Há muito tempo, o filme noir americano tem sido objeto de estudos críticos, que buscam decifrar a sua estética enigmática e a mensagem desafiadora. Trilhando sobre o lado mais negativo da vida humana, a questão central que ele propõe é: o que o noir representa, como forma singular de arte cinematográfica? Ora, compreender o filme noir passa pela necessidade de vê-lo no âmbito da matriz histórica de produção que lhe serviu de berço. Essa matriz é o chamado cinema clássico hollywoodiano, (...) à luz do qual iniciaremos a nossa investigação do significado desse ciclo de filmes, com base em um sumário desenvolvido pelo professor David Bordwell, autoridade em narrativa clássica. Para tanto, nós buscaremos subsídios conceituais em uma corrente de pensamento igualmente ampla, a fenomenologia hermenêutica, que, acreditamos, poderá nos proporcionar alguma elucidação semântica, tendo em vista o notório esforço dos filósofos dessa tradição para clarificar o propósito da obra de arte, no ser da existência. Assim, ao estabelecer como termos comparativos o cinema clássico e a inquirição hermenêutica, conseguiremos padrões de referência sólidos para a nossa atividade exegética, que tanto se aplica ao conjunto dos filmes noir - especialmente aos da fase clássica, dos anos 1940 e 50 - quanto a um longa-metragem individual. Nessa empreitada, porém, não partiremos do zero, como se o cinema houvesse começado ontem. Antes, nos servirá de fio condutor certa teoria explicativa da técnica cinematográfica, em cujos esteios figuram nomes como André Bazin, Ismail Xavier e Marcia Ortegosa, além de Bill Nichols, o principal expoente dos estudos sobre documentários. Tal explanação de teor linguístico e semiótico, com ênfase nos aspectos lógicos-metadiscursivos do filme noir, será discriminada logo no início do trabalho, para que possamos firmar parâmetros de julgamento crítico, tendo em vista a reflexão semântica e fenomenológica que se seguirá. O objetivo dessa reflexão é entender o assim chamado dark cinema no seio do nosso próprio modo de ser no mundo. Dessa forma, se conseguirmos trazer um pouco de luz às trilhas obscuras do mundo noir, este autor se dará por recompensado. (shrink)

Preface: The following article is an adaptation of an open letter sent by the au- thor to the local U.S. Elementary School Administration on October 14, 2022, in response to the introduction of Transgender Literature in grades 2 and above (starting age 7) in the local US elementary school attended by the author’s children. More specifically, children have been introduced to three books: I Am Jazz, by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings; Jacob’s New Dress, by Ian Hoffman and Sarah Hoffman; (...) and Born Ready. The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope, by Jodie Patterson. As part of this, children have been asked to join discussion in class to talk about the contents of each book and other related literature. Of note, several meetings with the administration and the school board have followed, but no changes have been made to the administration and content of the literature presented to children, with the exception of parents’ voluntary exclusion, per direct request, of their children from class time in which the books above and related new literature will be discussed in the future. Furthermore, these topics have also been discussed as part of a recent Lecture the author presented at the Academy of Sciences of Rome with the title “Science or Ideology?” in November 2022. (shrink)

Authors: Joseph M. Eble, John A. Di Camillo, Peter J. Colosi. --- NEWS RELEASE For Immediate Release February 27, 2024 Contact: Joseph M. Eble, MD Corresponding author 919-667-5206 -/- The statement, Catholics United on Brain Death and Organ Donation: A Call to Action (HTML), was published on February 27, 2024. It was prepared by Joseph Eble, a physician and President of the Tulsa Guild of the Catholic Medical Association; John Di Camillo, an ethicist of The National Catholic Bioethics Center; and (...) Peter Colosi, a philosophy professor at Salve Regina University. -/- Catholic United explains that the criteria for brain death establish only partial loss of brain function. This is now abundantly clear based on scientific studies, a recent effort to lower the legal standard for death, and updated brain death guidelines issued in October 2023. -/- Catholics United bridges a divide among faithful Catholics about whether the concept of brain death aligns with Church teaching. Some Catholics hold that brain death represents true death when there is complete and irreversible cessation of all brain activity, often called whole brain death. Others hold that brain death does not represent true death. Since the existing criteria establish only partial loss of brain function, all the endorsers—whether they accept or reject whole brain death as true death—agree that “the current brain death criteria in widespread use do not provide moral (prudential) certainty of death.” -/- Catholics United calls on health care professionals and institutions to cease organ harvesting that relies on the inadequate criteria, noting that 70% of all donors are declared dead using brain death criteria. “Given the lack of moral certainty of death whenever the current brain death criteria are used,” the statement affirms, “a clear majority of vital organ donors can be presumed alive at the time of organ harvesting.” Since the Catholic Church forbids removing vital organs when this would kill the patient, “it is therefore wrong to remove organs from patients declared dead using these inadequate criteria.” . (shrink)

In this brief review it is not possible to do full justice to this lively and lucidly presented study. It is fair to say, I think, that the considerable merits of this work rest primarily with its intelligent and reliable selection of material, most of which is already available and familiar. This study does not aim to challenge any orthodoxies or present new material of some significant kind. Rasmussen does not need to do this since his real concern is to (...) tell a story about two great thinkers in an engaging manner – a task which he achieves with great success. This is a book that scholars will thoroughly enjoy and appreciate and which will also find many appreciative readers well beyond these boundaries. (shrink)

In this article, I reply to some criticisms of my book, Pragmatist Egalitarianism, offered by professors Robert Talisse, Susan Dieleman, and Alexander Livingston. Some of the major themes and questions I address include the following: How are conflicts between different egalitarian ideals best understood and addressed? Does the quest for equality have a fundamental locus, or are the different egalitarian variables I identify in the book, conceptually speaking, on an equal footing? What is the relationship between justice and equality? How (...) are feminist egalitarianism and Marxian egalitarianism best slotted into my distinction between “vertical” and “horizontal” egalitarianism? What does liberalism, problematic though it may sometimes be, have to contribute to the egalitarian project? (shrink)

J. N. (Jitendra Nath) Mohanty (1928–2023). -/- Professor J. N. Mohanty has characterized his life and philosophy as being both “inside” and “outside” East and West, i.e., inside and outside traditions of India and those of the West, living in both India and United States: geographically, culturally, and philosophically; while also traveling the world: Melbourne to Moscow. Most of his academic time was spent teaching at the University of Oklahoma, The New School Graduate Faculty, and finally Temple University. Yet (...) his preeminent work in Husserlian phenomenology developed alongside his eminent work in Indian philosophy: describing his interests as “a fusion of disparate horizons.” -/- J. N. Mohanty was born September 26, 1928, in Cuttack (Odisha, East India). After graduating from high school, he went on to study both Indian and Western philosophy in Calcutta, earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees. There he read Whitehead and Kant’s First Critique; although he wanted to include mathematics in his curriculum, he was led instead to include Indian philosophy and Sanskrit. On the shelves of his teacher, Ras Vihar Das, he came upon a copy of the English translation (Ideas I, 1931) of Edmund Husserl’s classic Ideen I (1913), which presented Husserl’s ground-breaking conception of phenomenology. In 1952–1954 he left India for the first time, reaching Göttingen to study mathematics and philosophy, which earned him a doctorate in mathematics and “philosophy of mathematical sciences” (in his own words). In Göttingen, Mohanty found the powerful mathematical world that Husserl himself had earlier interacted with, where several Husserl students had formed the Göttingen school of phenomenology. During these years Mohanty studied primarily mathematics, alongside Kant and also Vedic Sanskrit. From his friend Günter Patzig, interpreter of Aristotle and Frege, Mohanty was drawn to Frege in relation to mathematical logic. He attended lectures of Heidegger, intrigued by his ontological thinking. Yet, despite the Husserlian legacy, Mohanty was completely self-taught in his studies of Husserl (as he has reported). With a doctorate in mathematics, and ideas from Kant and Frege in his philosophical background, Mohanty set about crafting his own conception of philosophy grounded in phenomenology, drawing on Husserl’s extensive work, critically sifting through Husserl’s texts and their emerging concepts of intentionality, meaning, subject, intersubjectivity, and world. In between he wrote his first book-length study: on phenomenological insights in Nicolai Hartmann and A. N. Whitehead (1958). -/- Over many decades Mohanty formulated and argued, in analytical detail, for a conception of phenomenology and its place in philosophy, later presented in a clear and concise book titled Transcendental Phenomenology: An Analytic Account (1989). Over these very decades the same scholar explored classical and recent Indian philosophy, thinking through kindred ideas of consciousness, self, and knowledge drawn from the Indian philosophical contexts. While writing on Nyāya theory of truth, he also pondered whether the world and finite individual are illusory or real, and whether Marx, Arendt, Gandhi (whom he heard speak in Calcutta), or Vinoba Bhave (with whom he marched across India for the land-grant movement) could best navigate post-Independent India’s social and svarāj or self-rule reforms. The two Mohantys, thinking through a vision of self and world, turned out to be “non-different” or “non-dual” as they each practiced critical phenomenology from both inside and outside the respective philosophical and cultural traditions. Numerous students, fellows, and colleagues or collaborators have benefited immensely from this infusion and unified approach to diversity in philosophical thought. In the 2000s, moving into retirement, Mohanty wrote two long books devoted to his understanding of Husserl and phenomenology and the calling of philosophy itself. This two-volume study shows Mohanty himself thinking through Husserl, critically, in The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl: A Historical Introduction (2008), and Edmund Husserl’s Freiburg Years: 1916–1938. As Mohanty worked on Husserl, he carefully indicated where he agreed and where he rejected or changed ideas, all part of his practice in phenomenology of “description and interpretation.” It was the same pattern he used in addressing the thought of Husserl vis-à-vis Kant or Frege or even Quine. -/- As Mohanty developed his understanding of phenomenology over the years, he wrote books on theory of meaning and the concept of intentionality, developing a model of ideal meaning and its foundation in intentionality, drawing on Husserl’s results. He followed these with the book Husserl and Frege (1982), linking the thought of those foundational figures for the “continental” and “analytic” traditions, respectively, in twentieth-century Western philosophy. Over his long career Mohanty addressed both traditions in his clear and accessible writing style. While developing his views on phenomenology, Mohanty regularly looked to “Husserl and his others,” evaluating views in Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Ricoeur, and then Derrida and others in the wake of Husserl. With his background in Kant, Mohanty also looked toward Heidegger and Hegel in relation to Husserl’s later work in the Crisis (1935–38). Similarly, he looked to contemporary analytic philosophers, adjudicating his own, oft-wise Husserlian views in relation to Frege, Nagel, and others. Amid his active scholarly career, Mohanty co-founded the journal Husserl Studies, and was editorial advisor to Philosophy & Phenomenological Research, Philosophy East & West, Journal of Indian Philosophy, Sophia, among others. -/- Yet all this while Mohanty was also thinking and writing about Indian philosophy and its relation to phenomenology. In his own retrospective, Indian philosophy is “the permanent background” of his Husserlian thinking, while Kant is the recurrent Western background of his Husserlian phenomenology. Mohanty’s form of “transcendental phenomenology” evolved, in his own perspective, against the background of his studies of Navya-Nyāya on logic and Vedānta on consciousness, in Indian philosophy, and against the background of Kant’s First Critique on the transcendental, in Western philosophy. Accordingly, Mohanty’s study of logical form and of the intentionality of consciousness seeks a fusion of East and West in the conception of transcendental phenomenology. (Cf. Mohanty’s apt response to critics in The Empirical and the Transcendental (2000).) Even in the context of North American Husserl scholarship, Mohanty has exercised an earnest fusion of East and West. For the so-called East Coast and West Coast interpretations of Husserl’s crucial notion of noema both find a sympathetic spirit in J. N. Mohanty’s careful and nuanced interpretation of Husserlian transcendental phenomenology. With Mohanty the two faces of the noema are the logical (Fregean) and the phenomenal (Kantian), and these views of intentional structure join in consciousness—in a way resonant with Indian thought. -/- - David Woodruff Smith (UC Irvine) and Purushottama Bilimoria (SFSU, San Francisco; University of Melbourne) -/- For photo of Prof Mohanty visit APA online memorial_minutes2023 Courtesy of APA Memorial Minutes (& Proceedings) 2023 . (shrink)

In this brief review it is not possible to do full justice to this lively and lucidly present- ed study. It is fair to say, I think, that the considerable mer- its of this work rest primarily with its intelligent and reliable selection of material, most of which is already available and familiar. This study does not aim to challenge any orthodox- ies or present new material of some significant kind. Rasmus- sen does not need to do this since his (...) real concern is to tell a story about two great thinkers in an engaging manner – a task which he achieves with great success. This is a book that scholars will thoroughly enjoy and appreciate and which will also find many appreciative readers well beyond these boundaries. (shrink)

In 1601 certain Jesuits in Alcalá de Henares defended the following thesis: «It is not by faith that we confess that this man, for example, Clement VIII, is Pope.» During 1602 this fact became known in Rome and the Pope urged that the Spanish Inquisition imprison these Jesuits. To defend themselves, they alleged that the thesis was not unusual among scholars, indicating the names of several authors who defended it, among them, the eminent professor emeritus of Salamanca Domingo Báñez. (...) However, he convened an academic act in Valladolid on July 2, 1602 to show that his position was not such. Shortly thereafter, the Jesuits held another event in the same town to challenge the thesis of their coreligionists, underscoring their opposition even more than Báñez. New, partly unknown material on the subject is copied in these pages: the letters from the nuncio to the head of the Vatican State, with annotations written by the Pope, and a letter from the King of Spain to his ambassador; the complete text of the theses defended by Báñez and by the Jesuits in July 1602, as well as two unpublished letters from Báñez on the occasion of his act, one to the master general of his Order and the other to the Pope. (shrink)

The figure of Francisco de Vitoria, founder of the so-called School of Salamanca and one of the most important professors of the University of Salamanca in the 16th century, has been considered on different occasions as an admirable model of a university professor. On one side, this article describes the scientific commitment of the School of Salamanca as a sign of an important dimension of university life: research. On the other side, the main features of Vitoria as a teacher (...) will be exposed. His teaching abilities will be taken into account, but also his capacity to involve other colleagues in a joint search for truth will be described. Finally, the renewing character of Vitoria’s Thomism in the framework of philosophy as a great ally of scientific dialogue will be considered. (shrink)

The Dominican Pedro de Ledesma was educated at the University of Salamanca, where he became a professor. He is considered one of the last members of the famous School of Salamanca. This work studies his contribution to economic thought as regards tax doctrine. In Ledesma’s thought almost a century of moral reflections developed by the Salamanca professors (such as Vitoria, Azpilcueta, Soto…) crystallises, who were echoed by other Spanish authors. Ledesma recapitulates this reflection by providing his personal point of (...) view on the subject in a historical period in which the Spanish influence had reached global dimensions. (shrink)

In 1601 certain Jesuits in Alcalá de Henares defended the following thesis: "It is not by faith that we confess that this man, for example, Clement VIII, is Pope." During 1602 this fact became known in Rome and the Pope urged that the Spanish Inquisition imprison these Jesuits. To defend themselves, they alleged that the thesis was not unusual among scholars, indicating the names of several authors who defended it, among them, the eminent professor emeritus of Salamanca Domingo Báñez. (...) However, he convened an academic act in Valladolid on July 2, 1602 to show that his position was not such. Shortly thereafter, the Jesuits held another event in the same town to challenge the thesis of their coreligionists, underscoring their opposition even more than Báñez. New, partly unknown material on the subject is copied in these pages: the letters from the nuncio to the head of the Vatican State, with annotations written by the Pope, and a letter from the King of Spain to his ambassador; the complete text of the theses defended by Báñez and by the Jesuits in July 1602, as well as two unpublished letters from Báñez on the occasion of his act, one to the master general of his Order and the other to the Pope. (shrink)

Proceeding of the first public presentation of the work of the mexican logical group "Deduktor" under the direction of the mexican professor Hugo Padilla Chacón. This work was in fact the first whole and stand alone arithmetization of logics.

Proceeding of the work in trivalent logic developped under the direction of the professor Hugo Padilla Chacón at the 90's at the National Autonome University of México. Program in RLisp.

Academic Placement Data and Analysis (APDA), a project funded by the American Philosophical Association (APA) and headed by Carolyn Dicey Jennings (UC Merced), aims “to make information on academic job placement useful to prospective graduate students in philosophy.” The project has just been updated to include new data, which Professor Jennings describes in a post at New APPS. She also announces a new interactive data tool with which one can sift through and sort information. (from Daily Nous).

"Thinking a university for the 21st century" is the name of the research group at San Dámaso University (Madrid) that promotes this book. Over the last few years this group has held regular meetings to discuss the raison d'être of the university: what is a university?, what is its purpose?, what episodes of academic life have been most inspiring in the past?, which difficulties does university life face today?, what will be the future of the university?, what do we want (...) it to become? These are some of the questions that have been asked over the years and which now take the form of writing. Several of the contributions contained in this book have a certain historical orientation: the authors examine the highlights of the search for and communication of knowledge, from antiquity to the present day. Great figures such as Socrates, Thomas Aquinas, Vitoria, Newman, Ratzinger and Ortega are featured in these pages. However, this is not a history of university life in the past, but a reflection on the future. The examples of the past set us on the road to the university of the future. Such is the intention of this group of researchers, linked to different Spanish universities and also experienced in other institutions outside our country: they have gathered here to discuss the university we want to build in our present, with an eye to the future. (shrink)

Proceeding on the Automatic Deduction System developped at the Philosophy Faculty of the UNAM at Mexico City. (Deduktor Mexican Group of Logics work under the direction of the professor Hugo Padilla Chacón). Conference presented at the mexican City of Guadalajara at the Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco, by invitation of the latinoamerican association of philosophy SOPHIA. Early stage of the deductional systems at 2-valued logic. This work embodies the implementation of the first whole and standalone arithmetization of bivalent Logic, the (...) theoretical framework of Hugo Padilla Chacón published in 1984. (shrink)

In the first two sections of this reply article, I provide a brief introduction to the topic of ineffability and a summary of Ineffability and Religious Experience. This is followed, in section 3, by some reflections in reply to the response articles by Professors Metz and Cooper. Section 4 presents some concluding remarks on the future of philosophy of religion in the light of the most recent philosophical work on ineffability.

Eu estou muito acostumado com livros estranhos e pessoas especiais, mas Hawkins se destaca devido ao seu uso de uma técnica simples para testar a tensão muscular como uma chave para a "verdade" de qualquer tipo de declaração qualquer-i. e., não apenas para se a pessoa que está sendo testada acredita , mas se é realmente verdade! O que é sabido é que os povos mostrarão respostas fisiológicas e psicológicas automáticas, inconscientes a apenas sobre qualquer coisa que são expor a (...) — imagens, sons, toque, odores, idéias, povos. Assim, a leitura muscular para descobrir seus verdadeiros sentimentos não é radical em tudo, ao contrário de usá-lo como uma vara radiestesia (mais leitura muscular) para fazer "ciência paranormal". Hawkins descreve o uso de diminuir a tensão nos músculos de um braço em resposta a aumentos na carga cognitiva, causando assim o braço a cair em resposta à pressão constante dos dedos de alguém. Ele parece não saber que há um longo e vasto esforço de pesquisa em curso em psicologia social referido por frases como ' cognição implícita ', ' automaticidade ' etc., e que seu uso de ' cinesiologia ' é uma pequena seção. Além do tônus muscular (pouco utilizado), os psicólogos sociais medem o EEG, a resposta da pele Galvanica e, mais freqüentemente, as respostas verbais a palavras, frases, imagens ou situações, às vezes, variando de segundos a meses após o estímulo. Muitos, como Bargh e Wegner, levam os resultados para significar que somos autômatos que aprendem e agem em grande parte sem a consciência via S1 (sistema automatizado 1) e muitos outros, como Kihlstrom e Shanks dizem que estes estudos são faladas e somos criaturas de S2 (sistema deliberativo 2). Embora Hawkins parece não ter idéia, como em outras áreas da psicologia descritiva do pensamento de ordem superior, a situação sobre "automaticidade" ainda é tão caótica como era quando Wittgenstein descreveu as razões para a esterilidade e esterilidade de psicologia nos anos 30. No entanto, este livro é uma leitura fácil e alguns terapeutas e professores espirituais podem encontrá-lo de uso. Aqueles que desejam um quadro até à data detalhado para o comportamento humano da opinião moderna dos dois sistemas consultar meu livros Falando Macacos 3ª Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica da Filosofia, Psicologia, Mente e Linguagem em Ludwig Wittgenstein e John Searle 2a Ed (2019), Suicídio Pela Democracia,4aEd(2019), Entendendo as Conexões entre Ciência, Filosofia, Psicologia, Religião, Política e Economia Artigos e Análises 2006-2019 (2019), Ilusões Utópicas Suicidas no 21St século 5a Ed (2019), A Estrutura Lógica do Comportamento Humano (2019), e A Estrutura Lógica da Consciência (2019) y outras. (shrink)

There is fast-growing awareness of the role atmospheres play in architecture. Of equal interest to contemporary architectural practice as it is to aesthetic theory, this 'atmospheric turn' owes much to the work of the German philosopher Gernot Böhme. Atmospheric Architectures: The Aesthetics of Felt Spaces brings together Böhme's most seminal writings on the subject, through chapters selected from his classic books and articles, many of which have hitherto only been available in German. This is the only translated version authorised by (...) Böhme himself, and is the first coherent collection deploying a consistent terminology. It is a work which will provide rich references and a theoretical framework for ongoing discussions about atmospheres and their relations to architectural and urban spaces. Combining philosophy with architecture, design, landscape design, scenography, music, art criticism, and visual arts, the essays together provide a key to the concepts that motivate the work of some of the best contemporary architects, artists, and theorists: from Peter Zumthor, Herzog & de Meuron and Juhani Pallasmaa to Olafur Eliasson and James Turrell. With a foreword by Professor Mark Dorrian and an afterword by Professor David Leatherbarrow,, the volume also includes a general introduction to the topic, including coverage of it history, development, areas of application and conceptual apparatus. (shrink)

In the article “A Tension in the Strong Program: The Relation between the Rational and the Social,” I stated that David Bloor, citing the principle of symmetry, expresses that rational and irrational beliefs must be explained in the same way, that is, by causes of the same kind. On this wise, he rejects the methodology of traditional philosophers and historians of science as asymmetrical; since they explain evidence-based beliefs with epistemic reasons and unreasonable beliefs—e.g. beliefs based on indoctrination, propaganda, (...) ideology, and superstition—citing social factors. On the other hand, Bloor argues that the rational is made entirely of the social and, therefore, is itself a kind of social factor. But by admitting this maximum conception of social constructivism, Bloor can no longer consider the rational and the social as two separate identities and accuse the traditional view of asymmetry. However, Professor Finn Collin says that Bloor’s critique of the traditional model never commits him to the duality of the rational and the social. (shrink)

In "Convention and Dickie's Institutional Theory" (British Journal of Aesthetics 1980), Catherine Lord maintains the following thesis: (L) If a work of art is defined as institutional and conventional, then the definition precludes the freedom and creativity associated with art. Lord also maintains that the antecedent of this conditional is false. In this note, I argue that (i) certain confusions and assumptions prevent Lord from showing the antecedent is false, and (ii) even if the antecedent is assumed to be true, (...) there are counterexamples to the entire conditional. With regard to (ii), I will suggest that conventionality is necessary for creativity. [This was my first published paper, written as a graduate student, taken from my University of Illinois at Chicago dissertation written with Professor George Dickie on the topic of conventions, utilitizing David Lewis' definition of "convention."]. (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)

"Understanding Scientific Progress constitutes a potentially enormous and revolutionary advancement in philosophy of science. It deserves to be read and studied by everyone with any interest in or connection with physics or the theory of science. Maxwell cites the work of Hume, Kant, J.S. Mill, Ludwig Bolzmann, Pierre Duhem, Einstein, Henri Poincaré, C.S. Peirce, Whitehead, Russell, Carnap, A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Nelson Goodman, Bas van Fraassen, and numerous others. He lauds Popper for advancing beyond (...) verificationism and Hume’s problem of induction, but faults both Kuhn and Popper for being unable to show that and how their work could lead nearer to the truth." —Dr. LLOYD EBY teaches philosophy at The George Washington University and The Catholic University of America, in Washington, DC "Maxwell's aim-oriented empiricism is in my opinion a very significant contribution to the philosophy of science. I hope that it will be widely discussed and debated." – ALAN SOKAL, Professor of Physics, New York University "Maxwell takes up the philosophical challenge of how natural science makes progress and provides a superb treatment of the problem in terms of the contrast between traditional conceptions and his own scientifically-informed theory—aim-oriented empiricism. This clear and rigorously-argued work deserves the attention of scientists and philosophers alike, especially those who believe that it is the accumulation of knowledge and technology that answers the question."—LEEMON McHENRY, California State University, Northridge "Maxwell has distilled the finest essence of the scientific enterprise. Science is about making the world a better place. Sometimes science loses its way. The future depends on scientists doing the right things for the right reasons. Maxwell's Aim-Oriented Empiricism is a map to put science back on the right track."—TIMOTHY McGETTIGAN, Professor of Sociology, Colorado State University - Pueblo "Maxwell has a great deal to offer with these important ideas, and deserves to be much more widely recognised than he is. Readers with a background in philosophy of science will appreciate the rigour and thoroughness of his argument, while more general readers will find his aim-oriented rationality a promising way forward in terms of a future sustainable and wise social order."—David Lorimer, Paradigm Explorer, 2017/2 "This is a book about the very core problems of the philosophy of science. The idea of replacing Standard Empiricism with Aim-Oriented Empiricism is understood by Maxwell as the key to the solution of these central problems. Maxwell handles his main tool masterfully, producing a fascinating and important reading to his colleagues in the field. However, Nicholas Maxwell is much more than just a philosopher of science. In the closing part of the book he lets the reader know about his deep concern and possible solutions of the biggest problems humanity is facing."—Professor PEETER MŰŰREPP, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia “For many years, Maxwell has been arguing that fundamental philosophical problems about scientific progress, especially the problem of induction, cannot be solved granted standard empiricism (SE), a doctrine which, he thinks, most scientists and philosophers of science take for granted. A key tenet of SE is that no permanent thesis about the world can be accepted as a part of scientific knowledge independent of evidence. For a number of reasons, Maxwell argues, we need to adopt a rather different conception of science which he calls aim-oriented empiricism (AOE). This holds that we need to construe physics as accepting, as a part of theoretical scientific knowledge, a hierarchy of metaphysical theses about the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe, which become increasingly insubstantial as we go up the hierarchy. In his book “Understanding Scientific Progress: Aim-Oriented Empiricism”, Maxwell gives a concise and excellent illustration of this view and the arguments supporting it… Maxwell’s book is a potentially important contribution to our understanding of scientific progress and philosophy of science more generally. Maybe it is the time for scientists and philosophers to acknowledge that science has to make metaphysical assumptions concerning the knowability and comprehensibility of the universe. Fundamental philosophical problems about scientific progress, which cannot be solved granted SE, may be solved granted AOE.” Professor SHAN GAO, Shanxi University, China . (shrink)

Cartesian arguments for global skepticism about the external world start from the premise that we cannot know that we are not in a Cartesian scenario such as an evil-demon scenario, and infer that because most of our empirical beliefs are false in such a scenario, these beliefs do not constitute knowledge. Veridicalist responses to global skepticism respond that arguments fail because in Cartesian scenarios, many or most of our empirical beliefs are true. Some veridicalist responses have been motivated using verificationism, (...) externalism, and coherentism. I argue that a more powerful veridicalist response to global skepticism can be motivated by structuralism, on which physical entities are understood as those that play a certain structural role. I develop the structuralist response and address objections. (shrink)

Does the capacity to think require the capacity to sense? A lively debate on this topic runs throughout the history of philosophy and now animates discussions of artificial intelligence. Many have argued that AI systems such as large language models cannot think and understand if they lack sensory grounding. I argue that thought does not require sensory grounding: there can be pure thinkers who can think without any sensory capacities. As a result, the absence of sensory grounding does not entail (...) that large language models cannot think or understand. I also consider to what extent quasi-sensory grounding can at least boost the performance of a language model. (shrink)

MARGARET LYNN SCHABAS (Toronto, 1954) is professor of philosophy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and served as the head of the Philosophy Department from 2004-2009. She has held professoriate positions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and at York University, and has also taught as a visiting professor at Michigan State University, University of Colorado-Boulder, Harvard, CalTech, the Sorbonne, and the École Normale de Cachan. As the recipient of several fellowships, she has enjoyed visiting terms at (...) Stanford, Duke, MIT, Cambridge, the LSE, and the MPI-Berlin. In addition to her doctorate in the history and philosophy of science and technology (Toronto 1983), she holds a bachelor of science in music (oboe) and the philosophy of science (Indiana 1976), a master’s degree in the history and philosophy of science (Indiana 1977), and a master’s degree in economics (Michigan1985). -/- She has published four books and over forty articles or book chapters in science studies. Some of the journals in which her articles can be found are Isis, Monist, History of Political Economy, Public Affairs Quarterly, Daedaelus, Journal of Economic Perspectives, and Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. Her first book, A world ruled by number (1990) examines the emergence of mathematical economics in the second half of the nineteenth century. Her second book, The natural origins of economics (2005), traces the transformation of economics from a natural to a social science. She also has two co-edited collections, Oeconomies in the age of Newton (2003), with Neil De Marchi, and David Hume’s political economy (2008), with Carl Wennerlind. She is currently writing a monograph on Hume’s economics, as well as articles on the history and philosophy of bioeconomics. She is currently president of the History of Economics Society. -/- EJPE interviewed Margaret Schabas at the University of British Columbia in March 2013. In this interview, she recounts her earliest foray into the history and philosophy of economics, the conceptual trade between economics and natural science, and her most recent undertaking: the history and philosophy of bioeconomics. (shrink)

We present data and argument to show that in Tetris - a real-time interactive video game - certain cognitive and perceptual problems are more quickly, easily, and reliably solved by performing actions in the world rather than by performing computational actions in the head alone. We have found that some translations and rotations are best understood as using the world to improve cognition. These actions are not used to implement a plan, or to implement a reaction; they are used to (...) change the world in order to simplify the problem-solving task. Thus, we distinguish pragmatic actions ñ actions performed to bring one physically closer to a goal - from epistemic actions - actions performed to uncover information that is hidden or hard to compute mentally. To illustrate the need for epistemic actions, we first develop a standard information-processing model of Tetris-cognition, and show that it cannot explain performance data from human players of the game - even when we relax the assumption of fully sequential processing. Standard models disregard many actions taken by players because they appear unmotivated or superfluous. However, we describe many such actions that are actually taken by players that are far from superfluous, and that play valuable roles in improving human performance. We argue that traditional accounts are limited because they regard action as having a single function: to change the world. By recognizing a second function of action - an epistemic function - we can explain many of the actions that a traditional model cannot. Although, our argument is supported by numerous examples specifically from Tetris, we outline how the one category of epistemic action can be incorporated into theories of action more generally. (shrink)

Many philosophers have been attracted to a restricted version of the principle of indifference in the case of self-locating belief. Roughly speaking, this principle states that, within any given possible world, one should be indifferent between different hypotheses concerning who one is within that possible world, so long as those hypotheses are compatible with one’s evidence. My first goal is to defend a more precise version of this principle. After responding to several existing criticisms of such a principle, I argue (...) that existing formulations of the principle are crucially ambiguous, and I go on to defend a particular disambiguation of the principle. According to the disambiguation I defend, how we should apply this restricted principle of indifference sensitively depends on our background metaphysical beliefs. My second goal is to apply this disambiguated principle to classical skeptical problems in epistemology. In particular, I argue that Eternalism threatens to lead us to external world skepticism, and Modal Realism threatens to lead us to inductive skepticism. (shrink)

2021 marks Dylan's 80th birthday and his 60th year in the music world. It invites us to look back on his career and the multitudes that it contains. Is he a song and dance man? A political hero? A protest singer? A self-portrait artist who has yet to paint his masterpiece? Is he Shakespeare in the alley? The greatest living exponent of American music? An ironsmith? Internet radio DJ? Poet (who knows it)? Is he a spiritual and religious parking meter? (...) Judas? The voice of a generation or a false prophet, jokerman, and thief? Dylan is all these and none. The essays in this book explore the Nobel laureate’s masks, collectively reflecting upon their meaning through time, change, movement, and age. They are written by wonderful and diverse set of contributors, all here for his 80th birthday bash: celebrated Dylanologists like Michael Gray and Laura Tenschert; recording artists such as Robyn Hitchcock, Barb Jungr, Amy Rigby, and Emma Swift; and 'the professors’ who all like his looks: David Boucher, Anne Margaret Daniel, Ray Monk, Galen Strawson, and more. Read it on your toaster! (shrink)

This is a commentary on Adrian Heathcote’s interesting paper ‘Hume’s Master Argument’. Heathcote contends that No-Ought-From-Is is primarily a logical thesis, a ban on Is/Ought inferences which Hume derives from the logic of Ockham. NOFI is thus a variation on what Heathcote calls ‘Hume’s Master Argument’, which he also deploys to prove that conclusions about the future (and therefore a-temporal generalizations) cannot be derived by reason from premises about the past, and that conclusions about external objects or other minds cannot (...) be derived by reason from premises about impressions. Heathcote raises an important question. Having (apparently) argued that our inductive inferences are not justified by reason, Hume puts them down to Custom, and seems to suggest that we OUGHT to indulge this propensity but NOt the superstitious propensities that lead to religious belief. (Query: Why is it right to indulge one non-rational propensity but not the others?) Finally Heathcote argues that just as there are valid, but not formally valid, arguments taking us from claims about inferential relations to claims about what we ought to believe, so there may be valid, but not formally valid, arguments taking us from factual claims about some situation to claims about what we ought to do. -/- I reply that Hume does indeed have a Master Argument and that it does rely on logical principles but not on the logic of Ockham which had been largely forgotten by Hume’s day. Instead Hume relies on the idea widely believed in the 18th Century and taught to Hume at Edinburgh by his logic Professor Colin Drummond, that in a logically valid argument the conclusion is contained in the premises. I reconstruct Hume’s Master Argument using this principle. I draw a careful distinction between two theses: 1) that we cannot get from non-moral premises to moral conclusions with the aid of logic alone and 2) that we cannot get from non-moral premises to moral conclusions with aid of analytic bridge principles. Hume believed the first but not the second. What then is the role of NOFI in the larger argument of the Treatise? To show that the truths of ethics cannot be derived via logic from self-evident truths of some other kind and thus that they are not demonstrable. How can we make sense of Hume’s apparent belief that it is sometimes right to transcend reason and sometimes not? In the case of Custom, we live in a world governed by causal regularities, and, in such a world, induction is in fact a fairly reliable belief-forming mechanism. Thus a suitably qualified spectator (one aware of the kind of world we live in) would tend to approve of indulging it, even if it cannot be justified by reason. However, our superstitious propensities are (and can be known to be) unreliable, since they produce different and inconsistent results in different people. Thus it is it is wrong (something a suitably qualified spectator would disapprove of) to indulge the faculty of Superstition. I also take issue with Heathcote’s penchant for valid, but not formally valid, inferences. I supply the missing premises for Heathcote’s Is/Ought inferences and argue that they are either not true or not necessary. (shrink)

"Over three years of study and fellowship, sixteen Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars sought to answer one question: “Do our three scriptures unite or divide us?” They offer their answers in this book: sixteen essays on how certain ways of reading scripture may draw us apart and other ways may draw us, together, into the source that each tradition calls peace. Reading scriptural sources in the classical and medieval traditions, the authors examine how each tradition addresses the “other” within its (...) tradition and without, how all three traditions attend to poverty as a societal and spiritual condition, and what it means to read scripture while facing the challenges of modernity. Ochs and Johnson have assembled a unique approach to inter-religious scholarship and a rare look at scriptural study as a pathway to peace. “Scriptural reasoning, the growing practice of Jews, Christians, and Muslims reading their scriptures together, makes good academic and common sense in a time of crisis. This ground-breaking book, the outcome of an imaginative 3-year experiment by the Princeton Center of Theological Inquiry, shows scholars and thinkers of the Abrahamic traditions going deeper into the traditions and into their contemporary situation. The result is something new, wise, and relevant… full of promise for the future. Where else can one find testimonies to Jews, Christians, and Muslims coming together not only in study, thinking, and wisdom-seeking but also in play, joy, and friendship?”--David F. Ford, Regius Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge and Director, Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme". (shrink)

continent. 1.1 : 3-13. / 0/ – Introduction I want to propose, as a trajectory into the philosophically weird, an absurd theoretical claim and pursue it, or perhaps more accurately, construct it as I point to it, collecting the ground work behind me like the Perpetual Train from China Mieville's Iron Council which puts down track as it moves reclaiming it along the way. The strange trajectory is the following: Kant's critical philosophy and much of continental philosophy which has followed, (...) has been a defense against horror and madness. Kant's prohibition on speculative metaphysics such as dogmatic metaphysics and transcendental realism, on thinking beyond the imposition of transcendental and moral constraints, has been challenged by numerous figures proceeding him. One of the more interesting critiques of Kant comes from the mad black Deleuzianism of Nick Land stating, “Kant’s critical philosophy is the most elaborate fit of panic in the history of the Earth.” And while Alain Badiou would certainly be opposed to the libidinal investments of Land's Deleuzo-Guattarian thought, he is likewise critical of Kant's normative thought-bureaucracies: Kant is the one author for whom I cannot feel any kinship. Everything in him exasperates me, above all his legalism—always asking Quid Juris? Or ‘Haven’t you crossed the limit?’—combined, as in today’s United States, with a religiosity that is all the more dismal in that it is both omnipresent and vague. The critical machinery he set up has enduringly poisoned philosophy, while giving great succour to the academy, which loves nothing more than to rap the knuckles of the overambitious [….] That is how I understand the truth of Monique David-Menard’s reflections on the properly psychotic origins of Kantianism. I am persuaded that the whole of the critical enterprise is set up to to shield against the tempting symptom represented by the seer Swedenborg, or against ‘diseases of the head’, as Kant puts it. An entire nexus of the limits of reason and philosophy are set up here, namely that the critical philosophy not only defends thought from madness, philosophy from madness, and philosophy from itself, but that philosophy following the advent of the critical enterprise philosophy becomes auto-vampiric; feeding on itself to support the academy. Following Francois Laruelle's non-philosophical indictment of philosophy, we could go one step further and say that philosophy operates on the material of what is philosophizable and not the material of the external world. [1] Beyond this, the Kantian scheme of nestling human thinking between our limited empirical powers and transcendental guarantees of categorical coherence, forms of thinking which stretch beyond either appear illegitimate, thereby liquefying both pre-critical metaphysics and the ravings of the mad in the same critical acid. In rejecting the Kantian apparatus we are left with two entities – an unsure relation of thought to reality where thought is susceptible to internal and external breakdown and a reality with an uncertain sense of stability. These two strands will be pursued, against the sane-seal of post-Kantian philosophy by engaging the work of weird fiction authors H.P. Lovecraft and Thomas Ligotti. The absolute inhumanism of the formers universe will be used to describe a Shoggothic Materialism while the dream worlds of the latter will articulate the mad speculation of a Ventriloquil Idealism. But first we must address the relation of philosophy to madness as well as philosophy to weird fiction. /1/ – Philosophy and Madness There is nothing that the madness of men invents which is not either nature made manifest or nature restored. Michel Foucault. Madness and Civilization. The moment I doubt whether an event that I recall actually took place, I bring the suspicion of madness upon myself: unless I am uncertain as to whether it was not a mere dream. Arthur Schopenhauer. The World as Will and Idea, Vol. 3. Madness is commonly thought of as moving through several well known cultural-historical shifts from madness as a demonic or otherwise theological force, to rationalization, to medicalization psychiatric and otherwise. Foucault's Madness and Civilization is well known for orientating madness as a form of exclusionary social control which operated by demarcating madness from reason. Yet Foucault points to the possibility of madness as the necessity of nature at least prior to the crushing weight of the church. Kant’s philosophy as a response to madness is grounded by his humanizing of madness itself. As Adrian Johnston points out in the early pages of Time Driven pre-Kantian madness meant humans were seized by demonic or angelic forces whereas Kantian madness became one of being too human. Madness becomes internalized, the external demonic forces become flaws of the individual mind. Foucault argues that, while madness is de-demonized it is also dehumanized during the Renaissance, as madmen become creatures neither diabolic nor totally human reduced to the zero degree of humanity. It is immediately clear why for Kant, speculative metaphysics must be curbed – with the problem of internal madness and without the external safeguards of transcendental conditions, there is nothing to formally separate the speculative capacities for metaphysical diagnosis from the mad ramblings of the insane mind – both equally fall outside the realm of practicality and quotidian experience. David-Menard's work is particularly useful in diagnosing the relation of thought and madness in Kant's texts. David-Menard argues that in Kant's relatively unknown “An Essay on the Maladies of the Mind” as well as his later discussion of the Seer of Swedenborg, that Kant formulates madness primarily in terms of sensory upheaval or other hallucinatory theaters. She writes: “madness is an organization of thought. It is made possible by the ambiguity of the normal relation between the imaginary and the perceived, whether this pertains to the order of sensation or to the relations between our ideas” Kant's fascination with the Seer forces Kant between the pincers of “aesthetic reconciliation” – namely melancholic withdrawal – and “a philosophical invention” – namely the critical project. Deleuze and Guattari's schizoanalysis is a combination and reversal of Kant's split, where an aesthetic over engagement with the world entails prolific conceptual invention. Their embrace of madness, however, is of course itself conceptual despite all their rhizomatic maneuvers. Though they move with the energy of madness, Deleuze and Guattari save the capacity of thought from the fangs of insanity by imbuing materiality itself with the capacity for thought. Or, as Ray Brassier puts it, “Deleuze insists, it is necessary to absolutize the immanence of this world in such a way as to dissolve the transcendent disjunction between things as we know them and as they are in themselves”. That is, whereas Kant relied on the faculty of judgment to divide representation from objectivity Deleuze attempts to flatten the whole economy beneath the juggernaut of ontological univocity. Speculation, as a particularly useful form of madness, might fall close to Deleuze and Guattari’s shaping of philosophy into a concept producing machine but is different in that it is potentially self destructive – less reliant on the stability of its own concepts and more adherent to exposing a particular horrifying swath of reality. Speculative madness is always a potential disaster in that it acknowledges little more than its own speculative power with the hope that the gibbering of at least a handful of hysterical brains will be useful. Pre-critical metaphysics amounts to madness, though this may be because the world itself is mad while new attempts at speculative metaphysics, at post-Kantian pre-critical metaphysics, are well aware of our own madness. Without the sobriety of the principle of sufficient reason we have a world of neon madness: “we would have to conceive what our life would be if all the movements of the earth, all the noises of the earth, all the smells, the tastes, all the light – of the earth and elsewhere, came to us in a moment, in an instant – like an atrocious screaming tumult of things”. Speculative thought may be participatory in the screaming tumult of the world or, worse yet, may produce its spectral double. Against theology or reason or simply commonsense, the speculative becomes heretical. Speculation, as the cognitive extension of the horrorific sublime should be met with melancholic detachment. Whereas Kant's theoretical invention, or productivity of thought, is self -sabotaging, since the advent of the critical project is a productivity of thought which then delimits the engine of thought at large either in dogmatic gestures or non-systematizable empirical wondrousness. The former is celebrated by the fiction of Thomas Ligotti whereas the latter is espoused by the tales of H.P. Lovecraft. /2/ – Weird Fiction and Philosophy. Supernatural horror, in all its eerie constructions, enables a reader to taste treats inconsistent with his personal welfare. Thomas Ligotti Songs of a Dead Dreamer. I choose weird stories because they suit my inclination best—one of my strongest and most persistent wishes being to achieve,momentarily, the illusion of some strange suspension or violation of the galling limitations of time, space, and natural law which forever imprison us and frustrate our curiosity about the infinite cosmic spaces beyond the radius of our sight and analysis H.P. Lovecraft. “Notes on Writing Weird Fiction” Lovecraft states that his creation of a story is to suspend natural law yet, at the same time, he indexes the tenuousness of such laws, suggesting the vast possibilities of the cosmic. The tension that Lovecraft sets up between his own fictions and the universe or nature is reproduced within his fictions in the common theme of the unreliable narrator; unreliable precisely because they are either mad or what they have witnessed questions the bounds of material reality. In “The Call of Cthulhu” Lovecraft writes: The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. Despite Lovecraft's invocations of illusion, he is not claiming that his fantastic creations such as the Old Ones are supernatural but, following Joshi, are only ever supernormal. One can immediately see that instead of nullifying realism Lovecraft in fact opens up the real to an unbearable degree. In various letters and non-fictional statements Lovecraft espoused strictly materialist tenets, ones which he borrowed from Hugh Elliot namely the uniformity of law, the denial of teleology and the denial of non-material existence. Lovecraft seeks to explore the possibilities of such a universe by piling horror upon horror until the fragile brain which attempts to grasp it fractures. This may be why philosophy has largely ignored weird fiction – while Deleuze and Guattari mark the turn towards weird fiction and Lovecraft in particular, with the precursors to speculative realism as well as contemporary related thinkers have begun to view Lovecraft as making philosophical contributions. Lovecraft's own relation to philosophy is largely critical while celebrating Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. This relationship of Lovecraft to philosophy and philosophy to Lovecraft is coupled with Lovecraft's habit of mercilessly destroying the philosopher and the figure of the academic more generally in his work, a destruction which is both an epistemological destruction and an ontological destruction. Thomas Ligotti's weird fiction which he has designated as a kind of “confrontational escapism” might be best described in the following quote from one of his shortstories, “The human phenomenon is but the sum of densely coiled layers of illusion each of which winds itself on the supreme insanity. That there are persons of any kind when all there can be is mindless mirrors laughing and screaming as they parade about in an endless dream”. Whereas Lovecraft's weirdness draws predominantly from the abyssal depths of the uncharted universe, Ligotti's existential horror focuses on the awful proliferation of meaningless surfaces that is, the banal and every day function of representation. In an interview, Ligotti states: We don't even know what the world is like except through our sense organs, which are provably inadequate. It's no less the case with our brains. Our whole lives are motored along by forces we cannot know and perceptions that are faulty. We sometimes hear people say that they're not feeling themselves. Well, who or what do they feel like then? This is not to say that Ligotti sees nothing beneath the surface but that there is only darkness or blackness behind it, whether that surface is on the cosmological level or the personal. By addressing the implicit and explicit philosophical issues in Ligotti's work we will see that his nightmarish take on reality is a form of malevolent idealism, an idealism which is grounded in a real, albeit dark and obscure materiality. If Ligotti's horrors ultimately circle around mad perceptions which degrade the subject, it takes aim at the vast majority of the focus of continental philosophy. While Lovecraft's acidic materialism clearly assaults any romantic concept of being from the outside, Ligotti attacks consciousness from the inside: Just a little doubt slipped into the mind, a little trickle of suspicion in the bloodstream, and all those eyes of ours, one by one, open up to the world and see its horror [...] Not even the solar brilliance of a summer day will harbor you from horror. For horror eats the light and digests it into darkness. Clearly, the weird fiction of Lovecraft and Ligotti amount to a anti-anthrocentric onslaught against the ramparts of correlationist continental philosophy. /3/ – Shoggothic Materialism or the Formless Formless protoplasm able to mock and reflect all forms and organs and processes—viscous agglutinations of bubbling cells—rubbery fifteen-foot spheroids infinitely plastic and ductile—slaves of suggestion, builders of cities—more and more sullen, more and more intelligent, more and more amphibious, more and more imitative—Great God! What madness made even those blasphemous Old Ones willing to use and to carve such things? H.P. Lovecraft. “At the Mountains of Madness” On the other hand, affirming that the universe resembles nothing and is only formless amounts to saying that the universe is something like a spider or spit. Georges Bataille. “Formless”. The Shoggoths feature most prominently in H.P. Lovecraft's shortstory “At the Mountains of Madness” where they are described in the following manner: It was a terrible, indescribable thing vaster than any subway train – a shapeless congeries of protoplasmic bubbles, faintly self -luminous, and with myriads of temporary eyes forming and un-forming as pustules of greenish light all over the tunnel-filling front that bore down upon us, crushing the frantic penguins and slithering over the glistening floor that it and its kind had swept so evilly free of all litter. The term is a litmus test for materialism itself as the Shoggoth is an amorphous creature. The Shoggoths were living digging machines bio engineered by the Elder Things, and their protoplasmic bodies being formed into various tools by their hypnotic powers. The Shoggoths eventually became self aware and rose up against their masters in an ultimately failed rebellion. After the Elder Ones retreated into the oceans leaving the Shoggoths to roam the frozen wastes of the Antarctic. The onto-genesis of the Shoggoths and their gross materiality, index the horrifyingly deep time of the earth a concept near and dear to Lovecraft's formulation of horror as well as the fear of intelligences far beyond, and far before, the ascent of humankind on earth and elsewhere. The sickly amorphous nature of the Shoggoths invade materialism at large, where while materiality is unmistakably real ie not discursive, psychological, or otherwise overly subjectivist, it questions the relation of materialism to life. As Eugene Thacker writes: The Shoggoths or Elder Things do not even share the same reality with the human beings who encounter them—and yet this encounter takes place, though in a strange no-place that is neither quite that of the phenomenal world of the human subject or the noumenal world of an external reality. Amorphous yet definitively material beings are a constant in Lovecraft's tales. In his tale “The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadatth” Lovecraft describes Azathoth as, “that shocking final peril which gibbers unmentionably outside the ordered universe,” that, “last amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blashphemes and bubbles at the centre of all infinity,” who, “gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time”. Azathoth's name may have multiple origins but the most striking is the alchemy term azoth which is both a cohesive agent and a acidic creation pointing back to the generative and the decayed. The indistinction of generation and degradation materially mirrors the blur between the natural and the unnatural as well as life and non-life. Lovecraft speaks of the tension between the natural and the unnatural is his short story “The Unnameable.” He writes, “if the psychic emanations of human creatures be grotesque distortions, what coherent representation could express or portray so gibbous and infamous a nebulousity as the spectre of a malign, chaotic perversion, itself a morbid blasphemy against Nature?”. Lovecraft explores exactly the tension outlined at the beginning of this chapter, between life and thought. At the end of his short tale Lovecraft compounds the problem as the unnameable is described as “a gelatin—a slime—yet it had shapes, a thousand shapes of horror beyond all memory”. Deleuze suggests that becoming-animal is operative throughout Lovecraft's work, where narrators feel themselves reeling at their becoming non-human or of being the anomalous or of becoming atomized. Following Eugene Thacker however, it may be far more accurate to say that Lovecraft's tales exhibit not a becoming-animal but a becoming-creature. Where the monstrous breaks the purportedly fixed laws of nature, the creature is far more ontologically ambiguous. The nameless thing is an altogether different horizon for thought. The creature is either less than animal or more than animal – its becoming is too strange for animal categories and indexes the slow march of thought towards the bizarre. This strangeness is, as aways, some indefinite swirling in the category of immanence and becoming. Bataille begins “The Labyrinth” with the assertion that being, to continue to be, is becoming. More becoming means more being hence the assertion that Bataille's barking dog is more than the sponge. This would mean that the Shoggotth is altogether too much being, too much material in the materialism. Bataille suggests that there is an immanence between the eater and the eaten, across the species and never within them. That is, despite the chaotic storm of immanence there must remain some capacity to distinguish the gradients of becoming without reliance upon, or at least total dependence upon, the powers of intellection to parse the universe into recognizable bits, properly digestible factoids. That is, if we undo Deleuze's aforementioned valorization of sense which, for his variation of materialism, performed the work of the transcendental, but refuse to reinstate Kant's transcendental disjunction between thing and appearance, then it must be a quality of becoming-as-being itself which can account for the discernible nature of things by sense. In an interview with Peter Gratton, Jane Bennett formulates the problem thusly: What is this strange systematicity proper to a world of Becoming? What, for example, initiates this congealing that will undo itself? Is it possible to identify phases within this formativity, plateaus of differentiation? If so, do the phases/plateaus follow a temporal sequence? Or, does the process of formation inside Becoming require us to theorize a non-chronological kind of time? I think that your student’s question: “How can we account for something like iterable structures in an assemblage theory?” is exactly the right question. Philosophy has erred too far on the side of the subject in the subject-object relation and has furthermore, lost the very weirdness of the non-human. Beyond this, the madness of thought need not override. /4/ - Ventriloquial Idealism or the Externality of Thought My aim is the opposite of Lovecraft's. He had an appreciation for natural scenery on earth and wanted to reach beyond the visible in the universe. I have no appreciation for natural scenery and want the objective universe to be a reflection of a character. Thomas Ligotti. “Devotees of Decay and Desolation.” Unless life is a dream, nothing makes sense. For as a reality, it is a rank failure [….] Horror is more real than we are. Thomas Ligotti. “Professor Nobody's Little Lectures on Supernatural Horror”. Thomas Ligotti's tales are rife with mannequins, puppets, and other brainless entities which of replace the valorized subject of philosophy – that of the free thinking human being. His tales such as “The Dream of the Manikin” aim to destroy the rootedness of consciousness. James Trafford has connected the anti-egoism of Ligotti to Thomas Metzinger – where the self is at best an illusion and we plead desperately for someone else to acknowledge that we are real. Trafford has stated it thus, “Life is played out as an inescapable puppet show, an endless dream in which the puppets are generally unaware that they are trapped within a mesmeric dance of whose mechanisms they know nothing and over which they have no control”. An absolute materialism, for Ligotti, implies an alienation of the idea which leads to a ventriloquil idealism. As Ligotti notes in an interview, “the fiasco and nightmare of existence, the particular fiasco and nightmare of human existence, the sense that people are puppets of powers they cannot comprehend, etc.” And then further elaborates that,“[a]ssuming that anything has to exist, my perfect world would be one in which everyone has experienced the annulment of his or her ego. That is, our consciousness of ourselves as unique individuals would entirely disappear”. The externality of the idea leads to the unfortunate consequence of consciousness eating at itself through horror which, for Ligotti, is more real than reality and goes beyond horror-as-affect. Beyond this, taking together with the unreality of life and the ventriloquizing of subjectivity, Ligotti's thought becomes an idealism in which thought itself is alien and ultimately horrifying. The role of human thought and the relation of non-relation of horror to thought is not completely clear in Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race. Ligotti argues in his The Conspiracy Against the Human Race,that the advent of thought is a mistake of nature and that horror is being in the sense that horror results from knowing too much. Yet, at the same time, Ligotti seems to suggest that thought separates us from nature whereas, for Lovecraft, thought is far less privileged – mind is just another manifestation of the vital principal, it is just another materialization of energy. In his brilliant “Prospects for Post-Copernican Dogmatism” Iain Grant rallies against the negative definition of dogmatism and the transcendental, and suggests that negatively defining both over-focuses on conditions of access and subjectivism at the expense of the real or nature. With Schelling, who is Grant's champion against the subjectivist bastions of both Fichte and Kant, Ligotti's idealism could be taken as a transcendental realism following from an ontological realism. Yet the transcendental status of Ligotti's thought move towards a treatment of the transcendental which may threaten to leave beyond its realist ground. Ligotti states: Belief in the supernatural is only superstition. That said, a sense of the supernatural, as Conrad evidenced in Heart of Darkness, must be admitted if one's inclination is to go to the limits of horror. It is the sense of what should not be- the sense of being ravaged by the impossible. Phenomenally speaking, the super-natural may be regarded as the metaphysical counterpart of insanity, a transcendental correlative of a mind that has been driven mad. Again, Ligotti equates madness with thought, qualifying both as supernatural while remaining less emphatic about the metaphysical dimensions of horror. The question becomes one of how exactly the hallucinatory realm of the ideal relates to the black churning matter of Lovecraft's chaos of elementary particles. In his tale “I Have a Special Plan for This World” Ligotti formulates thus: A: There is no grand scheme of things. B: If there were a grand scheme of things, the fact – the fact – that we are not equipped to perceive it, either by natural or supernatural means, is a nightmarish obscenity. C: The very notion of a grand scheme of things is a nightmarish obscenity. Here Ligotti is not discounting metaphysics but implying that if it does exist the fact that we are phenomenologically ill-equipped to perceive that it is nightmarish. For Ligotti, nightmare and horror occur within the circuit of consciousness whereas for Lovecraft the relation between reality and mind is less productive on the side of mind. It is easier to ascertain how the Kantian philosophy is a defense against the diseases of the head as Kant armors his critical enterprise from too much of the world and too much of the mind. The weird fiction of both Lovecraft and Ligotti demonstrates that there is too much of both feeding into one another in a way that corrodes the Kantian schema throughly, breaking it down into a dead but still ontologically potentiated nigredo. The haunting, terrifying fact of Ligotti's idealism is that the transcendental motion which brought thought to matter, while throughly material and naturalized, brings with it the horror that thought cannot be undone without ending the material that bears it either locally or completely. Thought comes from an elsewhere and an elsewhen being-in-thought. The unthinkable outside thought is as maddening as the unthought engine of thought itself within thought which doesn't exist except for the mind, the rotting décor of the brain. /5/ - Hyperstitional Transcendental Paranoia or Self -Expelled Thought Weird fiction has been given some direct treatment in philosophy in the mad black Deleuzianism of Nick Land. Nick Land along with others in the 1990s created the Cyber Culture Research Unit as well as the research group Hyperstition. The now defunct hyperstitional website, an outgrowth of the Cyber Culture Research Unit, defined hyperstition in the following fourfold: 1-Element of effective culture that makes itself real. 2-Fictional quantity functional as a time-traveling device. 3-Coincidence intensifier. 4-Call to the Old Ones. The distinctively Lovecraftian character of hyperstition is hard to miss as is its Deleuzo-Guattarian roots. In the opening pages of A Thousand Plateaus Deleuze and Guattari write, “We have been criticized for over-quoting literary authors. But when one writes, the only question is which other machine the literary machine can be plugged into”. The indisinction of literature and philosophy mirrors the mess of being and knowing as post-correlationist philosophy, where philosophy tries to make itself real where literature, especially the weird, aims itself at the brain-circuit of horror. The texts of both Lovecraft and Ligotti work through horror as epistemological plasticity meeting with proximity as well as the deep time of Lovecraft and the glacially slow time of paranoia in Ligotti. Against Deleuze, and following Brassier, we cannot allow the time of consciousness, the Bergsonian time of the duree, to override natural time, but instead acknowledge that it is an unfortunate fact of existence as a thinking being. Horror-time, the time of consciousness, with all its punctuated moments and drawn out terrors, cannot compare to the deep time of non-existence both in the unreachable past and the unknown future. The crystalline cogs of Kant's account of experience as the leading light for the possibility of metaphysics must be throughly obliterated. His gloss of experience in Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics could not be more sterile: Experience consists of intuitions, which belong to the sensibility, and of judgments, which are entirely a work of the understanding. But the judgments which the understanding makes entirely out of sensuous intuitions are far from being judgments of experience. For in the one case the judgment connects only the perceptions as they are given in sensuous intuition [....] Experience consists in the synthetic connection of appearances in consciousness, so far as this connection is necessary. Here it is difficult to dismiss the queasiness that Kant's legalism induces upon sight for both Badiou and David-Menard. Kant's thought becomes, as Foucault says when reflecting on Sade's text in relation to nature, “the savage abolition of itself”. For Badiou, Kant's philosophy simply closes off too much of the outside, freezing the world of thought in an all too limited formalism. Critical philosophy is simply the systematized quarantine on future thinking, on thinking which would threaten the formalism which artificially grants thought its own coherency in the face of madness. Even the becoming-mad of Deleuze, while escaping the rumbling ground, makes grounds for itself, mad grounds but grounds which are thinkable in their affect. The field of effects allows for Deleuze's aesthetic and radical empiricism, in which effects and/or occasions make up the material of the world to be thought as a chaosmosis of simulacra. Given a critique of an empiricism of aesthetics, of the image, it may be difficult to justify an attack on Kantian formalism with the madness of literature, which does not aim to make itself real but which we may attempt to make real. That is, how do Lovecraft's and Ligotti's materials, as materials for philosophy to work on, differ from either the operative formalisms of Kant or the implicitly formalized images of Deleuzian empiricism? It is simply that such texts do not aim to make themselves real, and make claims to the real which are more alien to us than familiar, which is why their horror is immediately more trustworthy. This is the madness which Blanchot discusses in The Infinite Conversation through Cervantes and his knight – the madness of book-life, of the perverse unity of literature and life a discussion which culminates in the discussion of one of the weird's masters, that of Kafka. The text is the knowing of madness, since madness, in its moment of becoming-more-mad, cannot be frozen in place but by the solidifications of externalizing production. This is why Foucault ends his famous study with works of art. Furthermore extilligence, the ability to export the products of our maligned brains, is the companion of the attempts to export, or discover the possibility of intelligences outside of our heads, in order for philosophy to survive the solar catastrophe. To borrow again from Deleuze, writing is inseparable from becoming. The mistake is to believe that madness is reabsorbed by extilligence, by great works, or that it could be exorcised by the expelling of thought into the inorganic or differently organic. Going out of our heads does not guarantee we will no longer mean we cannot still go out of our minds. This is simply because of the outside, of matter, or force, or energy, or thing-in-itself, or Schopenhauerian Will. In Lovecraft’s “The Music of Erich Zahn” an “impoverished student of metaphysics” becomes intrigued by strange viol music coming from above his room. After meeting the musician the student discovers that each night he plays frantic music at a window in order to keep some horridness at bay, some “impenetrable darkness with chaos and pandemonium”. The aesthetic defenses provided by the well trained brain can bear the hex of matter for so long, the specter of unalterability within it which too many minds obliterate, collapsing everything before the thought of thought as thinkable or at least noetically mutable on our own terms. Transcendental paranoia is the concurrent nightmare and promise of Paul Humphrey's work, of being literally out of our minds. It is the gothic counterpart of thinking non-conceptually but also of thinking never belonging to any instance of purportedly solid being. As Bataille stated, “At the boundary of that which escapes cohesion, he who reflects within cohesion realizes there is no longer any room for him” Thought is immaterial only to the degree that it is inhuman, it is a power that tries, always with failure, to ascertain its own genesis. Philosophy, if it can truly return to the great outdoors, if it can leave behind the dead loop of the human skull, must recognize not only the non-priority of human thought, but that thought never belongs to the brain that thinks it, thought comes from somewhere else. To return to the train image from the beginning “a locomotive rolling on the surface of the earth is the image of continuous metamorphosis” this is the problem of thought, and of thinking thought, of being no longer able to isolate thought, with only a thought-formed structure. [1] One of the central tenets of Francois Laruelle's non-philosophy is that philosophy has traditionally operated on material already presupposed as thinkable instead of trying to think the real in itself. Philosophy, according to Laruelle, remains fixated on transcendental synthesis which shatters immanence into an empirical datum and an a prori factum which are then fused by a third thing such as the ego. For a critical account of Laruelle's non-philosophy see Ray Brassier's Nihil Unbound. (shrink)

When do the folk think that material objects persist? Many metaphysicians have wanted a view which fits with folk intuitions, yet there is little agreement about what the folk intuit. I provide a range of empirical evidence which suggests that the folk operate with a teleological view of persistence: the folk tend to intuit that a material object survives alterations when its function is preserved. Given that the folk operate with a teleological view of persistence, I argue for a debunking (...) explanation of folk intuitions, concluding that metaphysicians should dismiss folk intuitions as tied into a benighted view of nature. (shrink)

What does it mean to know how to do something? This book develops a comprehensive account of know-how, a crucial epistemic goal for all who care about getting things right, not only with respect to the facts, but also with respect to practice. It proposes a novel interpretation of the seminal work of Gilbert Ryle, according to which know-how is a competence, a complex ability to do well in an activity in virtue of guidance by an understanding of what it (...) takes to do so. This idea is developed into a full-fledged account, Rylean responsibilism, which understands know-how in terms of the normative guidance and responsible control of one's acts. Within the complex current debate about know-how, this view occupies a middle ground position between the intellectualist claim that know-how just is propositional or objectual knowledge and the anti-intellectualist claim that know-how just is ability. In genuine know-how, practical ability and guiding intellect are both necessary, but essentially intertwined. (shrink)

Philosophy &Public Affairs, Volume 51, Issue 4, Page 373-412, Fall 2023.

The aim of this article is to develop an argument against metaphysical debates about the existence of human races. I argue that the ontology of race is underdetermined by both empirical and non-empirical evidence due to a plurality of equally permissible candidate meanings of "race." Furthermore, I argue that this underdetermination leads to a deflationist diagnosis according to #hich disputes about the existence of human races are non-substantive verbal disputes. $hile this diagnosis resembles general deflationist strategies in contemporary metaphysics" I (...) show that my argument does not presuppose controversial metametaphysical assumptions. (shrink)

Actualists of a certain stripe—dispositionalists—hold that metaphysical modality is grounded in the powers of actual things. Roughly: p is possible iff something has, or some things have, the power to bring it about that p. Extant critiques of dispositionalism focus on its material adequacy, and question whether there are enough powers to account for all the possibilities we intuitively want to countenance. For instance, it seems possible that none of the actual contingent particulars ever existed, but it is impossible to (...) explain this by appealing to the powers of some actual thing or things to bring it about. I argue instead that dispositionalism, in the simple form championed by its proponents, is formally inadequate. Dispositionalists interpret the modal operators as simple existential claims about powers, but if we interpret the operators that way, the resulting system of modal logic is too weak to capture metaphysical modality. I argue that we can modify the standard dispositionalist interpretations of the operators to secure formal adequacy, but at the cost of accepting that not all modality is grounded in powers. This, I shall suggest, is not a bad thing—the resulting theory still has powers at its core and has certain attractive features, in addition to formal adequacy, that the standard theory lacks. (shrink)

Accounts of the nature of unpleasant pain have proliferated over the past decade, but there has been little systematic investigation of which of them can accommodate its badness. This paper is such a study. In its sights are two targets: those who deny the non-instrumental disvalue of pain's unpleasantness; and those who allow it but deny that it can be accommodated by the view—advanced by me and others—that unpleasant pains are interoceptive experiences with evaluative content. Against the former, I argue (...) that pain's unpleasantness does indeed have noninstrumental disvalue; against the latter I argue both that my critics’ own desire-theoretic accounts of pain's unpleasantness cannot accommodate such disvalue, and that my evaluativist view can—either by appealing to “anti-unpleasantness” desires or by exploiting pain's perceptuality. (shrink)

Two separate research programs have revealed two different factors that feature in our judgments of whether some entity persists. One program—inspired by Knobe—has found that normative considerations affect persistence judgments. For instance, people are more inclined to view a thing as persisting when the changes it undergoes lead to improvements. The other program—inspired by Kelemen—has found that teleological considerations affect persistence judgments. For instance, people are more inclined to view a thing as persisting when it preserves its purpose. Our goal (...) in this paper is to determine what causes persistence judgments. Across four studies, we pit normative considerations against teleological considerations. And using causal modeling procedures, we find a consistent, robust pattern with teleological and not normative considerations directly causing persistence judgments. Our findings put teleology in the driver’s seat, while at the same time shedding further light on our folk notion of an object. (shrink)

In the first half of this paper, I argue that essential properties are intrinsic and that this permits a modal analysis of essence that is immune the sort of objections raised by Fine. In the second half, I argue that intrinsic properties collectively have a certain structure and that this accounts for some observations about essences: that things are essentially determinate; that things often have properties within a certain range essentially; and that the essential properties of things are their core (...) properties. (shrink)

This essay attempts to provide and defend what may be the first actual argument in support of P. F. Strawson's merely stated vision of a response-dependent theory of moral responsibility. It does so by way of an extended analogy with the funny. In part 1, it makes the easier and less controversial case for response-dependence about the funny. In part 2, it shows the tight analogy between anger and amusement in developing the harder and more controversial case for response-dependence about (...) a kind of blameworthiness. It then defends the view from three serious skeptical challenges. (shrink)

I argue that it is metaphysically necessary that: (i) every fundamental entity is conscious, and (ii) every fundamental property is a phenomenal property.

Critics have argued that human-controlled avatar interactions fail to facilitate the kinds of expressivity and social understanding afforded by our physical bodies. We identify three claims meant to justify the supposed expressive limits of avatar interactions compared to our physical interactions. First, “The Limited Expressivity Claim”: avatars have a more limited expressive range than our physical bodies. Second, “The Inputted Expressivity Claim”: any expressive avatarial behaviour must be deliberately inputted by the user. Third, “The Decoding Claim”: users must infer or (...) figure out the expressive meaning of human-controlled avatars’ behaviour through cognitively onerous processes. With the aim of critically assessing all three claims, we analyze data collected through observations of and interviews with expert players of the avatar-based video game League of Legends. Focusing on Daniel Stern’s (2010) notion of vitality, we analyze the participants’ descriptions of seeing and interacting with other avatars during performance. Our analysis shows that the informants experience human-based avatarial interactions as qualitatively different than interactions with bots, that the informants see the movements of other players’ avatars as having different expressive styles, and that the informants actively use and manipulate this avatarial expressivity during performance. The results of our analysis, we argue, provide reasons for loosening or resisting the three claims concerning the limits of avatarial expressivity. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to discuss the relation between indigenous and scientific kinds on the basis of contemporary ethnobiological research. I argue that ethnobiological accounts of taxonomic convergence-divergence patters challenge common philosophical models of the relation between folk concepts and natural kinds. Furthermore, I outline a positive model of taxonomic convergence-divergence patterns that is based on Slater's [2014] notion of “stable property clusters” and Franklin-Hall's [2014] discussion of natural kinds as “categorical bottlenecks.” Finally, I argue that this model (...) is not only helpful for understanding the relation between indigenous and scientific kinds but also makes substantial contributions to contemporary debates about natural kinds.to contemporary debates about natural kinds. (shrink)

Conciliationism holds that disagreement of apparent epistemic peers often substantially undermines rational confidence in our opinions. Uniqueness principles say that there is at most one maximally rational doxastic response to any given batch of total evidence. The two views are often thought to be tightly connected. This paper distinguishes two ways of motivating conciliationism, and two ways that conciliationism may be undermined by permissive accounts of rationality. It shows how conciliationism can flourish under certain strongly permissive accounts of rationality. This (...) occurs when the motivation for conciliationism does not come from taking disagreement as evidence of one's own rational failings. However, divorcing the motive for conciliating from worries about rationality does not remove a feature of conciliationism that some find troubling: that conciliationism can lead to cases of “rational toxicity,” in which the most rational response to one's evidence involves violating some rational ideal. (shrink)