Given that individual information processing and memory capacity are severely limited, many institutional and procedural properties of the social communication process can be explained within an individualistic approach as the outcome of a co-evolution of action-inherent knowledge and preferences. This argument is outlined by referring to phenomena such as the competitive release of information (advertising), the role of celebrities and the rent they collect, and some characteristic ‘critical mass’ features.

This article discusses the challenges raised by the inclusion of evolutionary elements in the theories of Carl Menger, Joseph Schumpeter, and Friedrich Hayek. Each adopted an idiosyncratic position in terms of method of inquiry, focus, and general message. The breadth of the topics and phenomena they cover testifies to the great variety of interpretations and potential uses of evolutionary concepts in economics. Menger, who made no reference to Darwin’s theory, advanced an “organic” view of the emergence of social institutions. Schumpeter (...) elaborated an original theory of industrial development based on the recurrent emergence and dissemination of innovations. Hayek adopted the biological notion of group selection and made it the central element in his theory of cultural evolution and the rise of the free market. The chapter concludes with a preliminary evaluation of the possible role that evolutionary theorizing might play in the future development of Austrian economics. (shrink)

Behavioral economics focuses mainly on how limitations of the human cognitive apparatus, risk attitudes, and human sociality affect decision making. The former two lead to deviations from rationality standards, the latter to deviations from rational self-interest. Some of these research interests are also shared by evolutionary psychology which, however, explains the observed deviations by features of the human genetic endowment conjectured to have evolved under fierce selection pressure in early human phylogeny. Important as the decision-making theoretical perspective of the two (...) disciplines is, it will be claimed to be too narrow to fully account for what an evolutionary approach has to say about economic behavior. This is particularly true regarding the questions of what choices are made and what causes them, i.e., the motivational aspects of behavior. In the language of economics this points to the agents’ preferences. This article discusses how preferences relate to the human genetic endowment, how they can change over time, and what conclusions have to be drawn from extending the analysis to the motivational side. (shrink)

Because of the intellectual attraction of the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, its conccpts are often borrowed to conceptualized evolutionary change also in non-biological domains. However, a heuristic strategy like that is problematic. An attempt is therefore made to identify generic features of evolution which transcend domain-specific characteristics. Epistemological, conccptual, and methodological implications are discussed, and the ontological question is raised how non-biological evolutionary theories can be accommodated within the Darwinian world view of modern sciences.

We are all immersed in a sea of social norms, but they are sometimes tricky to observe with any clarity. They are often invisible to us and emerge only when they are not observed. Social norms are important to understand because they are both limiting of our freedom, such as gendered and racialized norms, and at the same time the very conditions of our agency. Social Goodness presents an original, externalist answer to the question of the source or origin of (...) social role normativity. Rather than grounding social normativity in the attitudes of persons, the book argues for an externalism that roots social role normativity in the social world itself: in its positions, institutions, and larger architecture. The core insight of externalism is that the function or structural feature of an enterprise or activity can bring with it normative demands quite independently of the attitudes of those who engage with it. According to the artisanal model, just as a carpenter, ceramicist, or chef is responsive to and evaluable under a set of artisanal norms or techniques, so too is a mother and or an academic or a President. The source of normativity is this technique or expertise, independent of the preferences, endorsements, or recognitive attitudes of individuals. The artisanal model for social role normativity has resources to explain both the "stickiness" or persistence of social norms and our ability to criticize existing norms and to engage in normative self-creation--to create new normative selves. The artisanal model also has resources to capture and express the social situatedness, locality, and materiality of social roles. The relational ontology of social roles, implicit in the artisanal model, provides a useful frame to consider both hierarchical and oppressive social relations. (shrink)

Ulrich Meyer defends a novel theory about the nature of time, and argues against the consensus view that time and space are fundamentally alike. He presents the first comprehensive defense of a 'modal' account, which emphasizes the similarities between times and possible worlds in modal logic, and is easily reconciled with the theory of relativity.

Leading legal scholar John Witte, Jr. explores the role religion played in the development of rights in the Western legal tradition and traces the complex interplay between human rights and religious freedom norms in modern domestic and international law. He examines how US courts are moving towards greater religious freedom, while recent decisions of the pan-European courts in Strasbourg and Luxembourg have harmed new religious minorities and threatened old religious traditions in Europe. Witte argues that the robust promotion and protection (...) of religious freedom is the best way to protect many other fundamental rights today, even though religious freedom and other fundamental rights sometimes clash and need judicious balancing. He also responds to various modern critics who see human rights as a betrayal of Christianity and religious freedom as a betrayal of human rights. (shrink)

This book defends the fundamental place of the marital family in modern liberal societies. While applauding modern sexual freedoms, John Witte, Jr also defends the traditional Western teaching that the marital family is an essential cradle of conscience, chrysalis of care, and cornerstone of ordered liberty. He thus urges churches, states, and other social institutions to protect and promote the marital family. He encourages reticent churches to embrace the rights of women and children, as Christians have long taught, and encourages (...) modern states to promote responsible sexual freedom and family relations, as liberals have long said. He counsels modern churches and states to share in family law governance, and to resist recent efforts to privatize, abolish, or radically expand the marital family sphere. Witte also invites fellow citizens to end their bitter battles over same-sex marriage and tend to the vast family field that urgently needs concerted attention and action. (shrink)

Er arbeitete für eine Erneuerung des Judentums auf der Grundlage der deutschen Sprache. Doch das Land, das ihm Heimat war, verjagte ihn. Nach Auschwitz sah er die Beziehung des Judentums mit Deutschland zerstört, und ist doch offen für ein neues Gespräch. Was hat es mit Martin Buber und den Deutschen auf sich? War er der vom "geistigen Deutschland anerkannter deutsche Jude" oder nur der "Jude für die Deutschen nach Auschwitz"? Dieser Essay begibt sich auf eine spannende Spurensuche. Er bringt das (...) facettenreiche Bild einer ebenso spannungsvollen wie fruchtbaren Beziehung zu Tage. (shrink)

Nachdruck der Originalausgabe aus dem Jahr 1914.

Acknowledgements Andrea Scarantino, Nicholas Shea, Mark Sprevak, and three anonymous referees provided incisive and constructive comments, for which I am very grateful. In 2012, earlier versions of this paper were delivered in Edinburgh, at the Joint Session in Stirling, and at a workshop on natural information in Aberdeen. I thank participants for their feedback.

Heute dominieren vereinseitigende Selbstbeschreibungen des Menschen, die ihn gentechnologisch, radikalkonstruktivistisch oder hirnphysiologisch auf sein biologisches Substrat reduzieren. Die Polyphonie, die man noch um 1800 in der Beschreibung des Menschen als das Zugleich von Körper und Geist hören konnte, weicht einer Einstimmig- und Einsinnigkeit kraft einer nur noch naturwissenschaftlichen Selbstthematisierung. Hieran ist zu erinnern, wenn man für die Zeit um 1800 festhält, dass sich die Denker zwar um solch disziplinäre Grenzen zwischen Naturgeschichte, Philosophie und Literatur nicht kümmerten, aber gerade dadurch der (...) Vielstimmigkeit einen Raum eröffneten. Die Verwendung des „Bildungstriebes“ in unterschiedlichen Zusammenhängen ist hierfür ein beredtes Zeugnis. Die vorliegende Arbeit zum „Bildungstrieb“ will und kann bisherige Rekonstruktionen des Bildungsbegriffs keineswegs ersetzen, sondern bestenfalls ergänzen. Damit aber werden im „Bildungstrieb“ Wurzeln des Bildungsbegriffs wieder in Erinnerung gerufen, die jenseits einer rein kognitiven, mentalen, subjektivistischen Zurichtung von „Bildung“ liegen. ***** Today, the dominant feature of the self-description of humans is one that confines them to their biological substrate. Genetic engineering, radical constructivism or brain physiology are among those disciplines which advocate such a perspective. The polyphonic descriptions of human beings around 1800, pointing out the simultaneity of body and mind, fall silent in favour of a one-sided and limited purely scientific self-thematization. Around 1800, due to their non-compliance regarding disciplinary boundaries between natural history, philosophy and literature, thinkers opened up a space for polyphony. The use of the “Bildungstrieb” (nisus formativus) in various contexts is eloquent evidence for this. The present volume on the “Bildungstrieb” does not and cannot replace previous reconstructions of the concept of “Bildung”, but at best complements them by drawing the reader’s attention once again to the roots of the concept of “Bildung” in the “Bildungstrieb” that lie beyond a purely cognitive, mental, subjectivist understanding of “Bildung”. (shrink)

The discourse on climate politics so far is an expert and elitist discourse in which peoples, societies, citizens, workers, voters and their interests, views and voices are very much neglected. So, in order to turn climate change politics from its head onto its feet you have to take sociology into account. There is an important background assumption which shares in the general ignorance concerning environmental issues and, paradoxically, this is in corporated in the specialism of environmental sociology itself — this (...) is the category of ‘the environment’. If ‘the environment’ only includes everything which is not human, not social, then the concept is sociologically empty. If the concept includes human action and society, then it is scientifically mistaken and politically suicidal. (shrink)

Toen Ulrich Libbrecht vanaf de jaren 1970 Vlaanderen en Nederland inspireerde met ‘oosterse wijsheid voor de westerse mens’ was dit pionierswerk. Ondertussen heeft de globalisering zich verder voltrokken, is boeddhisme en meditatie geen exotisme meer en is China dichterbij gekomen. Hoe kijkt de filosoof nu tegen deze ontwikkelingen aan? Dit boek is ontstaan uit gesprekken waarin Libbrecht op een meesterlijke wijze oosterse en westerse inzichten integreert tot een nieuw antwoord op actuele vragen en universele thema’s. Hierin benadrukt hij de (...) waarde van natuur, wetenschap en religieus bewustzijn in de betekenis van re-ligare: herverbinden. In dit boek zet hij geen theorie uiteen, maar neemt de lezer mee op de boeiende weg van het denken, doortrokken van ontroering en een rijke levenservaring. (shrink)

Angesichts anhaltender Diskussionen um die notwendige oder wünschenswerte Förderung von Forschung und Wissenschaft unternimmt das Buch den Versuch, akademische Forschung als ein für demokratische Gesellschaften unverzichtbares Element öffentlicher Debatten und damit der öffentlichen Entscheidungsfindung zu verteidigen. Da Wissenschaft wie Demokratie beide verfahrensorientiert sind, ist ihre historische Verbindung kein Zufall. Vielmehr sind Demokratie und Wissenschaft wechselseitig aufeinander angewiesen. Ökonomisch betrachtet, lässt sich Wissenschaft als ein öffentliches Gut verstehen, das insbesondere für das Funktionieren einer Zivilgesellschaft unverzichtbar ist.

Modern science is, to a large extent, a model-building activity. But how are models contructed? How are they related to theories and data? How do they explain complex scientific phenomena, and which role do computer simulations play here? These questions have kept philosophers of science busy for many years, and much work has been done to identify modeling as the central activity of theoretical science. At the same time, these questions have been addressed by methodologically-minded scientists, albeit from a different (...) point of view. While philosophers typically have an eye on general aspects of scientific modeling, scientists typically take their own science as the starting point and are often more concerned with specific methodological problems. There is, however, also much common ground in middle, where philosophers and scientists can engage in a productive dialogue, as the present volume demonstrates. (shrink)

Morality and economic rationality: integrative economic ethics as the rational ethics of economic activity; Part II. Reflections on the Foundations of Economic ...