Online research in philosophy

There are two problems of simplicity. What does it mean to characterize a scientific theory as simple, unified or explanatory in view of the fact that a simple theory can always be made complex (and vice versa) by a change of terminology? How is preference in science for simple theories to be justified? In this paper I put forward a proposal as to how the first problem is to be solved. The more nearly the totality of fundamental physical theory exemplifies the metaphysical thesis that the universe has a unified dynamic structure, so the simpler that totality of theory is. What matters is content, not form. This proposed solution may appear to be circular, but I argue that it is not. Towards the end of the paper I make a few remarks about the second, justificational problem of simplicity.

There is widespread belief among realists that it is consistent to think of the world as a totality of absolute facts and of our representation of the world as perspectival. As a pluralist Michael Lynch has challenged this view by arguing that relativism about representational content en tails relativism about facts. Lynch's 'T-argument' is presented and discussed in detail. It is argued not only that the 'T-argument' fails and that content relativism and fact absolutism are compatible, but also that content absolutism entails fact absolutism. These two points add up to a serious challenge of pluralists in committing them to the view that there are many actual worlds.

A growing number of Roman Catholic ethicians employ an extended interpretation of the principle of totality to justify the self-mutilation involved in donating organs for transplantation. Ramsey (1970) has opposed this position as discordant with the demands of Christian agapism. McCormick (1975) has accused Ramsey of inconsistency in this connection. This article argues that, in a significantly typical way, McCormick seems unwittingly to beg certain essential questions both in his criticism of Ramsey and in his advocacy of the extended principle of totality.

There are two seemingly opposed descriptions of the subject in Totality and Infinity : the separate and autonomous I and the self that is ready to respond to the Other’s suffering and need. This paper points out that there is in fact another way Levinas speaks of the subject, which reinforces and reconciles the other two accounts. Throughout his first major work, Levinas explains how the ego is allowed to emerge as such by the Other who constantly confronts it. At certain points in that work Levinas comes to describe the self as a creature given to itself by another. The notion of the created ego allows for both freedom and responsibility as Levinas understands the creature as capable of thinking critically, becoming an independent individual, and turning to the Other in responsibility.

I dare say, a set is contranatural if some pair of its elements has a nonempty intersection. So, we consider only collections of disjoint nonempty elements and call them totalities. We propose the propositional logicTT, where a proposition letters some totality. The proposition is true if it letters the greatest totality. There are five connectives inTT: , , , , # and the last is called plexus. The truth of # means that any element of the totality has a nonempty intersection with any element of the totality . An imbeddingG of the classical predicate logicCPL inTT is defined. A formulaf ofCPL is a classical tautology if and only ifG(f) is always true inTT. So, mathematics may be expounded inTT, without quantifiers.

Wolfhart Pannenberg's eschatological ontology has been criticised for undermining the goodness and reality of finite creaturely differentiation. Drawing on David Bentley Hart's recent ontological proposal, this article explores the critique of Pannenberg's ontology, and offers a defence of Pannenberg's depiction of the relationship between difference and totality, especially as it is presented in his 1988 work, Metaphysics and the Idea of God. In this work, Pannenberg articulates a structured relationship between difference and totality in which individual finite particularities are preserved and affirmed within a coherent semantic whole. Creaturely differences are not sublated or eliminated in the eschatological totality, but they are integrated into a harmonious totality of meaning. This view of the semantic function of totality can be further clarified by drawing an analogy between Pannenberg's ontological vision and Robert W. Jenson's model of the eschatological consummation as a narrative conclusion to the drama of finite reality.

The work of Emmanuel Levinas is an enigma: he is certain that I am responsible before the Other, that I owe the fact of my existence to his generosity. He becomes equally certain that I am mad. It is the contention of this thesis that the conflicting word chains through which Levinas' philosophy is articulated are the symptom of a struggle between the Kantian roots of his ethical commitments and the forces of `the anonymous'. It is an appreciation of the centrality of this latter category to his philosophical development, and its pathological ancestor in the Critique of Practical Reason, that enables us to understand why the dutiful domesticity of Totality and Infinity had to become the superlative psychosis of Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence.

Wittgenstein, in the Tractatus, conceives the world as ‘the totality of facts’. Type-stratification threatens that conception : the totality of facts is an obvious example of an illegitimate totality. Wittgenstein’s notion of truthoperation evidently has some role to play in avoiding that threat, allowing propositions, and so facts, to constitute a single type. The paper seeks to explain that role in a way that integrates the ‘philosophical’ and ‘technical’ pressures on the notion of an operation.