Many philosophers take the distinguishing mark of their subject to be its a priori status. In their view, where empirical science is based on the data of experience, philosophy is founded on a priori intuitions. In this paper I shall argue that there is no good sense in which philosophical knowledge is informed by a priori intuitions. Philosophical results have just the same a posteriori status as scientific theories. My strategy will be to pose a familiar (...) dilemma for the friends of a priori philosophical intuitions. I shall ask them whether their intuitions are supposed to be analytic or synthetic. And then I shall argue that, if the intuitions are analytic, they may be a priori, but will be philosophically uninteresting; while, if they are synthetic, they may be philosophically interesting, but will not merit being treated as a priori in the context of philosophical debate. At the end of the paper I explain that this does not mean that philosophy should abandon ‘armchair’ methods. We still need to uncover and examine the often unrecognized intuitions that drive our thinking. However this is not because they provide a distinctive source of a priori knowledge, but on the contrary because they may be leading us astray. (shrink)

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

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the theoretical commitments of autopoietic enactivism in relation to Errol E Harris’s dialectical holism in the interest of establishing a common metaphysical ground. This will be undertaken in three stages. First, it is argued that Harris’s reasoning provides a means of developing enactivist ontology beyond discussions limited to cognitive science and into domains of metaphysics that have traditionally been avoided by phenomenologists. Here, I maintain enactivist commitments are consistent with Harris’s reasoning from (...) certain synthetic a priori first principles, to his derivation of a teleological anthropic principle, which asserts the necessity of consciousness within the cosmos. Second, it is proposed that Steven Rosen’s long-standing proposal for a topology of phenomenology may provide a common logical foundation for both Harris and enactivists regarding anthropic reasoning. Third, it is argued that a pragmatic approach to process ontology is the most rigorous way of responding to the realism/anti-realism concerns that inevitably follow. If successful, this work will update Harris’s arguments with contemporary scientific and philosophical terminology and extend enactivism from philosophy of mind, into a general phenomenological ontology. (shrink)

Kant's philosophy promises to explain various synthetic a priori claims. Yet, as several of his commentators have noted, it is hard to see how these explanations could work unless they themselves rested on unexplained synthetic a priori claims. Since Kant appears to demand explanations for all synthetic a priori claims, it would seem that his project fails on its own terms. I argue, however, that Kant holds that explanations are required only for (...) class='Hi'>synthetic a priori claims about (purportedly) experience-independent entities, and that his project rests on a rationalist method of reflection that justifies certain basic synthetic a priori claims. (shrink)

The problem of synthetic judgements touches on the question of whether philosophy can draw independent statements about reality in the first place. For Kant, the synthetic judgements a priori formulate the conditions of the possibility for objectively valid knowledge. Despite the principle fallibility of its statements, modern science aims for objective knowledge. This gives the topic of synthetic a priori unbroken currency. This paper aims to show that a modernized version of transcendental philosophy, (...) if it is to be feasible at all, must “bid farewell” to the concept of being “free of empiricism” or the “purity” of the a priori. Approaches to this end can already been found in Kant’s reflections on non-pure synthetic knowledge. Moreover, the a priori validity of knowledge does not exclude the possibility that it can be discovered empirically. In keeping with Kant, Fries and Nelson anticipated this separation (usually first attributed to Reichenbach) between the validity and discovery context of knowledge and pointed out that the a priori could be discovered empirically, but never proven. There are currently still good reasons why transcendental philosophical concepts are of fundamental importance for modern science, although it must not be overlooked that even within the framework of a modernized transcendental philosophy, several unsolved problems remain or are raised. For example, the irredeemability of the universal validity and necessary claims of the a priori, the problem of a clear demarcation between the phenomenal and noumenal world. Moreover, the “beautiful structure” or the Kantian system, which constituted its persuasive power, is lost. (shrink)

In this paper I present an interpretation of Immanuel Kant’s transcendental deduction of the categories (a dangerous interpretation it turns out), based primarily on the “two-step” argument of the B deduction of the Critique of Pure Reason. I undertake to show that Kant’s distinction between the “pure forms of intuition” and “pure formal intuition” is successful in its attempt to prove that all sensible intuitions presuppose the a priori categories, in a way which is compatible, I claim, with Kant’s (...) statements (in the Aesthetic and elsewhere) that sensible intuition is prior to all concepts; and therefore that the Transcendental Aesthetic presupposes the Transcendental Analytic. Thus my Interpretation is a "conceptualist" reading of the deduction, in holding that perception, as receptivity, presupposes an underlying spontaneity of the pure understanding and categories. The categories are held to be not just compatible with all possible sensible intuitions, but through their "transcendental content" constitutive of the relation of sensible intuitions to objects - and this explains how our thought can represent objects a priori. It is one of the claims of my interpretation that the logical forms of judgment of general logic derive from the pure categories of transcendental logic, rather than vice-versa. I.e. that the logical forms through which we make empirical judgments by combining analytical concepts in inner sense in time, are originally grounded in an atemporal categorial synthesis in pure intuition (i.e. in the form of time but not the dimension of time), referring an outer intuition in general to the transcendental object of intuition (as “something in general” outside sensibility or receptivity), thereby providing the synthetic unity of the manifold which “..all analysis presupposes.” My conceptualist reading of the deduction, I claim, avoids the problems associated with other conceptualist readings, for example inconsistency with the text (“Intuitions are prior to all concepts.” etc.) and blurring of the distinction between receptivity and spontaneity. In my paper I prove that the categories can correctly be held to provide the a priori unity of intuitions, notwithstanding the fact that the latter are “prior to all concepts,” because this unity is not provided by the categories as fully-fledged concepts in the empirical subject, but as the transcendental logical form of these concepts, as a unity in the pure understanding - and the categories therefore require their empirical content or application for their objective reality as concepts. I.e. the categories, as logical functions of judgment for transcendental apperception, in the pure forms of intuition, are prior to all "concepts", correctly speaking, as well as prior to all intuitions, and provide the necessary unity of both. Likewise, at the empirical level my version of conceptualism cannot be accused of blurring the distinction between receptivity and spontaneity, or sensibility and understanding, because although the transcendental content of the categories, as a logical function of judgment in the pure forms of intuition, in transcendental apperception, is in necessary relation to sensibility (in combining the manifold in the pure or formal representation of the transcendental object) their empirical content is not. - At the empirical level the divide between spontaneity (as judgment in the empirical subject) and receptivity (as the effect of transcendental synthesis and the transcendental object on outer and inner sense) remains intact. Conceptualist readings of the deduction also have to avoid infringing Kant’s requirement that the sensible manifold originally be given prior to and independently of all acts of the understanding, or otherwise to qualify the requirement in some way - e.g. by taking a Hegelian direction, such as that taken by John McDowell. On my reading of the deduction the sensible manifold given indeterminately in the pure forms of space and time must be given prior to the categorial synthesis of the manifold in the pure representation of the transcendental object, i.e. in the pure 'concept' of an object in general affecting sensibility. Therefore Kant’s requirement for an undetermined manifold given prior to, and independently of, all acts of the understanding (“..the manifold to be intuited must be given prior to the synthesis of understanding, and independently of it. How this takes place, remains here undetermined” [cf.B145/146]) is not infringed. In a later section of the paper, however, I will argue that the transcendental object (of intuition) does have pure theoretical reason as one of its two interacting immanent aspects, but is distinct from pure theoretical reason in the other of its (the transcendental object of intuition's) two interacting immanent aspects, i.e. pure will, which adds a Schopenhauerian element to my interpretation (which will be argued for in a way which supports Kantian optimism over Schopenhauerian pessimism however, in regard to the freedom of the will). Another perceived inconsistency in the deduction, which my interpretation can explain, is Kant’s description (in the B deduction) of the principle of the necessary synthetic unity of apperception as analytic, while in the A deduction it is described as synthetic. I explain this as a difference in the reference of terms such as “my representations” in the two versions - a transcendental reference in the B version but an empirical and transcendental reference in the A version of the principle. I also show that the first part of the two-step B deduction can correctly be characterised by Kant as analytic and the second, concluding part, synthetic (a point of dispute amongst Kant scholars) because transcendental logic (which refers to both the analytic and synthetic aspects of the principle of apperception) “does not abstract from the pure content of knowledge.” While being a “double aspect” rather than “two world” view of transcendental Idealism (because objects of intuition are comprised of both the empirical and transcendental object, i.e. transcendental referent, of intuition, my view differs significantly from the “double aspect” interpretation of Henry Allison (which distinguishes empirical reality from the “God’s eye” view). The view of transcendental idealism resulting from my reading of the deduction, I claim, allows a full empirical realism, because empirical intuitions, as objects of cognition, are the appearance of both the transcendental subject and the transcendental object (i.e. transcendental referent ) of transcendental synthesis (both as “something in general” outside sensibility or receptivity, or rather outside sensibility as receptivity). I conclude that Kant succeeds (although only with the addition of what I have called my 'Schopenhauerian element') in his attempt to prove that we have a transcendental unity of apperception which both constitutes, and is constituted by, the relation of sensible representations to objects, and that since transcendental apperception is the a priori underlying ground of empirical apperception, the categories (as the logical functions of judgment by which transcendental apperception relates sensible representations to objects) are the a priori underlying ground of all experience, and are therefore valid synthetically a priori for all objects of experience. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Wilfrid Sellars argued that Kant’s account of the conceptual structures involved in experience can be given a linguistic turn so as to provide an analytic account of the resources a language must have in order to be the bearer of empirical knowledge. In this paper I examine the methodological aspects of Kant’s transcendental philosophy that Sellars took to be fundamental to influential themes in his own philosophy. My first aim here is to clarify and argue for the (...) plausibility of what I claim is Sellars’ interpretation of Kant’s ‘analytic’ transcendental method in the first Critique, based ultimately on non-trivial analytic truths concerning the concept of an object of our possible experience. Kant’s ‘transcendental proofs’ thereby avoid a certain methodological trilemma confronting the candidate premises of any such proof, taken from Sellars’ 1970s undergraduate exam question on Kant. In part II of the essay I conclude by highlighting in general terms how Kant’s method, as interpreted in the analytic manner explained in part I, was adapted by Sellars to produce some of the more influential aspects of his own philosophy, expressed in terms of what he contends is their sustainable reformulation in light of the so-called linguistic turn in twentieth-century philosophy. (shrink)

This article focuses on the distinction between analytic truths and synthetic truths, and between a priori truths and a posteriori truths in philosophy, beginning with a brief historical survey of work on the two distinctions, their relationship to each other, and to the necessary/contingent distinction. Four important stops in the history are considered: two involving Kant and W. V. O. Quine, and two relating to logical positivism and semantic externalism. The article then examines questions that have been (...) raised about the analytic–synthetic and a priori–a posteriori distinctions, such as whether all distinctively philosophical truths fall on one side of the line and whether the distinction is relevant to philosophy. It also discusses the argument that there is a lot more a priori knowledge than we ever thought, and concludes by describing epistemological accounts of analyticity. (shrink)

On rationalist infallibilism, a wide range of both (i) analytic and (ii) synthetic a priori propositions can be infallibly justified, i.e., justified in a way that is truth-entailing. In this paper, I examine the second thesis of rationalist infallibilism, what might be called ‘synthetic a priori infallibilism’. Exploring the seemingly only potentially plausible species of synthetic a priori infallibility, I reject the infallible justification of so-called self-justifying propositions.

ABSTRACT: It is a familiar story that Kant’s defence of our synthetic a priori cognition in the Critique of Pure Reason suffered sharp criticism throughout the extended philosophical revolutions that established analytic philosophy, the pragmatist tradition, and the phenomenological tradition as dominant philosophical movements in the first half of the twentieth century. One of the most important positive adaptations of Kant’s outlook, however, was the combined analytic and pragmatist conceptions of the a priori that were developed (...) by the American philosophers C. I. Lewis (1883–1964) and Wilfrid Sellars (1912–1989), most notably in Lewis’s 1929 classic, Mind and the World Order, followed by Sellars’ critical reworking of Lewis’s outlook in ‘Is There a Synthetic A Priori?’ (1953) and other mid-century articles. Both Lewis and Sellars defended central aspects of Kant’s analysis of our a priori knowledge of mind-independent physical objects and necessary causal connections. But both also radically transformed Kant’s view by defending the idea that there are alternative a priori conceptual frameworks that are subject to an ongoing process of reassessment and replacement on overall pragmatic and explanatory grounds. Furthermore, while Sellars’ answer to his question, ‘Is There a Synthetic A Priori?’ thus represented a partial endorsement of Lewis’s pragmatic relativization of the a priori, I argue that Sellars’ account of meaning diverged from Lewis in ways that constituted a significant improvement upon the previous ‘analytic’ defenses of the a priori, not only in Lewis but in general. This arguably has implications for wider disputes concerning the nature and possibility of a priori knowledge in non-formal domains. (shrink)

The present paper deals with the ontological status of numbers and considers Frege ́s proposal in Grundlagen upon the background of the Post-Kantian semantic turn in analytical philosophy. Through a more systematic study of his philosophical premises, it comes to unearth a first level paradox that would unset earlier still than it was exposed by Russell. It then studies an alternative path, that departin1g from Frege’s initial premises, drives to a conception of numbers as synthetic a priori (...) in a more Kantian sense. On this basis, it tentatively explores a possible derivation of basic logical rules on their behalf, suggesting a more rudimentary basis to inferential thinking, which supports reconsidering the difference between logical thinking and AI. Finally, it reflects upon the contributions of this approach to the problem of the a priori. (shrink)

This is a thesis in support of the conceptual yoking of analytic truth to a priori knowledge. My approach is a semantic one; the primary subject matter throughout the thesis is linguistic objects, such as propositions or sentences. I evaluate arguments, and also forward my own, about how such linguistic objects’ truth is determined, how their meaning is fixed and how we, respectively, know the conditions under which their truth and meaning are obtained. The strategy is to make explicit (...) what is distinctive about analytic truths. The objective is to show that truths, known a priori, are trivial in a highly circumscribed way. My arguments are premised on a language-relative account of analytic truth. The language relative account which underwrites much of what I do has two central tenets: 1. Conventionalism about truth and, 2. Non-factualism about meaning. I argue that one decisive way of establishing conventionalism and non-factualism is to prioritise epistemological questions. Once it is established that some truths are not known empirically an account of truth must follow which precludes factual truths being known non-empirically. The function of Part 1 is, chiefly, to render Carnap’s language-relative account of analytic truth. I do not offer arguments in support of Carnap at this stage, but throughout Parts 2 and 3, by looking at more current literature on a priori knowledge and analytic truth, it becomes quickly evident that I take Carnap to be correct, and why. In order to illustrate the extent to which Carnap’s account is conventionalist and non-factualist I pose his arguments against those of his predecessors, Kant and Frege. Part 1 is a lightly retrospective background to the concepts of ‘analytic’ and ‘a priori’. The strategy therein is more mercenary than exegetical: I select the parts from Kant and Frege most relevant to Carnap’s eventual reaction to them. Hereby I give the reasons why Carnap foregoes a factual and objective basis for logical truth. The upshot of this is an account of analytic truth (i.e. logical truth, to him) which ensures its trivial nature. In opposition to accounts of a priori knowledge, which describe it as knowledge gained from rational apprehension, I argue that it is either knowledge from logical deduction or knowledge of stipulations. I therefore reject, in Part 2, three epistemologies for knowing linguistic conventions (e.g. implicit definitions): 1. intuition, 2. inferential a priori knowledge and, 3. a posteriori knowledge. At base, all three epistemologies are rejected because they are incompatible with conventionalism and non-factualism. I argue this point by signalling that such accounts of knowledge yield unsubstantiated second-order claims and/or they render the relevant linguistic conventions epistemically arrogant. For a convention to be arrogant it must be stipulated to be true. The stipulation is then considered arrogant when its meaning cannot be fixed, and its truth cannot be determined without empirical ‘work’. Once a working explication of ‘a priori’ has been given, partially in Part 1 (as inferential) and then in Part 2 (as non-inferential) I look, in Part 3, at an apriorist account of analytic truth, which, I argue, renders analytic truth non-trivial. The particular subject matter here is the implicit definitions of logical terms. The opposition’s argument holds that logical truths are known a priori (this is part of their identification criteria) and that their meaning is factually based. From here it follows that analytic truth, being determined by factually based meaning, is also factual. I oppose these arguments by exposing the internal inconsistencies; that implicit definition is premised on the arbitrary stipulation of truth which is inconsistent with saying that there are facts which determine the same truth. In doing so, I endorse the standard irrealist position about implicit definition and analytic truth (along with the “early friends of implicit definition” such as Wittgenstein and Carnap). What is it that I am trying to get at by doing all of the abovementioned? Here is a very abstracted explanation. The unmitigated realism of the rationalists of old, e.g. Plato, Descartes, Kant, have stoically borne the brunt of the allegation of yielding ‘synthetic a priori’ claims. The anti-rationalist phase of this accusation I am most interested in is that forwarded by the semantically driven empiricism of the early 20th century. It is here that the charge of the ‘synthetic a priori’ really takes hold. Since then new methods and accusatory terms are employed by, chiefly, non-realist positions. I plan to give these proper attention in due course. However, it seems to me that the reframing of the debate in these new terms has also created the illusion that current philosophical realism, whether naturalistic realism, realism in science, realism in logic and mathematics, is somehow not guilty of the same epistemological and semantic charges levelled against Plato, Descartes and Kant. It is of interest to me that in, particularly, current analytic philosophy (given its rationale) realism in many areas seems to escape the accusation of yielding synthetic priori claims. Yet yielding synthetic a priori claims is something which realism so easily falls prey to. Perhaps this is a function of the fact that the phrase, ‘synthetic a priori’, used as an allegation, is now outmoded. This thesis is nothing other than an indictment of metaphysics, or speculative philosophy (this being the crime), brought against a specific selection of realist arguments. I, therefore, ask of my reader to see my explicit, and perhaps outmoded, charge of the ‘synthetic a priori’ levelled against respective theorists as an attempt to draw a direct comparison with the speculative metaphysics so many analytic philosophers now love to hate. I think the phrase ‘synthetic a priori’ still does a lot of work in this regard, precisely because so many current theorists wrongly think they are immune to this charge. Consequently, I shall say much about what is not permitted. Such is, I suppose, the nature of arguing ‘against’ something. I’ll argue that it is not permitted to be a factualist about logical principles and say that they are known a priori. I’ll argue that it is not permitted to say linguistic conventions are a posteriori, when there is a complete failure in locating such a posteriori conventions. Both such philosophical claims are candidates for the synthetic a priori, for unmitigated rationalism. But on the positive side, we now have these two assets: Firstly, I do not ask us to abandon any of the linguistic practises discussed; merely to adopt the correct attitude towards them. For instance, where we use the laws of logic, let us remember that there are no known/knowable facts about logic. These laws are therefore, to the best of our knowledge, conventions not dissimilar to the rules of a game. And, secondly, once we pass sentence on knowing, a priori, anything but trivial truths we shall have at our disposal the sharpest of philosophical tools. A tool which can only proffer a better brand of empiricism. (shrink)

In this article I would like to discuss the concept of a priori mainly focusing on Kant’s Copernican revolution. How is metaphysics at all possible and how a priority takes place in Kantian metaphysics are the questions that I have addressed in the first part of my article. In this context, I have explained analytic, synthetic distinction from epistemological, metaphysical and semantical perspectives and I want to show how the concept of a priori and other associated notions (...) are derived from this different perspective. I end my discussion with an account of some fundamental objections raised by Quine and Kripke against Kantian analysis. Quine mainly wants to deny the traditional analytic and synthetic distinction. Besides, Kripke is trying to show that it is not true that the traditional account of the intimate relation between a priori and necessary proposition must be true, i.e., it is mistaken that a priori proposition must be necessary, it may be contingent. I would like to analyse and explain a few obstacles of Quine and Kripke following Putnam’s (externalist approach) and Quassim Cassam’s (non-empirical approach on a priority) line of different arguments. (shrink)

Philosophers and scientists have often adopted the orthodox version of calibration which involves standardizing an instrument using a known phenomenon. The essential link between theoretical concepts and empirical data, in the philosophy of measurement, has generated the formulation of principles of coordination, synthetic a priori, and revisables. Operationalist thinking wanted to limit the scope of concepts to operations of measurement that are actually achievable. The coherentist perspective in the philosophy of measurement has operated a recovery of (...) coordinationist epistemology and operationalism, relying on a minimal number of ontological principles. Models of an instrument involve a commitment to separation between idealized theories and material things. However, philosophers and metrologists have advocated the requirement of a rich theoretical content in the modeling of measuring instruments. According to other contributions, the epistemic privilege of measurement precedes a background theory and its robustness lies in the free contact with empirical data. Moreover, the applicability regime of a theory dictates its boundary conditions, which guide the experimenter in the design of measuring instruments and provide the basis for operationalizing the meaning of theoretical terms. I support operational pluralism, measurement operations involving different physical indicators, accompanied by dynamic coherentism. The James Webb Space Telescope calibration program is a significant case. Observations of calibration stars by various methods are used to calculate the factors that convert a measurement in instrumental units to physical units. (shrink)

In Glauben und Wissen as well as in the Wissenschaft der Logik Hegel states that the kantian question: «How are synthetical judgements a priori possible?» is speculative in its own. Despite this statement Hegel argues that the results of Kant’s theory of judgement in the Kritik der reinen Vernunft contradicts its speculative sense. So in Hegel’s opinion the question is still waiting for an answer. Aim of this contribution is to make clear how Hegel solves this issue in a (...) speculative way without going back to a precritical philosophy. Focusing on Hegel’s theory of ‘Subjective Spirit’ in the Enzyklopädie this contribution wants to clarify the Hegel’s solution to a pivotal problem of criticism through the sublation of a phenomenological approach to the idea of ‘Reason’ and his theory of intelligence as a part of the ‘Theoretical Spirit’. (shrink)

In a recent article in this journal [Phil. Math., II, v.4 (1989), n.2, pp.?- ?] J. Fang argues that we must not be fooled by A.J. Ayer (God rest his soul!) and his cohorts into believing that mathematical knowledge has an analytic a priori status. Even computers, he reminds us, take some amount of time to perform their calculations. The simplicity of Kant's infamous example of a mathematical proposition (7+5=12) is "partly to blame" for "mislead[ing] scholars in the direction (...) of neglecting the temporal element"; yet a brief instant of time is required to grasp even this simple truth. If Kant were alive today, "and if he had had a little more mathematical savvy", Fang explains, he could have used the latest example of the largest prime number (391,581 x 2 216,193 - 1) as a better example of the "synthetic a priori" character of mathematics. The reason Fang is so intent upon emphasizing the temporal character of mathematics is that he wishes to avoid "the uncritical mixing of ... a theology and a philosophy of mathematics." For "in the light of the Computer Age today: finitism is king!" Although Kant's aim was explicitly "to study the 'human' ... faculty", Fang claims that even he did not adequatley emphasize "the clearly and concretely distinguishable line of demarcation between the human and divine faculties.". (shrink)

In order to make sense of Scotus’s claim that rationality is perfected only by the will, a Scotistic doctrine of truth is developed in a speculative way. It is claimed that synthetic a priori truths are truths of the will, which are existential truths. This insight holds profound theological implications and is used on the one hand to criticize Kant's conception of existence, and on the other hand, to offer another explanation of the sense according to which the (...) existence of things is grasped. (shrink)

One of the more visible recent developments in philosophical methodology is the experimental philosophy movement. On its surface, the experimentalist challenge looks like a dramatic threat to the apriority of philosophy; ‘experimentalist’ is nearly antonymic with ‘aprioristic’. This appearance, I suggest, is misleading; the experimentalist critique is entirely unrelated to questions about the apriority of philosophical investigation. There are many reasons to resist the skeptical conclusions of negative experimental philosophers; but even if they are granted—even if (...) the experimentalists are right to claim that we must do much more careful laboratory work in order legitimately to be confident in our philosophical judgments— the apriority of philosophy is unimpugned. The kinds of scientific investigation that experimental philosophers argue to be necessary involve merely enabling sensory experiences. Although they are not enabling in the sense of permitting concept acquisition, they are enabling in another epistemically significant way that is also consistent with the apriority of philosophy. (shrink)

Three classic distinctions specify that truths can be necessary versus contingent,analytic versus synthetic, and a priori versus a posteriori. The philosopher reading this article knows very well both how useful and ordinary such distinctions are in our conceptual work and that they have been subject to many and detailed debates, especially the last two. In the following pages, I do not wish to discuss how far they may be tenable. I shall assume that, if they are reasonable and (...) non problematic in some ordinary cases, then they can be used in order to understand what kind of knowledge the maker’s knowledge is. By this I mean the sort of knowledge that Alice enjoys when she holds the information that Bob’s coffee is sweetened because she just put two spoons of sugar in it herself. The maker’s knowledge tradition is quite important but it is not mainstream in modern and analytic epistemology and lacks grounding in terms of exactly what sort of knowledge one is talking about. My suggestion is that this grounding can be provided by a minimalist approach, based on an information-theoretical analysis. In the article, I argue that we need to decouple a fourth distinction, namely informative versus uninformative, from the previous three and, in particular, from its implicit association with analytic versus synthetic and a priori versus a posteriori; such a decoupling facilitates, and is facilitated by, moving from a monoagent to a multiagent approach: the distinctions qualify a proposition, a message, or some information not just in themselves but relationally, with respect to an informational agent; the decoupling and the multiagent approach enable a re-mapping of currently available positions in epistemology on these four dichotomies; within such a re-mapping, two positions, capturing the nature of a witness’ knowledge and of a maker’s knowledge, can best be described as contingent, synthetic, a posteriori, and uninformative and as contingent, synthetic, weakly a priori, and uninformative respectively. In the conclusion, I indicate why the analysis of the maker’s knowledge has important consequences in all those cases in which the poietic intervention on a system determines the truth of the model of that system. (shrink)

Sektion Erkenntnistheorie, 29.09.2014, XXIII. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Philosophie 2014 in Münster. -/- The problem of synthetic judgments touches upon the question whether philosophy is in fact capable of making independent truth statements. According to Kant, synthetic judgments formulate the conditions for the possibility of objectively valid knowledge a priori. As far as empirical attempts at reinterpretation of the aprioristic fall short of this ambition, Kant’s a priori goes deeper. This is because modern science (...) strives towards objective knowledge, although its statements are fundamentally fallible. The topic of synthetic a priori thus continues to be relevant. -/- This paper will show that, in order to be viable at all, a modernized version of transcendental philosophy must ‘depart from’ the concepts of “independence from empirics” and/or the “purity” of the aprioristic. Kant’s reflections on non-pure synthetic a priori knowledge already contain attempts at this. Furthermore, the aprioristic validity of knowledge does not exclude the possibility, that it can be discovered empirically. Fries and, subsequently, Nelson proceeded with this separation (initially ascribed to Reichenbach) between the contexts of validity and discovery of knowledge, pointing out that the a priori can indeed be discovered empirically, yet never be proven. -/- Currently, there are still a number of valid reasons for arguing that concepts from transcendental philosophy continue to be of fundamental importance for the modern sciences. However, it must not be neglected that, even within a modernized framework of transcendental philosophy various unsolved problems remain and/or are created (such as the unfeasibility of the aprioristic claim to general validity and necessity, the problem of drawing a clear boundary between the noumenal and phenomenal worlds). Moreover, the “beautiful structure” of the Kantian system, which constitutes much of its persuasive strength, is lost. (shrink)

The received view in the history of the philosophy of psychology is that the logical positivists—Carnap and Hempel in particular—endorsed the position commonly known as “logical” or “analytical” behaviourism, according to which the relations between psychological statements and the physical-behavioural statements intended to give their meaning are analytic and knowable a priori. This chapter argues that this is sheer legend: most, if not all, such relations were viewed by the logical positivists as synthetic and knowable only a (...) posteriori. It then traces the origins of the legend to the logical positivists’ idiosyncratic extensional or at best weakly intensional use of what are now considered crucially strongly intensional semantic notions, such as “translation,” “meaning” and their cognates, focussing on a particular instance of this latter phenomenon, arguing that a conflation of explicit definition and analyticity may be the chief source of the legend. (shrink)

This chapter analyses the prospects of using neuroimaging methods, in particular functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), for philosophical purposes. To do so, it will use two case studies from the field of emotion research: Greene et al. (2001) used fMRI to uncover the mental processes underlying moral intuitions, while Lindquist et al. (2012) used fMRI to inform the debate around the nature of a specific mental process, namely, emotion. These studies illustrate two main approaches in cognitive neuroscience: Reverse inference and (...) ontology testing, respectively. With regards to Greene et al.’s study, the use of Neurosynth (Yarkoni 2011) will show that the available formulations of reverse inference, although viable a priori, seem to be of limited use in practice. On the other hand, the discussion of Lindquist et al.’s study will present the so far neglected potential of ontology-testing approaches to inform philosophical questions. (shrink)

In this issue of Studies in Transcendental Philosophy five scholars enquire about the theoretical aspects of Kant’s transcendental philosophy related to the notions of subject, self-consciousness, and self-knowledge. Andrew Brook examines Kant’s views on transcendental apperception at the end of the Critical Period, focusing on Opus Postumum which contains some of Kant’s most important reflections on the subjective dimension. As is known, the self-conscious act designated by the proposition ‘I think’ is an act of spontaneity, and this spontaneity (...) is the reason that the subject calls itself an intelligence. In his article Addison Ellis examines the theoretical and practical dimension of spontaneity, calling into question the distinction between a merely ‘relative’ spontaneity and one that is ‘absolute’. Luca Forgione points to two forms of self-consciousness introduced by Kant: inner sense, based on a sensory form of self-awareness, and transcendental apperception. Through the notion of inner sense, Kant also allows for an introspective account of self-awareness; nonetheless, Kant holds an utterly sophisticated notion of basic self-consciousness provided for by the notion of transcendental apperception. Roberto Horácio de Sá Pereira’s article presents a systematic and a historical approach, linking the contemporary debate on transcendental argument to Kant’s philosophy. It addresses both Stroud’s objection and Strawson’s perspective on transcendental argument and introduces a new reconstruction of Kant’s Refutation as successful truth-directed transcendental argument. In contrast to the contemporary movement of transhumanism and its claims that creatures like us can exist independently of our bodies, Robert Hanna develops a generalist perspective on the subjective dimension, according to which all rational human creature are synthetic a priori necessarily, essentially embodied Kantian selves. I would like to thank the authors for participating in this issue and for helping to make it really special. (shrink)

Thought experiments play a role in science and in some central parts of contemporary philosophy. They used to play a larger role in philosophy of science, but have been largely abandoned as part of the field’s “practice turn”. This chapter discusses possible roles for thought experimentation within a practice-oriented philosophy of science. Some of these roles are uncontroversial, such as exemplification and aiding discovery. A more controversial role is the reliance on thought experiments to justify philosophical claims. (...) It is proposed that if we adopt an underlying empiricist view of concepts, then thought experiments can be seen as affording us contact with scientific practice, despite their seemingly a priori character. The advantages and drawbacks of thought experiments are discussed via comparison with case studies, on the one, and simulations on the other hand. The chapter closes with some remarks on how to combine thought experiments with other methods. (shrink)

Traditionally transcendental logic has been set apart from formal logic. Transcendental logic had to deal with the conditions of possibility of judgements, which were presupposed by formal logic. Defined as a purely philosophical enterprise transcendental logic was considered as being a priori delivering either analytic or even synthetic a priori results. In this paper it is argued that this separation from the (empirical) cognitive sciences should be given up. Transcendental logic should be understood as focusing on specific (...) questions. These do not, as some recent analytic philosophy has it, include a refutation of scepticism. And they are not to be separated from meta-logical investigations. Transcendental logic properly understood, and redefined along these theses, should concern itself with the (formal) re-construction of the presupposed necessary conditions and rules of linguistic communication in general. It aims at universality and reflexive closure. (shrink)

The recent discussion of fictional models has focused on imagination, implicitly considering fictions as something nonconcrete. We present two cases from synthetic biology that can be viewed as concrete fictions. Both minimal cells and alternative genetic systems are modal in nature: they, as well as their abstract cousins, can be used to study unactualized possibilia. We approach these synthetic constructs through Vaihinger’s notion of a semi-fiction and Goodman’s notion of semifactuality. Our study highlights the relative existence of such (...) concrete fictions. Before their realizations neither minimal cells nor alternative genetic systems were any well-defined objects, and the subsequent experimental work has given more content to these originally schematic imaginings. But it is as yet unclear whether individual members of these heterogeneous groups of somewhat functional synthetic constructs will eventually turn out to be fully realizable, remain only partially realizable, or prove outright impossible. (shrink)

If successful scientific inquiry is to be possible, there must be a world that is independent of how we believe it to be, and in which there are kinds and laws; and we must have the sensory apparatus to perceive particular things and events, and the capacity to represent them, to form generalized explanatory conjectures, and check how these conjectures stand up to further experience. Whether these preconditions are met is not a question the sciences can answer; it is specifically (...) philosophical. This is why the myriad forms of scientistic philosophy in vogue today (neurophilosophy, experimental philosophy, naturalized metaphysics, evangelical-atheist reductionism, etc), are all hollow at the core. Does this mean we must return to the old, a priori analytic model? No! What is needed instead is scientific philosophy in the sense Peirce articulated more than a century ago: philosophy motivated by a genuine desire to discover the truth, and relying not solely on reason but also on experience—only not the special, recherché experience required by the sciences, but close attention to aspects of everyday experience so familiar we hardly notice them. (shrink)

This paper discusses the coverage of ordinary language philosophy in Scott Soames' Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. After praising the book's virtues, I raise three points where I dissent from Soames' take on the history. First, I suggest that there is more to ordinary language philosophy than the rather implausible version of it that Soames sees to have been destroyed by Grice. Second, I argue that confusions between analyticity, necessity and priority are less important to the ordinary (...) language period than Soames takes them to be. Finally, I claim that Soames' criticisms of Ryle turn in part on attributing reductionist positions to Ryle that Ryle did not hold. (shrink)

This paper provides a defense of two traditional theses: the Autonomy of Philosophy and the Authority of Philosophy. The first step is a defense of the evidential status of intuitions (intellectual seemings). Rival views (such as radical empiricism), which reject the evidential status of intuitions, are shown to be epistemically self-defeating. It is then argued that the only way to explain the evidential status of intuitions is to invoke modal reliabilism. This theory requires that intuitions have a certain (...) qualified modal tie to the truth. This result is then used as the basis of the defense of the Autonomy and Authority theses. The paper closes with a defense of the two theses against a potential threat from scientific essentialism. (shrink)

This paper discusses the connection between epistemic virtues and chemistry in the eighteenth century Dutch Republic. It does so in two ways. First, it presents the virtue epistemology of three Dutch university professors and natural philosophers: Herman Boerhaave, Petrus van Musschenbroek, and Johannes David Hahn. It shows how their criticism of a priori philosophy and their defence of experimental natural philosophy is connected to a specific virtue epistemology. Four epistemic virtues are central for these authors: intellectual (...) patience, diligence and humility, and impartiality. This virtue epistemology informs their presentation of chemistry as an exemplary discipline. The practice of chemistry instils these key epistemic virtues in its practitioners. Second, the article shows how these epistemic virtues also play a role in later debates regarding the reception of Lavoisier’s work in the Dutch Republic. This article hopes to provide an example of what Ian Kidd has called a ‘deep conception of epistemic vice [and virtue]’. It also argues for the fruitfulness of applying a virtue epistemic framework to the study of the Chemical Revolution. (shrink)

We aim to show that Kant’s theory of time is consistent by providing axioms whose models validate all synthetic a priori principles for time proposed in the Critique of Pure Reason. In this paper we focus on the distinction between time as form of intuition and time as formal intuition, for which Kant’s own explanations are all too brief. We provide axioms that allow us to construct ‘time as formal intuition’ as a pair of continua, corresponding to time (...) as ‘inner sense’ and the external representation of time as a line Both continua are replete with infinitesimals, which we use to elucidate an enigmatic discussion of ‘rest’ in the Metaphysical foundations of natural science. Our main formal tools are Alexandroff topologies, inverse systems and the ring of dual numbers. (shrink)

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

This chapter considers Kant's relation to Hume as Kant himself understood it when he wrote the Critique of Pure Reason and the Prolegomena. It first seeks to refine the question of Kant's relation to Hume's skepticism, and it then considers the evidence for Kant's attitude toward Hume in three works: the A Critique, Prolegomena, and B Critique. It argues that in the A Critique Kant viewed skepticism positively, as a necessary reaction to dogmatism and a spur toward critique. In his (...) initial statement of the critical philosophy Kant treated Hume as an ally in curbing dogmatism, but one who stopped short of what was really needed: a full critique of reason, to establish the boundaries of metaphysical cognition. Kant found fault with Hume's analyses of cognition and experience, and specifically his failure to see the crucial importance of synthetic a priori cognition in metaphysics. In particular, he held that Hume's empiricist account of cognition could neither explain the synthetic a priori cognition actually found in mathematics and natural science, nor provide a principled account of the limits on what can be known--and what can be thought--through the pure concepts of the understanding. According to Kant, Hume therefore failed in his attempt to determine the limits of metaphysics, whereas he was able to succeed because his transcendental philosophy provided a thorough account of cognition, its structure and limits. In the Prolegomena and the B Critique Kant distinguished his position more sharply from Hume's. He also adopted a more negative attitude toward "skeptical idealism" than before; but he attributed such skepticism to Descartes, not Hume. Prior to the B Critique Kant did not see Hume as attacking natural science or ordinary cognition. In none of the three works was Kant's main aim to "answer the skeptic." His primary aim was to firmly establish the boundary of metaphysics, by discovering the elements of human cognition and fixing its proper domain. His purported discoveries about the limits of metaphysical cognition meant that the traditional objects of metaphysical knowledge, God, the soul, and the world as it is in itself, are unknowable, hence that traditional metaphysics itself is impossible. Besides settling the possibility or impossibility of metaphysics, his findings would also prevent the illegitimate extension of principles of sensibility to God and the noumenal self, an extension that would threaten the metaphysics of morals by incorrectly denying the thinkability of noumenal freedom, and that might otherwise lead to "materialism, fatalism, atheism, and freethinking unbelief" (B xxxiv). (shrink)

Our objectives in this paper are, first, to identify several puzzling aspects of the “Trilemma Argument” of Section 6 against the Sense Datum Theory; second, to resolve these puzzles by reconstructing the Trilemma Argument; third to point to a distinction Sellars makes between two versions of the Sense Datum Theory, the “nominalist” version and the “realist” version; fourth, to reconstruct Sellars’s arguments against both; and, finally, to find in an earlier paper, “Is There a Synthetic A Priori?” that (...) his argument against the second version, assumed but not actually given in EPM, is against property realism and depends on taking language expressing propositional perception as fundamental and language expressing non-propositional perception as incomplete and derivative from the former. (shrink)

This paper concerns the three great modal dichotomies: (i) the necessary/contingent dichotomy; (ii) the a priori/empirical dichotomy; and (iii) the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. These can be combined to produce a tri-dichotomy of eight modal categories. The question as to which of the eight categories house statements and which do not is a pivotal battleground in the history of analytic philosophy, with key protagonists including Descartes, Hume, Kant, Kripke, Putnam and Kaplan. All parties to the debate have accepted that (...) some categories are void. This paper defends the contrary view that all eight categories house statements—a position I dub ‘octopropositionalism’. Examples of statements belonging to all eight categories are given. (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)

Maimon’s theory of the differential has proved to be a rather enigmatic aspect of his philosophy. By drawing upon mathematical developments that had occurred earlier in the century and that, by virtue of the arguments presented in the Essay and comments elsewhere in his writing, I suggest Maimon would have been aware of, what I propose to offer in this paper is a study of the differential and the role that it plays in the Essay on Transcendental Philosophy (...) (1790). In order to do so, this paper focuses upon Maimon’s criticism of the role played by mathematics in Kant’s philosophy, to which Maimon offers a Leibnizian solution based on the infinitesimal calculus. The main difficulties that Maimon has with Kant’s system, the second of which will be the focus of this paper, include the presumption of the existence of synthetic a priori judgments, i.e. the question quid facti, and the question of whether the fact of our use of a priori concepts in experience is justified, i.e. the question quid juris. Maimon deploys mathematics, specifically arithmetic, against Kant to show how it is possible to understand objects as having been constituted by the very relations between them, and he proposes an alternative solution to the question quid juris, which relies on the concept of the differential. However, despite these arguments, Maimon remains sceptical with respect to the question quid facti. (shrink)

This chapter introduces the articles by Marie C. Swabey, Thelma Z. Lavine, Grace A. de Laguna and Dorothy Walsh on the objectivity of scientific knowledge. We will see Swabey placing herself outside the historicist traditions of (later) authors (e.g., Thomas Kuhn), and arguing that the rationality and objectivity of science are grounded in synthetic a priori justified logical principles. Lavine and de Laguna, by contrast, embrace socio-historical approaches to the study of science, thus anticipating later developments in (...) class='Hi'>philosophy of science. Still, whereas Lavine embraces a relativist notion of objectivity, de Laguna argues that science, at least in some respects, actually is universally valid. Walsh, finally, like Swabey, believes in context-independent objectivity that is grounded in metaphysics, but like de Laguna and Lavine, contends that such objectivity is discipline-specific. (shrink)

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

As most of its readers are aware, the Critique of Pure Reason is primarily concerned not with empirical, but with a priori knowledge. For the most part, the Kant of the first Critique tends to assume that experience, and the knowledge that is based on it, is unproblematic. The problem with which he is concerned is that of how we can be capable of substantive knowledge independently of experience. At the same time, however, the notion of experience plays a (...) crucial role in the central arguments of the Critique. For, again as most readers of the Critique know, Kant aims to show how we can have synthetic a priori knowledge by showing that the categories, or pure concepts of the understanding, are conditions of the possibility of experience. This means that, whether or not Kant is concerned with the notion of experience for its own sake, his account of a priori knowledge carries with it at least some commitments regarding the character of experience. If the account of a priori knowledge is to be successful, then experience has to be the kind of thing for which the categories can, in principle, serve as conditions of possibility. More specifically, experience must involve not only the senses, but also thought or understanding, for otherwise the claim that it presupposes a certain specific set of concepts is simply unintelligible. And indeed at least some parts of the Critique, in particular the so-called subjective deduction in the first edition, and the briefer passages which correspond to it in the second edition, seem to be intended to show how this requirement is met. That is, they are concerned not so much with showing that experience is governed by the categories, as with elaborating a view of experience as involving conceptual activity überhaupt. (shrink)

Descriptive accounts of the nature of explanation in neuroscience and the global goals of such explanation have recently proliferated in the philosophy of neuroscience and with them new understandings of the experimental practices of neuroscientists have emerged. In this paper, I consider two models of such practices; one that takes them to be reductive; another that takes them to be integrative. I investigate those areas of the neuroscience of learning and memory from which the examples used to substantiate (...) these models are culled, and argue that the multiplicity of experimental protocols used in these research areas presents specific challenges for both models. In my view, these challenges have been overlooked largely because philosophers have hitherto failed to pay sufficient attention to fundamental features of experimental practice. I demonstrate that when we do pay attention to such features, evidence for reduction and integrative unity in neuroscience is simply not borne out. I end by suggesting some new directions for the philosophy of neuroscience that pertain to taking a closer look at the nature of neuroscientific experiments. (shrink)

English title: The Problem of the Synthetic a priori Judgements According to Hermann Lotze. The present article compares Kant’s and Lotze’s concepts of synthetic judgements. Lotze’s aim is a renewing of the Kant’s solutions, what he achieves thanks to introduction of the distinction between analytic (identical) content and synthetic form of these judgements which Kant recognised as synthetic. This distinction makes possible to lay down the concept of intentional sense which has influence over Frege and (...) Husserl. (shrink)

“The A2 is Light,” Schelling explains to us in the Presentation of My System of Philosophy. Is such a statement meaningful, so that its truth value can be asked? Is it an empirical statement, which can be tested and possibly confirmed through observations? Or is it a synthetic a priori judgment independent of observations? Such questions are not easy to answer, and they are related to the logical status of Schelling’s theory as a whole. That such questions (...) became important stems from the peculiarity of the philosophical systems that were developed in Jena after 1800. They were called “systems of absolute idealism,” but it is not clear what this means. These systems include not only Schelling’s but also Hegel’s and Krause’s. In the following, some commonalities, as well as specific particularities, of these systems will be examined in more detail from the standpoint of methodology. (shrink)

In this paper I argue for a priori conjectural scientific knowledge about the world. Physics persistently only accepts unified theories, even though endlessly many empirically more successful disunified rivals are always available. This persistent preference for unified theories, against empirical considerations, means that physics makes a substantial, persistent metaphysical assumption, to the effect that the universe has a (more or less) unified dynamic structure. In order to clarify what this assumption amounts to, I solve the problem of what it (...) means to say of a theory that it is unified. There are, I argue, eight different kinds of unity important in theoretical physics, all varieties of one basic idea. This provides us with a precise way of partially ordering physical theories with respect to their degree of unity. It also leads to a hierarchical view of physics, according to which physics makes a number of increasingly insubstantial metaphysical assumptions concerning the comprehensibility and knowability of the universe. Two of these are identified as constituting a priori conjectures. I conclude by arguing that the view developed in the paper resolves the traditional clash between empiricism and rationalism in the philosophy of science, and has important implications for science, and for academic inquiry more generally. (shrink)

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

Should we do speculative cognitive science? - In present day philosophy, I see a fashion that uses empirical facts (data) to support positions that are not philosophical but empirical in nature. The argumentative structure is classical philosophy, saying that ‘this has to be that way because …’ where the ‘this’ refers to some empirical state of affairs. This kind of philosophy speculates about empirical facts in areas where we do not yet know the facts – the arguments (...) are a priori, supported by a posteriori data. This is precisely what the speculative philosophy of German Idealism was doing, e.g. in the works of Schelling or Hegel. (shrink)

Sofern man die Existenz objektiver Erkenntnisse anerkennt, ist man mit der Frage nach den Bedingungen der Möglichkeit für diese Erkenntnisse konfrontiert. Der Grund muss in Voraussetzungen liegen, die selbst wiederum empirisch nicht zu rechtfertigen sind. Zwar verwerfen Popper und Carnap den Begriff des "synthetischen Urteils a priori", doch die Voraussetzung, dass es "in der Natur gesetzlich zugeht", räumen beide ein. Diese empirisch nicht zu rechtfertigende Prämisse ist ein synthetisches Urteil a priori. Gemäß Kant ist innerhalb der Klasse der (...) Erkenntnisse a priori zwischen reinen und nicht-reinen Erkenntnissen a priori zu unterscheiden. Es in vorliegender Arbeit argumentativ dafür plädiert, Naturgesetze als apriorische Erkenntnisse zu betrachten, die der Klasse der nicht-reinen synthetischen Urteile a priori zuzurechnen sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund kommt die Arbeit zu der Schlussthese: Ein empirischer (d. h. empirische Begriffe enthaltender) Satz (etwa ein Naturgesetz) kann über den (empirisch nicht einlösbaren, aber als Postulat durchaus sinnvollen) Anspruch auf allgemeine und notwendige Geltung verfügen und somit Bedingungen der Möglichkeit für objektive Erkenntnis formulieren. Doch sind für die Entdeckung empirischer Sätze mit Anspruch auf allgemeine und notwendige Geltung empirische Studien (etwa das physikalische Experiment) erforderlich. (shrink)

The justificatory force of empirical reasoning always depends upon the existence of some synthetic, a priori justification. The reasoner must begin with justified, substantive constraints on both the prior probability of the conclusion and certain conditional probabilities; otherwise, all possible degrees of belief in the conclusion are left open given the premises. Such constraints cannot in general be empirically justified, on pain of infinite regress. Nor does subjective Bayesianism offer a way out for the empiricist. Despite often-cited convergence (...) theorems, subjective Bayesians cannot hold that any empirical hypothesis is ever objectively justified in the relevant sense. Rationalism is thus the only alternative to an implausible skepticism. (shrink)

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

In A Priori Justification, Albert Casullo argues that extant attempts to explicate experiential justification—by stipulation, introspection, conceptual analysis, thought experimentation, and/or appeal to intuitions about hypothetical cases—are unsuccessful. He draws the following conclusion: “armchair methods” such as these are inadequate to the task. Instead, empirical methods should be used to investigate the distinction between experiential and non-experiential justification and to address questions concerning the nature, extent, and existence of the a priori. In this essay, I show that Casullo (...) has not refuted armchair explications of experiential justification, in particular those that appeal to introspectively accessible phenomenology. I do this by presenting a phenomenal theory of experiential justification that (a) has a significant degree of initial plausibility and (b) survives Casullo’s general attack on such theories. As a result, a premise in the central argument for Casullo’s signature proposal concerning the a priori is undermined. (shrink)