This essay provides an interpretation of Hume’s “two definitions” of causation. It argues that the two definitions of causation must be interpreted in terms of Hume’s fundamental ontological distinction between perceptions and (material) objects. Central to Hume’s position on this subject is the claim that, while there is a natural tendency to suppose that there exist (metaphysical) causal powers in objects themselves, this is a product of our failure to distinguish perceptions and objects. Properly understood, our idea of causation involves (...) no suggestion that there is anything more to causation among objects themselves than constant conjunction. A new appendix is added, discussing the relevance of this interpretation to the recent debate concerning Hume’s “causal realism.” -/- [The original of this article was published in HUME STUDIES 10 (1984), 1 - 25, with corrections added separately in the following issue.]. (shrink)

Quine claims that holism (i.e., the Quine-Duhem thesis) prevents us from defining synonymy and analyticity (section 2). In Word and Object, he dismisses a notion of synonymy which works well even if holism is true. The notion goes back to a proposal from Grice and Strawson and runs thus: R and S are synonymous iff for all sentences T we have that the logical conjunction of R and T is stimulus-synonymous to that of S and T. Whereas Grice and Strawson (...) did not attempt to defend this definition, I try to show that it indeed gives us a satisfactory account of synonymy. Contrary to Quine, the notion is tighter than stimulus-synonymy – particularly when applied to sentences with less than critical semantic mass (section 3). Now according to Quine, analyticity could be defined in terms of synonymy, if synonymy were to make sense: A sentence is analytic iff synonymous to self-conditionals. This leads us to the following notion of analyticity: S is analytic iff, for all sentences T, the logical conjunction of S and T is stimulus-synonymous to T; an analytic sentence does not change the semantic mass of any theory to which it may be conjoined (section 4). This notion is tighter than Quine's stimulus-analyticity; unlike stimulus-analyticity, it does not apply to those sentences from the very center of our theories which can be assented to come what may, even though they are not synthetic in the intuitive sense (section 5). Conclusion: We can have well-defined notions of synonymy and analyticity even if we embrace Quine's holism, naturalism, behaviorism, and radical translation. Quine's meaning skepticism is to be repudiated on Quinean grounds. (shrink)

Quine claims that holism (i.e., the Quine-Duhem thesis) prevents us from defining synonymy and analyticity (section 2). In "Word and Object," he dismisses a notion of synonymy which works well even if holism is true. The notion goes back to a proposal from Grice and Strawson and runs thus: R and S are synonymous iff for all sentences T we have that the logical conjunction of R and T is stimulus-synonymous to that of S and T. Whereas Grice and Strawson (...) did not attempt to defend this definition, I try to show that it indeed gives us a satisfactory account of synonymy. Contrary to Quine, the notion is tighter than stimulus-synonymy -- particularly when applied to sentences with less than critical semantic mass (section 3). Now according to Quine, analyticity could be defined in terms of synonymy, if synonymy were to make sense: A sentence is analytic iff synonymous to self-conditionals. This leads us to the following notion of analyticity: S is analytic iff, for all sentences T, the logical conjunction of S and T is stimulus-synonymous to T; an analytic sentence does not change the semantic mass of any theory to which it may be conjoined (section 4). This notion is tighter than Quine's stimulus-analyticity; unlike stimulus-analyticity, it does not apply to those sentences from the very center of our theories which can be assented to come what may, even though they are not synthetic in the intuitive sense (section 5). (shrink)

The Duhem-Quine Thesis is the claim that it is impossible to test a scientific hypothesis in isolation because any empirical test requires assuming the truth of one or more auxiliary hypotheses. This is taken by many philosophers, and is assumed here, to support the further thesis that theory choice is underdetermined by empirical evidence. This inquiry is focused strictly on the axiological commitments engendered in solutions to underdetermination, specifically those of Pierre Duhem and W. V. Quine. Duhem resolves underdetermination by (...) appealing to a cluster of virtues called 'good sense', and it has recently been argued by Stump (Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sei, 18(1):149-159,2007) that good sense is a form of virtue epistemology. This paper considers whether Quine, who's philosophy is heavily influenced by the very thesis that led Duhem to the virtues, is also led to a virtue epistemology in the face of underdetermination. Various sources of Quinian epistemic normativity are considered, and it is argued that, in conjunction with other normative commitments, Quine's sectarian solution to underdetermination amounts to a skills based virtue epistemology. The paper also sketches formal features of the novel form of virtue epistemology common to Duhem and Quine that challenges the adequacy of epistemic value truth-monism and blocks any imperialist naturalization of virtue epistemology, as the epistemic virtues are essential to the success of the sciences themselves. (shrink)

The Duhem-Quine thesis famously holds that a single hypothesis cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed in isolation, but instead only in conjunction with other background hypotheses. This article argues that this has important and underappreciated implications for metaethics. Section 1 argues that if one begins metaethics firmly wedded to a naturalistic worldview—due (e.g.) to methodological/epistemic considerations—then normativity will appear to be reducible to a set of social-psycho-semantic behaviors that I call the ‘normative stance.’ Contra Hume and Bedke (2012), I argue that (...) the normative stance provides semantically-grounded entailments from natural truths to normative truths, reducing the latter to the former. Specifically, the normative stance explains the truth-conditions, truth-values, and truth-makers of normative propositions in terms of socially grounded cognitive-behavioral rules and other natural facts, thus explaining how there can be bona fide normative facts and properties in a wholly naturalistic world. I then show that the normative stance explains the apparent stance-independence and non-naturalness of normative reasons, intrinsic value, and categoricity of moral reasons as ‘user-illusions’ generated by people having strong psycho-social propensities—rooted in evolution and social cooperation—to take these normative stances. Section 2 then argues that while the normative stance may appear to naturalists to successfully explain normativity, it will not appeal to those who come to metaethics with different background commitments. I conclude that naturalists should take the normative stance to be a promising metaethical theory of normativity, and that whether it is a true theory of normativity is something that can only be ascertained by determining which background hypotheses—naturalistic or otherwise—we should have when doing metaethics. (shrink)

Hume maintained that, philosophically speaking, there is no difference between exiting a room out of the first-floor window and using the door. Nevertheless, Hume’s reason and common sense prevailed over his scepticism and he advocated that we should always use the door. However, we are currently living in a world that is more seriously committed to the Humean philosophy of empiricism than he was himself and thus the potential to act inappropriately is an ever-present potential. In this paper, I explore (...) how Hume’s two versions of causality have detrimentally affected our ability both to arrive at and to use research to improve human well-being. I illustrate my argument with an example of what I think is an incorrect yet supposedly scientifically sound assumption: that absenteeism causes poor school attainment. Instead I make the interdisciplinary argument that absenteeism is better understood as an aggravating symptom of a number of other causes of poor attainment, such as poverty and individual psychological factors. I suggest that an instrumental, punitive policy against parents whose children tend to be absent from school may be ineffectual or even counterproductive if the objective is to improve the well-being of those children. To support my argument, I introduce the critical realist idea of transfactuality. Using the example of research into moon rocks, I show how mainstream science uses transfactuality despite its empiricist aversion to it. I also suggest that it is our honesty, integrity, and stoicism that lead us to the extreme overthrow of reason and common sense that we see today in many of the UK’s social policies; an overthrow that Hume himself did not achieve. Metaphorically speaking, British professionals, stoically and honestly believing in the ability of their trusted research correlations to guide their action, are exiting out of the first-floor window rather than using the door. This is a significant barrier to our ability to devise and implement social policy. (shrink)

This article examines whether Willard Van Orman Quine’s indeterminacy thesis can be sustained. The argument from above, Quine argues, can derive indeterminacy as its conclusion. I will argue that the indeterminacy claim cannot be sustained. I further argue that Quine changed the formulation of the underdetermination of theory by evidence (UTE) argument from what Duhem said to the Quine/Pierce meaning verification view, in order use the new formulation of UTE to imply indeterminacy. Given all that, we see when we apply (...) the old UTE argument we only arrive at underdetermination of theory by evidence, and that applies to all sciences, philosophy and knowledge, including philosophy of language. (shrink)

Philosophers of dispositionalism deny the Humean account of causality in terms of constant conjunction, contiguity, temporal priority and contingency. And some of them go further to explain the causal relation not between events or objects, but between properties, in terms of reciprocity, simultaneity, ubiquity, intentionality and holism. But their exposition seems to remain fragmented even though they try to make use of the notions of intentionality and holim. I would inquire reasons why it is piecemeal, by analysing that they (...) employ these notions of intentionality and holism which has been constructed within the dualistic tradition. If one wants to make the dispositional project to be powerful, she should look for the notions of intentionality and holism which are free of the dualistic traits and which have been constructed in the tradition of naturalism. The concept of integrationality may be a candidate for such a task. This conception was coined in Zhongyong under the name of cheng in that there is nothing without cheng, and was developed in one of Sok-hon Ham's thesis that any entity in the world contains "seed" within it to realize objectives shared by all involved. Humans are privileged and distinct from other natures, but there is continuity between them. An example of the integrationality applied to the case of humans would be that realization of myself and realizations of all others are one and not two. I would summarize notions of "cheng" and "seed" by offering the integrationality thesis, that is, that there is integrationality in any entity like dispositions such that the integrationality is a power to realize the embedded objective of it in the context where it interacts with all others. I would claim that integrationality is a metaphysical basis for a way of human thinking, by arguing that it is a necessary part of presupposition for our understanding of the world without which the world is not intelligible. The notion of integrationality is involved empirically as well as conceptually. Empirically, there are numerous reports from physics, biology and information science, which provide with a clue which may well be taken to show the ubiquitous integrationality. But some conceptual considerations would also indicate necessarily toward the same direction. These would include various theses of ontology, epistemology, disposition, modality, naturalized intentionality, fitting and topics like these. I will investigate some of them in order to justify my claim of this paper. (shrink)

In quantum mechanics, the term “creativity” is amplified, since natural events form the constant transition from possibility to reality, according to the ontological probabilism of the Schrödinger equation. The completion of the quantum theory through the concept of the Grand Unified Theories, and especially through the yet incomplete superstring theory, reveals that at the micro level of creation of sub-atomic particles or space, motion literally comes prior to Being and objects are forms of a motion which suggests a (...) class='Hi'>constant transition from possibility to reality. In non – linear physics of complex systems, the term “creativity” does not simply correspond to the initial emergence of the universe (big bang) or to the sub-atomic scale processes described by quantum mechanics, the Grand Unified Theories and the superstring theory, but is expanded to all aspects of nature: i.e. physical - chemical, ecological, psychological – mental aspect. So, through the non – linear physics theory, macroscopically viewed beings are constructed, holistic forms of motion, in order for the whole to gain a non reducible (therefore the whole is constantly being produced) ontological meaning which characterizes the operation of the part. Combining the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity, it could be stated that modern physics abolishes the customary perception concerning the natural phenomena, which were concerned as a constant transformation of a fundamental substance. On the contrary, the contemporary description of the natural world by physics and mathematics corresponds to Morphodynamics, i.e. the description of the world as creation of all cosmic shapes from a zero point, on all cosmic levels. From this point of view, zero is understood as the absence of shape, while the notion of an unshaped eternal substance is weakened and does not seem to be able to be justified by the evolution of scientific thought. The “beings” and their “substance” are assimilated to forms of movement that have already been created or that are being created, and constitute motion inside motion. (shrink)

"I tend to agree with more dialectical positions such as Noxon's who, even being a critic of the approach of the two concepts, writes the following: Hume explained certain mental phenomena, notably belief, as effects of the association. And, going further, I say that belief is a feeling or sensation aroused by two factors: habit and the association of ideas, but it does not arise either from one or from other singly, each one is a part of a process that (...) involves both. Therefore habit is an underlying principle which acts upon reasonable beings during their observation of constant conjunctions, in such a way that imagination can associate ideas only through this principle acting in the mind. However, as I have already stated in another text, such an association realised by the imagination will catch up to its certainty status just with the emergence of a feeling which imputes necessity to what is instead merely contingent" (Sample taken up from the text). (shrink)

According to a view that goes by “Humeanism,” causal facts supervene on patterns of worldly entities. The simplest form of Humeanism is the constant conjunction theory: a particular type-F thing causes a particular type-G thing iff (i) that type-Fis conjoined with that type-G thing and (ii) all F’s are conjoined with G’s. The constant conjunction theory implies that all causation is extrinsic, in the following sense: for all positive causal facts pertaining to each possible region,it’s extrinsic to that (...) region that those causal facts pertain to it. Actual Humeans don’t accept the constant conjunction theory; they accept more sophisticated versions of Humeanism. But I argue that they, too, are committed to the thesis that all causation is extrinsic. In arguing for this claim,I use a discussion from Brian Weatherson as a springboard. Weatherson argues that on a plausible Humean view, some regions are such that all of their possible duplicates have the same or similar natural laws. I show that this is false. If Humeanism is true, then for every possible region, there are possible duplicates of that region with utterly alien natural laws. As a consequence, no causal facts pertain intrinsically to any region. (shrink)

I argue that Hume’s philosophy of time is relationist in the following two senses. 1) Standard definition of relationism. Time is a succession of indivisible moments. Hence there is no time independent of change. Time is a relational, not substantial feature of the world. 2) Rigid relationism. There is no evidence of uniform natural standard for synchronization of clocks. No absolute temporal metric is available. There are countless times, and no time is privileged. Combining 1) and 2) shows that Hume’s (...) ontology of time is thoroughly relationist. (shrink)

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

The text is translated from W.V.O.Quine: From a Logical Point of View. Harvard University Press. Second Edition, 1980. pp. 130-139.

Past research on folk aesthetics has suggested that most people are subjectivists when it comes to aesthetic judgment. However, most people also make a distinction between good and bad aesthetic taste. To understand the extent to which these two observations conflict with one another, we need a better understanding of people's everyday concept of aesthetic taste. In this paper, we present the results of a study in which participants drawn from a representative sample of the US population were asked whether (...) they usually distinguish between good and bad taste, how they define them, and whether aesthetic taste can be improved. Those who answered positively to the first question were asked to provide their definition of good and bad taste, while those who answered positively to the third question were asked to detail by what means taste can be improved. Our results suggest that most people distinguish between good and bad taste, and think taste can be improved. People's definitions of good and bad taste were varied, and were torn between very subjectivist conceptions of taste and others that lent themselves to a more objectivist interpretation. Overall, our results suggest that the tension Hume observed in conceptions of aesthetic taste is still present today. (shrink)

In this paper I explore Karl Popper’s ‘critical rationalism’, focusing on its presuppositions and implications as a form of realism regarding the nature of scientific truth. I reveal an underlying tension in Popper’s thought pertaining to his account of basic statements and the related question of whether the falsification of a universal theory can ever justifiably be regarded as final or conclusive. I conclude that Popper’s account of basic statements is implicitly conventionalist, and that it should, in consistency, have forced (...) him in the direction of Quinean holism. (shrink)

Past research on folk aesthetics has suggested that most people are subjectivists when it comes to aesthetic judgment. However, most people also make a distinction between good and bad aesthetic taste. To understand the extent to which these two observations conflict with one another, we need a better understanding of people's everyday concept of aesthetic taste. In this paper, we present the results of a study in which participants drawn from a representative sample of the US population were asked whether (...) they usually distinguish between good and bad taste, how they define them, and whether aesthetic taste can be improved. Those who answered positively to the first question were asked to provide their definition of good and bad taste, while those who answered positively to the third question were asked to detail by what means taste can be improved. Our results suggest that most people distinguish between good and bad taste, and think taste can be improved. People's definitions of good and bad taste were varied, and were torn between very subjectivist conceptions of taste and others that lent themselves to a more objectivist interpretation. Overall, our results suggest that the tension Hume observed in conceptions of aesthetic taste is still present today. (shrink)

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

This paper considers the relevance of the Duhem-Quine thesis in economics. In the introductory discussion which follows, the meaning of the thesis and a brief history of its development are detailed. The purpose of the paper is to discuss the effects of the thesis in four specific and diverse theories in economics, and to illustrate the dependence of testing the theories on a set of auxiliary hypotheses. A general taxonomy of auxiliary hypotheses is provided to demonstrate the confounding of auxiliary (...) hypotheses with the testing of economic theory. (shrink)

How does Quine fare in the first decades of the twenty-first century? In this paper I examine a cluster of Quinean theses that, I believe, are especially fruitful in meeting some of the current challenges of epistemology and ontology. These theses offer an alternative to the traditional bifurcations of truth and knowledge into factual and conceptual-pragmatic-conventional, the traditional conception of a foundation for knowledge, and traditional realism. To make the most of Quine’s ideas, however, we have to take an (...) active stance: accept some of his ideas and reject others, sort different versions of the relevant ideas, sharpen or revise some of the ideas, connect them with new, non-Quinean ideas, and so on. As a result the paper pits Quine against Quine, in an attempt to identify those Quinean ideas that have a lasting value and sketch potential developments. (shrink)

Aristotle explains existence through postulating essences that are intrinsic and percep- tion independent. I argue that his theory is more plausible than Hume’s and Russell’s theories of existence. Russell modifies Hume’s theory because he wants to allow for the existence of mathematical objects. However, Russell’s theory facilitates a problematic collapse of ontology into epistemology, which has become a feature of much analytic philosophy. This collapse obscures the nature of truth. Aristotle is to be praised for starting with a clear (...) account of ordinary objects rather than immediately reifying mathematical objects. He thus allows us to have a coherent account of existence and truth, and to easily resist collapsing ontology into epistemology. (shrink)

There is a gap between the first-person and third-person perspectives resulting in a tension experienced between psychological science, ‘experimental psychology’, and applied consulting psychological practice, ‘clinical psychology’. This is an exploration of that ‘gap’ and its resulting tension. First-person perspective is proposed as an important aspect of psychological reality in conjunction with the related perspectival aspects of second- and third-person perspectives. These three aspects taken ‘wholistically’ constitute a perspectival diffusion grate through which psychological reality is discerned. The reductionistic naturalism of (...) scientifically apprehended reality is examined for the powerful resistances that impedite utilizing perspective in psychological investigations with consequences for our understanding of psychological reality. The impediments constructed by Quine, Sellars, Dennett, Metzinger, and cognitive psychology are all examined for their robust intractability to first-person perspective or anything that might seem similar. The conclusion suggested is that they all result from a ‘scientific near-sightedness’ of a strict naturalism. The result is that any intentionally dependent objects that are real in the lives of persons are eliminated as not real with no ontological significance. The assertion is that ordinary things such as car keys and employment are real and are ontologically significant. (shrink)

Quine's views on ontology and naturalism are well-known but rarely considered in tandem. According to my interpretation the connection between them is vital. I read Quine as a global epistemic structuralist. Quine thought we only ever know objects qua solutions to puzzles about significant intersections in observations. Objects are always accessed descriptively, via their roles in our best theory. Quine's Kant lectures contain an early version of epistemic structuralism with uncharacteristic remarks about the mental. Here Quine embraces mitigated anomalous (...) monism, allowing introspection and the availability in principle of full physical descriptions of the perceptual states which get science off the ground. Later versions abandon these ideas. My epistemic-structural interpretation explains why. I argue first-personal introspective access to mental states is incompatible with global epistemic structuralism. (shrink)

Much of the ontology made in the analytic tradition of philosophy nowadays is founded on some of Quine’s proposals. His naturalism and the binding between existence and quantification are respectively two of his very influential metaphilosophical and methodological theses. Nevertheless, many of his specific claims are quite controversial and contemporaneously have few followers. Some of them are: (a) his rejection of higher-order logic; (b) his resistance in accepting the intensionality of ontological commitments; (c) his rejection of first-order modal logic; (...) and (d) his rejection of the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. I intend to argue that these controversial negative claims are just interconnected consequences of those much more accepted and apparently less harmful metaphilosophical and methodological theses, and that the glue linking all these consequences to its causes is the notion of extensionality. (shrink)

Throughout this paper my objective will be to establish and clarify Hume's original intentions in his discussion of causation in Book I of the Treatise. I will show that Hume's views on ontology, presented in Part IV of that book, shed light on his views on causation as presented in Part III. Further, I will argue that Hume's views on ontology account for the original motivation behind his two definitions of 2 cause. This relationship between Hume's ontology (...) and his account of causation explains something which has baffled Hume scholars for some time,- namely, why does Hume's discussion of causation in I, iii, 14 have such a paradoxical air about it? I will show that Hume's views on causation have a paradoxical air about them because they rest on an ontology of "double existence" - an ontology which Hume describes as the monstrous offspring of two principles, which are contrary to each other, which are both at once embrac'd by the mind, and which are unable mutually to destroy each other (T 215) My interpretation will centre on the following two claims: (i) When Hume wrote Section 14, Of the idea of necessary connexion, he was primarily concerned to attack the view that the origin of our idea of necessity was to be discovered in the operations of matter or bodies. Of the suggested sources from which our idea of necessity could be thought to originate this is the source which, initially, interested Hume the most. It is, therefore, of great importance that we interpret Hume's remarks in light of this fact. (ii) Hume offers the first definition of cause as an account of causation as it exists in the material world independent of our thought and reasoning.He offers the second definition as an account of causation as we find it in our perceptions. It will also be argued, in this context, that necessity constitutes "an essential part" of both of Hume's two definitions of cause. (shrink)

Quine behauptet, dass uns der Holismus (d.h. die Quine/Duhem-These) daran hindert, Synonymie zu definieren. In "Word and Object" weist er einen Synonymiebegriff zurück, der selbst dann gut funktioniert, wenn der Holismus zutrifft. Dieser Begriff lässt sich so definieren: R und S sind synonym, wenn für alle Sätze T die logische Konjunktion aus R und T reizsynonym zur Konjunktion aus S und T ist. Dieser Begriff entgeht Quines bedeutungsskeptischen, holistischen Einwänden. Anders als Quine gemeint hat, ist der Begriff enger als sein (...) Begriff der Reizsynonymie – insbesondere bei Anwendung auf Sätze mit weniger als kritischer semantischer Masse. Fazit: Wir können Synonymie selbst dann sauber definieren, wenn wir Quines Holismus, Naturalismus, Behaviorismus und radikale Übersetzung mitmachen. Quines Bedeutungsskepsis sollte sogar auf Quines eigenem Territorium zurückgewiesen werden. (shrink)

Hume and Quine argue that human beings do not have access to general knowledge, that is, to general truths . The arguments of these two philosophers are premised on what Jaakko Hintikka has called the atomistic postulate. In the present work, it is shown that Hume and Quine in fact sanction an extreme version of this postulate, according to which even items of particular knowledge are not directly accessible in so far as they are relational. For according to their fully (...) realized systems, human beings do not initially perceive any relations, or similar epistemological elements that can associate or combine terms on which a relational or general knowledge claim may be based. Nor, likewise, do human beings perceive the relations or the associations themselves as separate entities. ;In Chapters 1 and 2, respectively, it is shown precisely why Hume and Quine deny that human beings initially perceive either such associative elements or associations in general. Concomitantly, it is made clear why Hume's and Quine's respective epistemologies preclude human beings from initially apprehending not only general knowledge, but particular relational knowledge as well. But this is not to say that Hume and Quine do not think we can eventually acquire such associative elements and correspondingly, knowledge. Rather, Hume and Quine do provide an account of knowledge, but one that holds all relational and connective elements to be constructed by the human mind. In Hume's case, they are constructed by the imagination. In Quine's case, we are never told quite how this construction occurs, although the evidence suggests that Quine implicitly relies on a faculty similar to Hume's imagination. ;In the final chapter of this thesis, it is argued that both Hume and Quine must be read as philosophers who justify knowledge by reducing its possibility to a psychological faculty of construction, as well as to a few concepts of intuitively grasped relations. By way of conclusion, it is shown that this makes Quine's naturalism the psychological heir to Carnap's Aufbau. (shrink)

Quine is routinely perceived as having changed his mind about the scope of the Duhem-Quine thesis, shifting from what has been called an 'extreme holism' to a more moderate view. Where the Quine of 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' argues that “the unit of empirical significance is the whole of science” (1951, 42), the later Quine seems to back away from this “needlessly strong statement of holism” (1991, 393). In this paper, I show that the received view is incorrect. I distinguish (...) three ways in which Quine's early holism can be said to be wide-scoped and show that he has never changed his mind about any one of these aspects of his early view. Instead, I argue that Quine's apparent change of mind can be explained away as a mere shift of emphasis. (shrink)

Does Carnap’s treatment of philosophical questions about existence, such as “Are there numbers?” and “Are there physical objects?”, depend on his analytic–synthetic distinction? If so, in what way? I answer these questions by clarifying, defending, and developing the reading of Carnap’s paper “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” that W. V. Quine proposes, with little justification or explanation, in his paper “On Carnap’s Views on Ontology”. The primary methodological value of studying Quine’s reading of “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” is (...) that it prompts us to look for, and helps us to see the significance of, passages by Carnap that reveal the logical foundations of his views on ontology. Guided in this way by Quine’s reading, I show that (1) in “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology” Carnap’s preferred treatment of philosophical questions relies on paraphrasing them so that their answers are immediately obvious elementary logical truths, and are therefore, by his standards, trivially analytic; and (2) in its most general form, Carnap’s treatment of philosophical questions about existence depends on his controversial view that the analytic truths of a language L may include sentences that are not elementary logical truths, but that are nevertheless, by Carnap’s standards, analytic-in-L simply because we have stipulated that they are to be among the “meaning postulates” of L. (shrink)

Contemporary developments in economicmethodology have produced a vibrant agenda ofcompeting positions. These include, amongothers, constructivism, critical realism andrhetoric, with each contributing to the Realistvs. Pragmatism debate in the philosophies of thesocial sciences. A major development in theneo-pragmatist contribution to economicmethodology has been Quine's pragmatic assaulton the dogmas of empiricism, which are nowclearly acknowledged within contemporaryeconomic methodology. This assault isencapsulated in the celebrated Duhem-Quinethesis, which according to a number ofcontemporary leading philosophers of economics,poses a particularly serious methodologicalproblem for economics. This problem, (...) asreflected in Hausman's analysis, consists ofthe inability of economics to learn fromexperience, thereby subverting the capacity totest economic theories. In this paper wedispute this position. Our argument is basedon a combination of Quine's holism with VanFraassen's constructive empiricism, especiallythe latter's analysis of empirical adequacy andhis pragmatic approach to explanation. Theresulting reorientation of economic methodologyrestores the capacity of economics to learnfrom experience and reinstates the imperativeof developing alternatives to orthodoxtheorizing in economics. (shrink)

Pierre Duhem is the discoverer of the physics of the Middle Ages. The discovery that there existed a physics of the Middle Ages was a surprise primarily for Duhem himself. This discovery completely changed the way he saw the evolution of physics, bringing him to formulate a complex argument for the growth and continuity of scientific knowledge, which I call the ‘Pierre Duhem Thesis’ (not to be confused either with what Roger Ariew called the ‘true Duhem thesis’ as opposed to (...) the Quine-Duhem thesis, which he persuasively argued is not Duhem’s, or with the famous ‘Quine-Duhem Thesis’ itself). The ‘Pierre Duhem Thesis’ consists of five sub-theses (some transcendental in nature, some other causal, factual, or descriptive), which are not independent, as they do not work separately (but only as a system) and do not relate to reality separately (but only simultaneously). The famous and disputed ‘continuity thesis’ is part, as a sub-thesis, from this larger argument. I argue that the ‘Pierre Duhem Thesis’ wraps up all of Duhem’s discoveries in the history of science and as a whole represents his main contribution to the historiography of science. The ‘Pierre Duhem Thesis’ is the central argument of Pierre Duhem's work as historian of science. (shrink)

Wer eine philosophische Bedeutungstheorie aufstellen möchte, sollte u.a. den Begriff der Synonymie (Bedeutungsgleichheit) zu klären versuchen. Ein Hauptproblem für dies bedeutungstheoretische Projekt hängt mit dem Holismus der Quine/Duhem-These zusammen: Dieser holistischen These zufolge findet die Überprüfung unserer Behauptungen über die Welt nicht auf der Ebene des einzelnen Satzes statt, sondern auf der Ebene ganzer Theorien (Abschnitt I). Wenn wir z.B. aus Davidsons Bedeutungskonzeption Aufschlüsse über Synonymie extrahieren wollen, dann stolpern wir über Quines Holismus. Falls Davidsons Theorie gar nicht für Synonymie (...) aufkommen möchte, ist diese Theorie zumindest unvollständig (Abschnitt II). Dies Verdikt trifft natürlich nur zu, wenn es überhaupt möglich ist, im Rahmen von Quines Holismus einen Begriff der Synonymie einzuführen. Dass dies möglich ist, zeige ich (gegen Quine) im Abschnitt III, indem ich verifikationalistische und falsifikationalistische Theoriestücke zu einer neuen empiristischen Bedeutungstheorie ausbaue, in deren Rahmen sinnvoll über Synonymie gesprochen werden kann. Im Abschnitt IV wird dies positive Resultat zur Verteidigung des Begriffs des analytischen Satzes herangezogen. (shrink)

This study asserts that W.V.O. Quine’s eliminative philosophical gaze into mereological composition affects inevitably his interpretations of composition theories of ontology. To investigate Quine’s property monism from the account of modal eliminativism, I applied to his solution for the paradoxes of de re modalities’ . Because of its vital role to figure out how dispositions are encountered by Quine, it was significantly noted that the realm of de re modalities doesn’t include contingent and impossible inferences about things. Therefore, for (...) him, all the intrinsic forces and elements of entities such as powers and causal or teleological dispositions for ontology demand to be seen necessarily as bound variables from a monist perspective. Although his denial of analyticity and the elimination of dispositional field of ontology, S. Mumford criticizes the monist perspective of Quine’s paradoxical approach to superveniences. Because superveniences create problems while determining type-type identities from a monist mereological perspective. It is observed that Quine faces with a reduction again in terms of his dispositional monism despite his critiques to repulse vagueness from the ontology in his well-known article Two Dogmas of Empiricism. -/- . (shrink)

Following W.V. Quine’s lead, many metaphysicians consider ontology to be concerned primarily with existential questions of the form, “What is there?”. Moreover, if the position advanced by Rudolf Carnap, in his seminal essay, “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology ”, is correct, then many of these existential ontological questions ought to be classified as either trivially answerable or as “pseudo-questions”. One may justifiably wonder, however, whether the Quinean and Carnapian perspective on ontology really does justice to many of the (...) most central concerns of this discipline. This chapter argues, by considering a particular ontological dispute between two different kinds of trope theorists, that some of the most interesting and important debates which properly belong to the study of being, whether we call it “metaphysics” or “ ontology ”, do not concern existential questions at all; rather, such disputes in some cases focus on non-existential disagreements over questions of fundamentality. (shrink)

This paper shows that Hume was ultimately forced to conclude in The Treatise that all demonstrative and intuited claims can in fact, be imagined as otherwise. As a result, he was forced to conclude that all knowledge claims must, ultimately, reduce to probable claims, or in Hume’s own, and indisputably clear words: “all knowledge degenerates into probability." As a further result, it is suggested (briefly) that this anticipates Quine’s well-known attack on the analytic / synthetic distinction (Quine 1953).

En este trabajo me ocuparé de las resonancias que tuvo el modo en el que Hume aborda la cuestión de la materialidad de la mente en uno de los materialistas más notables de las Islas Británicas del siglo XVIII, Joseph Priestley. La influencia que ejerció el enfoque humeano acerca del materialismo en la obra de Priestley no ha sido suficientemente puesta de relieve o ha sido desestimada. En buena medida, esto se debe a que Priestley tienen una actitud crítica hacia (...) las consecuencias escépticas y ateas que se desprenden de la filosofía de Hume, por lo que generalmente se tiende a presentarlo como uno de sus adversarios. Sin embargo, existen dos grandes puntos de contacto entre sus propuestas que estudiaré en lo que sigue: (1) ambos abordan la cuestión del origen del pensamiento, haciendo a un lado la cuestión de la naturaleza de la sustancia de la que estaría compuesta la mente —por ser inaccesible a nuestro conocimiento— y preguntándose por la causa del pensamiento, y (2) Priestley se sirve de una concepción de la causalidad inspirada en buena medida por la de Hume y la emplea como uno de los pilares de su materialismo, al sostener que la conjunción constante entre características mentales y organismos con un cerebro funcional nos da la mayor seguridad posible de que existe una relación causal entre ambos. (shrink)

This paper investigates the complicated relations between various versions of naturalism, behaviorism, and mentalism within the framework of W. V. O. Quine's thinking. It begins with Roger Gibson's reconstruction of Quine's behaviorisms and argues that it lacks a crucial ontological element and misconstrues the relation between philosophy and science. After getting clear of Quine's naturalism, the paper distinguishes between evidential, methodological, and ontological behaviorisms. The evidential and methodological versions are often conflated, but they need to be clearly distinguished in order (...) to see whether Quine's argument against mentalism is cogent. The paper argues that Quine's naturalism supports only the weakest version of behaviorism, that is, the evidential one, but this version is compatible with mentalistic semantics. Quine's opposition to mentalism is an overreaction from the behaviorist camp. By contrast, Jerry Fodor's objection to Jose Luis Bermudez is an overreaction from the opposite direction. (shrink)

The main goal of this paper is to work out Quine's account of explication. Quine does not provide a general account but considers a paradigmatic example which does not fit other examples he claims to be explications. Besides working out Quine's account of explication and explaining this tension, I show how it connects to other notions such as paraphrase and ontological commitment. Furthermore, I relate Quinean explication to Carnap's conception and argue that Quinean explication is much narrower because its main (...) purpose is to be a criterion of theory choice. (shrink)

Here we will see that contrary to the party line, Hume’s notion of a relation should be understood, in all cases, as a peculiar non-necessary synthetic relation; unique, but similar in a certain constructive sense to what I characterize as a mathematical notion of synthesis. And, most controversially, I argue that this non-necessary synthetic notion of a relation includes Hume’s arithmetical relations, which have typically been interpreted as either “analytic,” necessary, or both. In this general respect, Hume anticipates Quine’s attack (...) on the analytic/synthetic distinction. (shrink)

Quine on Ethics: The Gavagai of Moral Discourse is the first comprehensive treatment of Quine’s brief yet memorable foray into ethics. It defends him against his most formidable critics, corrects misconceptions in the reception of his outlook on morality as a social institution and ethics as a philosophical enterprise, and restores emphasis on observationality as the impetus behind his momentous intervention in ethical theory. The central focus is on Quine’s infamous challenge to ethical theory: his thesis of the methodological infirmity (...) of ethics as compared with science. The ultimate aim is to demonstrate that the challenge is not only valid but also valuable insofar as it identifies opportunities for reformation in moral justification. (shrink)

It is well known that modern epistemology is a discipline that was left as a legacy by the great French philosopher René Descartes, and it is generally believed that it is a typically philosophical discipline whose problems can be dealt with only by philosophical (speculative) means of inquiry. Recently, however, the idea of naturalization of epistemological inquiry has emerged, and one of its most prominent advocates was Quine. However, the question is to what extent, if at all, the proposal offered (...) by Quine is tenable, as evidenced, apart from numerous criticisms, by significantly different interpretations regarding assumptions on which it should be based. Namely, three types of interpretations of Quine’s call for the reform of epistemological inquiry prevail in contemporary literature: behaviorist, which was largely advocated by Quine, but also coherentist and physicalist, which some of his interpreters argued for. However, while the first two of these options are in my opinion unacceptable because they are unable to provide the necessary autonomy for the epistemological context of inquiry, I will try to show that physicalism is also burdened with difficulties, albeit different ones, which make it an untenable position when it comes to epistemological inquiry. Nevertheless, even before I started writing, I thought that there were valuable insights in Quine’s proposal, and that we could learn important lessons from the failure of previous interpretations, both regarding the position that should be taken in its interpretation, and, closely related to this, the possibility of reforming epistemological inquiry in general. In other words, informed by the weaknesses of Quine’s proposal and its interpretations, I will argue that epistemological inquiry can ultimately be approached from one of two mutually incompatible theoretical positions: the traditional or Cartesian one, and the Kantian one. Given that, as noted above, Quine’s proposal was primarily a reaction to Cartesianism, I discuss the possibility of establishing the fundamental level of inquiry such as epistemological to which Quine had to aspire, but in a way that would enable the synthesis of his approach with Kant’s view, which is in my opinion the only genuine alternative to the traditional program. Although it implies taking a position that would be a kind of compromise and could not be attributed to Quine (which is why it is uncertain whether he would have supported this interpretation), I believe that, apart from preserving certain naturalistic elements, it is an interpretation that would ultimately satisfy most of the demands that Quine himself has set for epistemological inquiry. (shrink)

The interest for versions of cosmological argument formulated in non-causal terms had increased in the last years. In this paper I shall argue that the cosmological argument of contingency is better understood in noncausal terms and I shall explore how the ontological dependence of the universe on God presupposed by this cosmological argument can be understood in terms of the identityessential account for ontological dependence championed by Kit Fine. First, I discuss the reasons for considering that the cosmological argument of (...) contingency is about constant or constitutive ontological (noncausal) dependence. Second, I present the essentialist account of ontological dependence by Kit Fine. Third, I examine the perplexities involving the ontological argument of contingency in the framework of identity-essential dependence. My conclusion is that, under the cosmological argument of contingency plus an identity-essential account of ontological dependence, all contingent things depend on God in a collective way, not an individual one. The collective essence of the totality of contingent things requires God, even although none of these things individually need to have God in their individual essences. (shrink)

'Ontology and Metaontology: A Contemporary Guide' is a clear and accessible survey of ontology, focussing on the most recent trends in the discipline. -/- Divided into parts, the first half characterizes metaontology: the discourse on the methodology of ontological inquiry, covering the main concepts, tools, and methods of the discipline, exploring the notions of being and existence, ontological commitment, paraphrase strategies, fictionalist strategies, and other metaontological questions. The second half considers a series of case studies, introducing and familiarizing (...) the reader with concrete examples of the latest research in the field. The basic sub-fields of ontology are covered here via an accessible and captivating exposition: events, properties, universals, abstract objects, possible worlds, material beings, mereology, fictional objects. -/- The guide's modular structure allows for a flexible approach to the subject, making it suitable for both undergraduates and postgraduates looking to better understand and apply the exciting developments and debates taking place in ontology today. (shrink)

[Stephen Yablo] The usual charge against Carnap's internal/external distinction is one of 'guilt by association with analytic/synthetic'. But it can be freed of this association, to become the distinction between statements made within make-believe games and those made outside them-or, rather, a special case of it with some claim to be called the metaphorical/literal distinction. Not even Quine considers figurative speech committal, so this turns the tables somewhat. To determine our ontological commitments, we have to ferret out all traces of (...) nonliterality in our assertions; if there is no sensible project of doing that, there is no sensible project of Quinean ontology. /// [Andre Gallois] I discuss Steve Yablo's defence of Carnap's distinction between internal and external questions. In the first section I set out what I take that distinction, as Carnap draws it, to be, and spell out a central motivation Carnap has for invoking it. In the second section I endorse, and augment, Yablo's response to Quine's arguments against Carnap. In the third section I say why Carnap's application of the distinction between internal and external questions runs into trouble. In the fourth section I spell out what I take to be Yablo's version of Carnap. In the last I say why that version is especially vulnerable to the objection raised in the second. (shrink)

In this article Quine's program for reducing ontology to the semantic level is compared to Aquinas' metaphysical ontology. Some internal inconsistencies of Quine's quantificational account of existence are discussed. Aquinas' account of existence is explicated in response to Quine' mischaracterization of Scholastic ontology. The general nature of an amended logical account of existence incorporating Aquinas' ontological categories is indicated. Finally, recent attempts to harmonize Thomism and analytic philosophy are criticized for failing to note that the quantificational account (...) of existence is motivated by analytic philosophy's rejection of metaphysical ontology. Nothing short of a logical account of existence within the broader framework of the philosophy of being can legitimate the efforts of analytical Thomists. (shrink)

Much recent discussion in the philosophy of mathematics has concerned the indispensability argument—an argument which aims to establish the existence of abstract mathematical objects through appealing to the role that mathematics plays in empirical science. The indispensability argument is standardly attributed to W. V. Quine and Hilary Putnam. In this paper, I show that this attribution is mistaken. Quine's argument for the existence of abstract mathematical objects differs from the argument which many philosophers of mathematics ascribe to him. Contrary to (...) appearances, Putnam did not argue for the existence of abstract mathematical objects at all. I close by suggesting that attention to Quine and Putnam's writings reveals some neglected arguments for platonism which may be superior to the indispensability argument. (shrink)

In a number of recent publications Thomasson has defended a deflationary approach to ontological disputes, according to which ontological disputes are relatively easy to settle, by either conceptual analysis, or conceptual analysis in conjunction with empirical investigation. Thomasson’s “easy” approach to ontology is intended to derail many prominent ontological disputes. In this paper I present an objection to Thomasson’s approach to ontology. Thomasson’s approach to existence assertions means that she is committed to the view that application conditions associated (...) with any term “K” with non-trivial application conditions must refer to the existence of things other than Ks. Given other components of her meta-ontological scheme, this leads to either an infinite regress or circularity of application conditions, both of which seem objectionable. Accordingly, some part of Thomasson’s meta-ontological scheme should be modified or abandoned. (shrink)

Ontology, since Aristotle, has been conceived as a sort of highly general physics, a science of the types of entities in reality, of the objects, properties, categories and relations which make up the world. At the same time ontology has been for some two thousand years a speculative enterprise. It has rested methodologically on introspection and on the construction and analysis of elaborate world-models and of abstract formal-ontological theories. In the work of Quine and others this ontological theorizing (...) in abstract fashion about the world was supplemented by the study, based on the use of logical methods, of the ontological commitments or presuppositions embodied in scientific theories. In recent years both types of ontological study have found application in the world of information systems, for example in the construction of frameworks for knowledge representation and in database design and translation. As ontology is in this way drawn closer to the domain of real-world applications, the question arises as to whether it is possible to use empirical methods in studying ontological theories. More specifically: can we use empirical methods to test the ontological theories embodied in human cognition? We set forth the outlines of a framework for the formulation and testing of such theories as they relate to the specific domain of geographic objects and categories. (shrink)

Many assume that any complex thing or situation is reducible to its elemental building blocks and the relations between them. Needham’s book goes against this trend by seeking to rehabilitate macroscopic considerations and insisting that resorting to smaller and smaller subunits does not always help.