, äußerte sich zu Newton weit weniger polemisch als später, gegenüber Lichtenberg aber voller Respekt – und zeigte sich offen für (...) Kritik. In einem seiner fünf Briefe reagierte Lichtenberg mit der erwünschten Kritik, und zwar so, wie sie unter Fachwissenschaftlern idealerweise aussehen sollte: voller Schwung, hinreichend skeptisch und doch konstruktiv. Goethe hat Lichtenbergs Kritik beherzigt, aufgegriffen, weitergedacht. Umgekehrt ließ sich Lichtenberg vom Briefpartner wissenschaftlich anregen; in der Tat bot Goethe ihm mit großer Sorgfalt eine Reihe von Anregungen, die gut zu Lichtenbergs Arbeit passten. Ja, Goethe ist möglicherweise zu anregend für ihn gewesen. Jedenfalls hat Lichtenberg es trotz gut dokumentierter Anzeichen von Begeisterung für Goethes gewagtes Projekt nicht vermocht, den Gedankenaustausch auf dem hohen Niveau fortzusetzen, das er zunächst geboten hatte. Ob der Briefwechsel am Ende aus gesundheitlichen Gründen, aus Willensschwäche oder einfach nur wegen Überarbeitung versandet ist, lässt sich den Dokumenten nicht entnehmen. Selbst die Hypothese einer wissenschaftlichen Entfremdung bleibt im Reich des Denkbaren. Unwahrscheinlich erscheint sie u.a. deshalb, weil an mindestens zwei Stellen eine Geistesverwandtschaft zwischen den beiden Protagonisten bestanden hat, die Goethe wohl ahnte und die heute angesichts damals unzugänglicher Texte deutlich in den Blick genommen werden kann: Erstens waren beide gleichermaßen von naturwissenschaftlichen Anwendungen des Polaritätsgedankens fasziniert, der seinerzeit viele neue Entdeckungen geliefert hatte und weitere verhieß; zweitens haben sie wichtige Einsichten der Wissenschaftsphilosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts vorweggenommen, etwa die Skepsis gegenüber eindeutig aus der Empirie abzulesenden Theorien und die These von der Theoriebeladenheit der Beobachtung. Goethe hatte Pech, dass diese Gemeinsamkeiten nicht vor Lichtenbergs Tod (und bis heute nicht) ans Tageslicht gekommen sind. Seine Kooperation mit Lichtenberg hätte zum Erfolg führen können; und der fatale Eindruck seiner Unbelehrsamkeit hätte sich vermeiden lassen. (shrink)

A brief study of the logical, linguistic, psychological and ontological problem of ‘impersonalia’, which is to say of assertions such as ‘it’s raining’ or ‘es blitzt’ which seem to have no subject. Such assertions cause problems not only for defenders of traditional subject-predicate views of assertive sentences, but also for those, such as Frege, who defended a view in terms of functions and arguments.

In Part One of Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche writes that anyone who believes in “immediate certainties” such as “I think” encounters a series of “metaphysical questions”. The most important of these “problems of intellectual knowledge” concerns the existence of an ‘I’, as much as our believing it to be the cause of thinking. Therefore, any remark about our mental faculties directly follows from our defining what we could call the basic psychical unity, i.e. our view on higher-level psychical functions (...) is strictly related with the properties we attribute to the notion of ‘I’. As we know, the main ideas on this subject that Nietzsche states in his book from 1886 come from the neo-kantian views of Lange, Spir and Teichmüller, and we cannot forget the important (even if hidden) reference to Lichtenberg in § 17 of the same work. Nevertheless, Nietzsche seems to move beyond all these sources, and in many of his writings we can find a new definition of the ‘ego’, finally free from any reference to a thing in itself, and for this reason closer to the ideas of the Austrian scientist Ernst Mach. In this paper I shall carry these remarks out. I’ll show the main properties of the notion of ‘I’ Nietzsche concerns with in his writings and, therefore, the grounds of his view on the mind-body problem. Moreover, I will argue that, once we observe that Nietzsche looks at the ‘ego’ as a mere regulative fiction having no ontological value out of the chain of sensation and representation it brings together, we could find out the close similarity with the way Mach defines it in his Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen (1886). This reference could help us to understand in a better way some statements Nietzsche wrote in his notebooks, and, secondly, to show how strictly was his philosophy of mind related with the main outcomes of 19th century science. Indeed, Nietzsche’s refusal of the belief “that there must necessarily be something that thinks” ‒ a view that results from the anti-metaphysical intent leading his naturalism ‒ seems to be one of the most important assumptions of the new born physiological psychology, an idea out of which many of the 20th century philosophical debates arose. (shrink)