This is a comprehensive introduction to the history of Western Philosophy from the Pre-Socratics to Twentieth Century thought. In addition to all the key figures, the book covers figures whose contributions have so far been overlooked, such as Vico, Montesquieu, Durkheim and Weber. Along with in-depth discussion of the philosophical movements, Skirbekk and Gilje also discuss the natural sciences, the establishment of the Humanities, Socialism and Fascism, Psychoanalysis, and the rise of the social sciences. _History of Western Thought_ is (...) an ideal introduction to philosophy and the sociological and scientific structures that have shaped modern day philosophy. (shrink)

This paper, on argumentative reason in a modernization-theoretical perspective, is a revised version of a public lecture held at Oslo University College, in memory of Professor Harald Grimen. There are three main points: argumentative reason conceived as self-critical reflection, to be extended to arguments from absurdity – from Apel to Ryle, as it were; argumentative reason conceived as a search for better arguments, ideally with mutual recognition and personal improvement – a meliorist approach; argumentative reason conceived as situated learning-processes, socially (...) and institutionally. In short, a special blend of late-Wittgensteinian praxeology, transcendental-pragmatics and discourse theory, as it is discussed in my writings. (shrink)

This article1 I 2014 hadde nærmere én av tre høyere utdanning. Blant folk mellom 25 og 39 år har mer enn halvparten av kvinnene høyere utdanning, noe som gjør denne aldersgruppen til den høyest utdannede i Norge.2 presents reflections on women's presence in Norwegian philosophy, partly as a result of input from key persons in the Norwegian philosophy environment. We discuss the low proportion of women among students and staff in the field, then we investigate whether gender perspectives are present (...) in the study of philosophy and why women's low participation in the study of philosophy is regarded as a vital challenge. We argue that awareness of the impact history of categorization of gender is important and it is necessary to examine current direct and indirect stereotypes of gender, rationality and natural properties and their role in Norwegian philosophy today. We identify characteristics of the Norwegian post-war philosophy, such as diversity and openness, power struggles and gender blindness, and argue that women throughout the postwar period and until today been a minority in philosophy. Our material shows that measures to improve gender balance in philosophy, and attempts to integrate gender perspectives, has met fierce resistance. The article also shows how the study of feminist philosophy and its influence and position in Norway, is well suited to give us a richer and more complex picture of the Norwegian philosophy. It may tell us something about how open-minded or closed the philosophical communities are, but it can also throw light on how philosophy itself plays the role as critical and self-reflective. (shrink)

What is transcendental-pragmatics? Why is transcendental-pragmatics important? In this paper, I focus on four main points: I delineate what I see as the strength and relevance of transcendental-pragmatics within the intellectual setting in the post-war period. I indicate how the discussions within transcendental-pragmatics have revealed inherent challenges, at the same time as the intellectual and institutional surroundings have changed unfavorably during the last decades. Finally, I indicate how these inherent challenges and new constellations could and should be met, to the (...) effect that transcendental-pragmatics could reveal its philosophical importance and practical relevance under changed conditions. In so doing, I defend a gradualist and meliorist version of transcendental-pragmatics. In short, I «situate» transcendental-pragmatics, in a meta-philosophical essay, and at the same time, I argue in favor of a revised version. (shrink)

There are in our time ongoing discussions on the question of global justice and inter-cultural dialogues. This question embraces not only questions of distribution and recognition, but also questions of peace and survival. In this paper, focusing on the latter, I shall discuss the question of the possibility of a philosophical justifi cation for universally binding principles for international law and thus for inter-state and intercultural behavior.

Focusing on the terms 'possibly affected persons' and 'those affected' in the Habermasian ' discourse principle', I argue that we need a notion of moral subjects in addition to that of a person and that this notion of moral subjects implies a 'normative gradualism' which weakens the participatory and consensual aspect of discourse theory and strengthens the aspect of enlightened 'advocatory' deliberation in terms of needs and the good life. I argue that this notion of moral subjects represents a challenge (...) for the discourse principle. Confronted with the huge number of moral subjects and of future persons, demanding various kinds of advocatory representation, the Habermasian discourse principle, as stated in Between Facts and Norms, becomes unsatisfactory. (shrink)

The debate between Habermas and Rawls that took place in 1990s concerned how philosophy can justify the principles of justice under the conditions of pluralism of different and irreconcilable moral, philosophical, and religious doctrines. The context of the debate was mainly Rawls’ Political Liberalism and Habermas’ Between Facts and Norms as well. This paper argues that a wider geo-cultural perspective is pertinent in order to better comprehend the different justification strategies in Habermas and Rawls, concerning the principle of justice. This (...) goes for their different geo-cultural experiences and presuppositions – in short, Rawls living in a self-confident North America in the post-war period versus Habermas’ German experience of civilization breakdown. However, it might also be relevant for the assessment of these two strategies in our time, faced with new kinds of geo-political differences and conflicts. (shrink)

This is a comprehensive introduction to the history of Western Philosophy from the Pre-Socratics to Twentieth Century thought. In addition to all the key figures, the book covers figures whose contributions have so far been overlooked, such as Vico, Montesquieu, Durkheim and Weber. Along with in-depth discussion of the philosophical movements, Skirbekk and Gilje also discuss the natural sciences, the establishment of the Humanities, Socialism and Fascism, Psychoanalysis, and the rise of the social sciences. _History of Western Thought_ is (...) an ideal introduction to philosophy and the sociological and scientific structures that have shaped modern day philosophy. (shrink)

My question is the following: to what extent is ethical anthropocentrism tenable? In a “discourse ethical” perspective I will consider some case-oriented arguments in favor of a paradigmatically unique ethical standing for humans and some arguments in favor of an ethical gradualism between humans and other mammals and between humans and nature, ending with a conclusion in favor of a fair treatment of all moral subjects, human and non-human.

Obszar etyki jest najczęściej ograniczany do człowieka i świata ludzkiego: tylko ludzie mogą działać moralnie lub niemoralnie, tylko ludzie mogą być z moralnego punktu widzenia godni pochwały lub nagany; tylko ludziom przypisuje się status podmiotów moralnego działania i podmiotów moralnych praw. W jakim stopniu ten antropocentryzm etyczny daje się utrzymać? Czy współczesna wiedza biologiczna, uwydatniająca ciągłość i stopniowalność cech właściwych dla istot żywych, nie podważa takiego mocnego rozgraniczenia i założenia o uprzywilejowanej pozycji człowieka? Czy nie powinniśmy wyjść poza gatunkowy egoizm, (...) a przynajmniej go ograniczyć? W niniejszym artykule rozważę argumenty na rzecz stanowiącej osobny paradygmat, wyjątkowej pozycji etycznej człowieka oraz zbadam argumenty na rzecz etycznego gradualizmu [czyli stopniowalnych różnic] między istotami ludzkimi a pozostałymi ssakami oraz między człowiekiem a przyrodą. (shrink)

"The notion of sustainability is interdisciplinary, requiring more than multidisciplinary research, and normative, requiring ongoing discussion about ethical priorities." "Hence, the authors of this anthology recommend improved interdisciplinary collaboration and intensified public discussion about sustainability. By such admittedly fallible procedures we should try, again and again, to avoid or rectify instances of unsustainability." "Further, the authors argue in favour of reduced material consumption, an ideal of 'good life', and gradualistic obligations toward non-human beings."--BOOK JACKET.Title Summary field provided by Blackwell North (...) America, Inc. All Rights Reserved. (shrink)

In an age of cultural pluralism, and in light of serious counterarguments, this work offers a justification of universal principles. The book focuses on a series of modern challenges and argues in favor of an awareness for varieties and nuances, as well as a discursive universality. Timely Thoughts represents a serious contribution to inter-cultural dialogues and is appropriate for academia and the public sphere.

Reviews : John Rawls, Political Liberalism, ; Jürgen Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des deomkratischen Rechtstaats, ; Axel Honneth, Kampf um Anerkennung: Zur moraliscben Grammatik sozialer Konflikte, ; Philosophy of Mind: Theory and Practice, ; Gunnar Skirbekk, Rationality and Modernity: Essays in Pbilosopbical Pragmatics, ; Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism and "The Politics of Recognition".

Reviews : John Rawls, Political Liberalism, ; Jürgen Habermas, Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des deomkratischen Rechtstaats, ; Axel Honneth, Kampf um Anerkennung: Zur moraliscben Grammatik sozialer Konflikte, ; Philosophy of Mind: Theory and Practice, ; Gunnar Skirbekk, Rationality and Modernity: Essays in Pbilosopbical Pragmatics, ; Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism and "The Politics of Recognition".

Examines the relevance of empirical studies of responsibility judgments for traditional philosophical concerns about free will and moral responsibility. We argue that experimental philosophy is relevant to the traditional debates, but that setting up experiments and interpreting data in just the right way is no less difficult than negotiating traditional philosophical arguments. Both routes are valuable, but so far neither promises a way to secure significant agreement among the competing parties. To illustrate, we focus on three sorts of issues. For (...) illustration, we discuss an error theory for incompatibilist intuitions proposed by Eddy Nahmias and colleagues, the role that empirical studies might have in the assessment of manipulation arguments for incompatibilism, and the suggestion that empirical studies reveal that core criteria for moral responsibility ought not to be applied invariantly across different sorts of cases. (shrink)

We defend a contextualist account of deontic judgments as relativized both to (i) information and to (ii) standards or ends, against recent objections that turn on practices of moral disagreement. Kolodny & MacFarlane argue that information-relative contextualism cannot accommodate the connection between deliberation and advice; we suggest in response that they misidentify the basic concerns of deliberating agents. For pragmatic reasons, semantic assessments of normative claims sometimes are evaluations of propositions other than those asserted. Weatherson, Schroeder and others have raised (...) parallel objections to standard-relative contextualism; we argue for a parallel solution. (shrink)

This paper argues that the account of teleology previously proposed by the authors is consistent with the physical determinism that is implicit across many of the sciences. We suggest that much of the current aversion to teleological thinking found in the sciences is rooted in debates that can be traced back to ancient natural science, which pitted mechanistic and deterministic theories against teleological ones. These debates saw a deterministic world as one where freedom and agency is impossible. And, because teleological (...) entities seem to be free to either reach their ends or not, it was assumed that they could not be deterministic. Mayr’s modern account of teleonomy adheres to this basic assumption. Yet, the seeming tension between teleology and determinism is illusory because freedom and agency do not, in fact, conflict with a deterministic world. To show this, we present a taxonomy of different types of freedom that we see as inherent in teleological systems. Then we show that our taxonomy of freedom, which is crucial to understanding teleology, shares many of the features of a philosophical position regarding free will that is known in the contemporary literature as ‘compatibilism’. This position maintains that an agent is free when the sources of its actions are internal, when the agent itself is the deterministic cause of those actions. Our view shows that freedom is not only indispensable to teleology, but also that, contrary to common intuitions, there is no conflict between teleology and causal determinism. (shrink)

What kind of a science is psychoanalysis? What constitutes its domain? What truth claims does it maintain? In this unique and scholarly work concerning the nature of psychoanalysis, Gunnar Karlsson guides his arguments through phenomenological thinking which, he claims, can be seen as an alternative to the recent attempts to cite neuropsychoanalysis as the answer to the crisis of psychoanalysis. Karlsson criticizes this effort to ground psychoanalysis in biology and neurology and emphasizes instead the importance of defining the psychoanalytic (...) domain from the vantage point of the character of consciousness. His understanding of the unconscious, the libido and the death drive offer new insights into the nature of psychoanalysis, and he also illuminates and develops neglected dimensions such as consciousness and self-consciousness. Karlsson's approach to psychoanalysis is rigorous yet original, and this book fills an intellectual gap with implications for both the theoretical understanding and clinical issues of psychoanalysis. (shrink)