Zufall und Kontingenz sind von der Geschichtswissenschaft bis in die Gegenwart nur sporadisch thematisiert worden. Deshalb hat sich der Autor der vorliegenden Arbeit eine doppelte Aufgabe gestellt: Diskutiert er zunachst Bedeutung und Funktion von Zufall / Kontingenz fur geschichtstheoretische Dimensionen, so interpretiert er daran anschliessend zwei Klassiker der Sozialgeschichte auf ihren methodisch-theoretischen und historiographischen Umgang mit den zu verhandelnden Phanomenen. Die zentrale These, die hinter dieser Untersuchung steht, lautet dabei: Zufall und Kontingenz sind nicht ausserliche, unbedeutende und (...) methodisch auflosbare Scheinkategorien, sondern vielmehr produktive und mitbegrundende Faktoren / Begriffe bei der Konstitution von Geschichten und historischer Erfahrung, durch deren Vernachlassigung oder Auflosung die Geschichtswissenschaft auf ihre methodischen Kosten zuruckgeworfen wird. Am theoretischen und historiographischen Umgang mit Zufall und Kontingenz lasst sich zeigen, wer was wie im Rahmen der Geschichtswissenschaft verstehen bzw. erklaren will. Die Haltung gegenuber dem Zufall ist der 'Offenbarungseid' der Theorie. (shrink)

Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus can be seen as an attempt at a characterization of a formal language, in which all meaningful scientific and philosophical discourse can be expressed. This characterization is fairly definite in some respects-e.g., he eliminates quantifiers in favour of propositional connectives; however, it is deliberately underdetermined in others-e.g., his choice of non-logical primitives. So much is clear, however: the class of languages so characterized is not fit for expressing non-logical necessity. So it is only consistent that Wittgenstein should (...) deny its existence.At this point two questions arise. Where in the resulting dichotomy between the contingent and the logically true, does Wittgenstein intent to place the actual laws of science? Where can he place them? Our reading of the text yields no conclusive answer to the first question; the second we can answer in the spirit of logicism: certain choices of primitives will make all scientific laws logical. (shrink)

This paper offers a conceptual clarification of the German word "Zufall". I argue that talk of "Zufall" is systematically ambiguous. There are - at least - three different usages of the word in colloquial (and probably also in philosophical and scientific) discourse: it may refer to "genuine" metaphysical indeterminacy, or, in somewhat looser ways, to absolute unpredictability or to the coincidence of causal chains that are perceived as independent. The paper includes some historical remarks on Hume and on (...) the falling roof tile example that can be traced back to Spinoza and Schopenhauer. (shrink)

The problem of moral luck relates to the question whether contingencies ought to influence our moral judgments. This article argues that while our moral assessments of agents ought to be independent from luck, there are strong non-moral reasons for letting contingencies influence the extent to which we expose agents to negative reactions. First, I offer an account of the problem of moral luck. Subsequently I argue that legitimate moral blame is immune from luck. Morally blaming an agent for unintended harm (...) conflicts with the principle of the universalisability of moral judgments, and it rests on a confusion between evaluative and normative moral judgments. Nevertheless it can be rational to expose an agent who causes unintended harm to negative reactions. So there seems to be a tension between moral reasons and rational reasons. The assumption that moral luck exists can be seen as resulting from the attempt to dissolve this tension. (shrink)

We propose simple nonlinear mathematical models for the legal concept of balancing of interests. Our aim is to bridge the gap between an abstract formalisation of a balancing decision while assuring consistency and ultimately legal certainty across cases. We focus on the conflict between the rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data in Art. 7 and Art. 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCh) against the right of access to information derived from Art. 11 EUCh. (...) These competing rights are denoted by ( \(i_1\) ) _right to privacy _ and ( \(i_2\) ) _access to information_; mathematically, their indices are respectively assigned by \(u_1\in [0,1]\) and \(u_2\in [0,1]\) subject to the constraint \(u_1+u_2=1\). This constraint allows us to use one single index _u_ to resolve the conflict through balancing. The outcome will be concluded by comparing the index _u_ with a prior given threshold \(u_0\). For simplicity, we assume that the balancing depends on only selected legal criteria such as the social status of affected person, and the sphere from which the information originated, which are represented as inputs of the models, called legal parameters. Additionally, we take “time” into consideration as a legal criterion, building on the European Court of Justice’s ruling on the right to be forgotten: by considering time as a legal parameter, we model how the outcome of the balancing changes over the passage of time. To catch the dependence of the outcome _u_ by these criteria as legal parameters, data were created by a fully-qualified lawyer. By comparison to other approaches based on machine learning, especially neural networks, this approach requires significantly less data. This might come at the price of higher abstraction and simplification, but also provides for higher transparency and explainability. Two mathematical models for _u_, a time-independent model and a time-dependent model, are proposed, that are fitted by using the data. (shrink)

Zuerst werden die Argumente rekonstruiert, die dafür sprechen, Einsteins Wort, dass Gott nicht würfelt, als Ausdruck eines überholten deterministischen Weltbildes anzusehen. Anschließend werden Forschungsergebnisse der letzten Jahrzehnte benannt, die für eine Neubewertung seiner Position zur dominanten Interpretation der Quantenmechanik sprechen. Den Abschluß bildet die Diskussion der Möglichkeiten einer Reinterpretation seines Satzes vom nicht würfelnden Gott.

English description: We live in a time where the old mechanisms of order have lost their grip on society, leading to numerous infractions and confrontations. In this religious-philosophical study, Kurt Wuchterl develops an epistemic perception of contingency that re-interprets the tense relationship between natural sciences and religion. Contingency always includes the "option of being different," which exacerbates pivotal problems such as chance, chaos, and unavailability. If we as individuals are not able to cope with these contingencies, we encounter (...) the edge of reason; acknowledging this edge, however, poses the question of the otherness of reason. German text. German description: Wir leben in einer Zeit, in der die alten Ordnungsgaranten ihre Orientierungskraft verloren und die Ordnungsbrueche zu vielfaltigen Konfrontationen gefuehrt haben. Kurt Wuchterl entwickelt in seiner religionsphilosophischen Studie einen epistemischen Kontingenzbegriff, mit dem das gespannte Verhaltnis der Naturwissenschaft zur Religion eine neue Deutung erfahrt.Kontingenz beinhaltet immer die Moglichkeit des Anders-sein-konnens. Und damit stellen sich zentrale Probleme wie Zufall, Chaos und Unverfuegbarkeit in verscharfter Form. Wenn es uns als Individuen nicht gelingt, diese Kontingenzen zu bewaltigen, wird die Grenze der Vernunft erreicht. Mit deren Anerkennung aber stellt sich die Frage nach dem Anderen der Vernunft. Wird dies als Chiffre des Religiosen interpretiert, zeigt sich dahinter nicht das Nichts, sondern eben gerade: ein ganz Anderes. In der Kontingenzbegegnung, wie diese Moglichkeit bezeichnet wird, scheiden sich die Geister; ihre Unbestimmtheit ist der Tribut an unsere Endlichkeit. (shrink)

There are various perspectives from which the meaning of historicism can be understood. Historically, the interpretation of historicism has predominantly been interested in either questions concerning historical methodology, or the relationship between the natural and human sciences, or the normative consequences of historicism. My intention is not to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of these different research approaches, but rather to supplement them by confronting the meaning of historicism from the perspective of a different question. Did historicism in the late (...) 18th and the early 19th centuries formulate a notion of historical chance or of historical contingency, a notion of what is neither necessary nor impossible in history but rather the result of accident and chance? To answer this question, I begin with Reinhart Koselleck's interpretation of historicism presented in two rather short essays, "Der Zufall als Motivationsrest in der Geschichtsschreibung" and "Über die Verfügbarkeit von Geschichte". In the next step of my analysis, I confront Koselleck's interpretation of the historicist sensibility for contingency and chance with Odo Marquard's conceptual distinction between two notions of contingency and chance. This line of argumentation gives rise to a definition of historicism as a theoretical sensibility for the "fatefully accidental" (Marquard). I further support this claim with an analysis of Savigny's legal history, of Schleiermacher's theology and of the "anti-Faustian" (Werner Busch) art of Caspar David Friedrich. Historicism ultimately teaches us that history is never the exact outcome of the intentions of historical actors. Though human beings undeniably act in history, they cannot make history or at least cannot make it as they please. It is in this regard that I find, in my concluding remarks, Hermann Lübbe's description of historicism as a "sermon of human finitude" to be wholly accurate. (shrink)

Die Reflexion der Grundlagen der Wissenschaft mit ihren eigenen Mitteln, wie die gedankliche Vermessung des Messprozesses, die in die Begründung der Quantenphysik eingeht, und die logische Analyse der Logik im Rahmen der mathematischen Entscheidungstheorie zeigt schließlich prinzipielle Grenzen des möglichen Wissens auf. Eine Theorie des Leib-Seele-Zusammenhangs läuft auf das Bewusstsein von Bewusstsein hinaus und ist damit von dem gleichen Typ des Selbstbezugs, der auf prinzipielle Grenzen der Erkenntnis verweist. Die moderne Naturwissenschaft ist offen für damit verbundene philosophische Fragestellungen, und das (...) Deutungsspektrum ist weit. Nicht zuletzt besteht Deutungsfreiheit auch in Bezug auf Kontingenz, auf unverfügbare, nicht voraussehbare, nicht ableitbare Einzelereignisse, die unser Leben wesentlich bestimmen. Eine Weltanschauung der Sinnleugnung oder des Sinnverzichts ist logisch möglich, naturwissenschaftlich zwingend ist sie nicht, und Kriterien der Lebenskunst würde sie kaum gerecht werden. (shrink)

Gesamtinhaltverzeichnis: Vorwort (Rudolf Haller). -Einleitung (Rudolf Haller). - Editorische Vorbemerkung (Thomas Binder). - I. Herbert Feigl: Zufall und Gesetz. - II. Marcel Natkin: Einfachheit, Kausalitaet und Induktion. - III. Tscha Hung: Das Kausalproblem in der heutigen Physik.".

The problem of moral luck arises from the apparent conflict of two commonly accepted claims: it seems, on the one hand, that we are responsible only for those actions that are under our control; on the other hand, we seem to be responsible for the results of our actions, even if those depend on the cooperation of factors that we do not control directly. The opponents of moral luck side with the so-called control principle. In this paper, I argue, first, (...) that their understanding of control leads into absurdities, and is in many ways inadequate. It makes it near impossible to explain responsibility for failed or negligent actions, for instance. Secondly, I develop a different understanding of control – control through skills - , and show that having control in this sense is compatible with moral luck, and also allows us to explain when and why we are responsible for failed and negligent actions. -/- Das Problem des moralischen Zufalls ergibt sich aus dem vermeintlich Konflikt zweier tief in unserem Alltagsverständnis von Verantwortung verankerter Annahmen: einerseits scheint es, dass wir nur für das verantwortlich sind, was unter unserer Kontrolle ist; andererseits sind wir aber verantwortlich für das, wir tun – für die Ergebnisse unseres Handeln - und die sind gewöhnlich nicht unter unserer Kontrolle, sondern hängen von vielen Umständen ab, auf die wir als Handelnde keinen direkten Einfluss haben. Die Gegner des moralischen Zufalls verteidigen das sogenannte Kontrollprinzip. In diesem Aufsatz argumentiere ich zum einen dafür, dass der Kontrollbegriff, der diesem Ansatzes unterliegt, zu Absurditäten führt und in verschiedenen Hinsichten unzureichend ist. Insbesondere gelingt es seinen Vertretern nicht, zu erklären, wann und warum wir für verfehlte und nachlässige Handlungen verantwortlich sind. Zum anderen entwickele ich einen anderen Kontrollbegriff – Kontrolle durch Fertigkeiten – und zeige, dass die Kontrolle über unser Handeln in diesem Sinn mit moralischem Zufall vereinbar ist. Darüberhinaus erlaubt uns dieser Kontrollbegriff zu erklären, wann und in welchem Umfang wir für missglückte und nachlässige Handlungen verantwortlich sind. (shrink)

Dieser Aufsatz handelt von den unterschiedlichen Formen des moralischen Zufalls. Ich werde die These vertreten, dass lediglich konstitutiver Zufall möglich ist, ergebnis- und willensbezogener hingegen nicht. Ich versuche außerdem zu zeigen, dass sich aus den Befunden bezüglich des moralischen Zufalls Konsequenzen für die Frage nach der Vereinbarkeit von moralischer Verantwortung und Determinismus ergeben, und zwar zugunsten des Kompatibilismus.

There is a familiar debate between Russell and Strawson concerning bivalence and ‘the present King of France’. According to the Strawsonian view, ‘The present King of France is bald’ is neither true nor false, whereas, on the Russellian view, that proposition is simply false. In this paper, I develop what I take to be a crucial connection between this debate and a different domain where bivalence has been at stake: future contingents. On the familiar ‘Aristotelian’ view, future contingent propositions are (...) neither true nor false. However, I argue that, just as there is a Russellian alternative to the Strawsonian view concerning ‘the present King of France’, according to which the relevant class of propositions all turn out false, so there is a Russellian alternative to the Aristotelian view, according to which future contingents all turn out false, not neither true nor false. The result: contrary to millennia of philosophical tradition, we can be open futurists without denying bivalence. (shrink)

In this 1989 book Rorty argues that thinkers such as Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein have enabled societies to see themselves as historical contingencies, rather than as expressions of underlying, ahistorical human nature or as realizations of suprahistorical goals. This ironic perspective on the human condition is valuable on a private level, although it cannot advance the social or political goals of liberalism. In fact Rorty believes that it is literature not philosophy that can do this, by promoting a genuine sense (...) of human solidarity. A truly liberal culture, acutely aware of its own historical contingency, would fuse the private, individual freedom of the ironic, philosophical perspective with the public project of human solidarity as it is engendered through the insights and sensibilities of great writers. The book has a characteristically wide range of reference from philosophy through social theory to literary criticism. It confirms Rorty's status as a uniquely subtle theorist, whose writing will prove absorbing to academic and nonacademic readers alike. (shrink)

Identities formed with proper names may be contingent. this claim is made first through an example. the paper then develops a theory of the semantics of concrete things, with contingent identity as a consequence. this general theory lets concrete things be made up canonically from fundamental physical entities. it includes theories of proper names, variables, cross-world identity with respect to a sortal, and modal and dispositional properties. the theory, it is argued, is coherent and superior to its rivals, in that (...) it stems naturally from a systematic picture of the physical world. (shrink)

At least since Aristotle’s famous 'sea-battle' passages in On Interpretation 9, some substantial minority of philosophers has been attracted to the doctrine of the open future--the doctrine that future contingent statements are not true. But, prima facie, such views seem inconsistent with the following intuition: if something has happened, then (looking back) it was the case that it would happen. How can it be that, looking forwards, it isn’t true that there will be a sea battle, while also being true (...) that, looking backwards, it was the case that there would be a sea battle? This tension forms, in large part, what might be called the problem of future contingents. A dominant trend in temporal logic and semantic theorizing about future contingents seeks to validate both intuitions. Theorists in this tradition--including some interpretations of Aristotle, but paradigmatically, Thomason (1970), as well as more recent developments in Belnap, et. al (2001) and MacFarlane (2003, 2014)--have argued that the apparent tension between the intuitions is in fact merely apparent. In short, such theorists seek to maintain both of the following two theses: (i) the open future: Future contingents are not true, and (ii) retro-closure: From the fact that something is true, it follows that it was the case that it would be true. It is well-known that reflection on the problem of future contingents has in many ways been inspired by importantly parallel issues regarding divine foreknowledge and indeterminism. In this paper, we take up this perspective, and ask what accepting both the open future and retro-closure predicts about omniscience. When we theorize about a perfect knower, we are theorizing about what an ideal agent ought to believe. Our contention is that there isn’t an acceptable view of ideally rational belief given the assumptions of the open future and retro-closure, and thus this casts doubt on the conjunction of those assumptions. (shrink)

Contingent transcranialists claim that the physical mechanisms of mind are not exclusively intracranial and that genuine cognitive systems can extend into cognizers' physical and socio-cultural environments. They further claim that extended cognitive systems must include the deep functional integration of external environmental resources with internal neural resources. They have found it difficult, however, to explicate the precise nature of such deep functional integration and provide compelling examples of it. Contingent intracranialists deny that extracranial resources can be components of genuine extended (...) cognitive systems. They claim that transcranialists fallaciously conflate coupling with constitution and construe cognition as extending always from brains into world rather than world into brains. By using insights from recent research in developmental psychology and by explicating the nature of one form that deep functional integration can take, I argue that (i) transcranialists do not fallaciously conflate coupling wth constitution, and (ii) human emotional ontogenesis is a world-to-brain transcranial achievement. Jennifer Greenwood is a PhD Candidate in Philosophy at the School of History, Philosophy, Religion, and Classics, University of Queensland. (shrink)

According to the Principle of Sufficient Reason (‘PSR’), every fact has an explanation for why it obtains. If the PSR is true, there must be a sufficient reason for why God chose to create our world. But a sufficient reason for God’s choice plausibly necessitates that choice. It thus seems that God could not have done otherwise, and that our world exists necessarily. We therefore appear forced to pick between the PSR, and the contingency of creation and divine choice. (...) I show that a third option remains open, and thus that it is possible to preserve the contingency of creation and divine choice even while endorsing the PSR. My solution depends on the coherence of a restricted modal realism. On this modal realism, there is more than one possible morally optimal created world, and for each such world there is an existing possibility in which God creates that world. (shrink)

This paper first argues that we can bring out a tension between the following three popular doctrines: (i) the canonical reduction of metaphysical modality to essence, due to Fine, (ii) contingentism, which says that possibly something could have failed to be something, and (iii) the doctrine that metaphysical modality obeys the modal logic S5. After presenting two such arguments (one from the theorems of S4 and another from the theorems of B), I turn to exploring various conclusions we might draw (...) in light of these results, and argue that none comes cost free. In the course of laying out possible responses to my arguments, we'll have a chance to evaluate various doctrines about the interplay between contingency and essence, as well as develop some alternative reductions of metaphysical modality to essence. I don't decisively come down in favor of one response over the others, though I say some things that point towards the conclusion that essence has no role to play in reducing metaphysical modality. (shrink)

It is a philosophical truism that we must think of others as moral agents, not merely as causal or statistical objects. But why? I argue that this follows from the best resolution of an antinomy between our experience of morality as necessarily binding on the will and our knowledge that all moral beliefs originate in contingent histories. We can address this antinomy only by understanding moral deliberation via interpersonal relationships, which simultaneously vindicate and constrains morality’s bind on the will. This (...) means that moral agency is fundamentally social. I model an attitude toward our causal nature on sociologist Erving Goffman’s concept of ‘civil inattention’; our social practice of agency requires that we give minimal attention to the contingent origins of moral judgments in ourselves and others. Understood this way, seeing ourselves as moral agents requires avoiding appeal to causal aetiology to settle substantive moral disagreement. (shrink)

In diesem Aufsatz präsentiere ich drei Argumente für die These, dass die Erscheinung bzw. die Erfahrung des Zufalls eine besondere Quelle von Glück sein kann. Genauer gesagt zeige ich (vor allem in einer Auseinandersetzung mit einigen zentralen Gedanken Heideggers), dass die Erfahrung des Zufalls ein Gefühl von Lebendigkeit, ein Gefühl des uns Entgegenkommens der Welt sowie ein Gefühl von Korrespondenz implizieren kann. In einem weiteren Schritt untersuche ich, inwiefern die im heutigen Informationszeitalter wirkmächtigen Zeitstrukturen dem Erscheinen von Zufällen opponieren. In (...) diesem Kontext werfe ich einen Blick sowohl auf das Phänomen der Steuerung als auch auf die soziologische These, dass sich die Spätmoderne gerade durch eine Kontingenzsteigerung auszeichne. Abschließend diskutiere ich die zeitliche Manifestation sowie Vorbereitung des Zufalls, indem ich auf dessen Zusammenhang mit einem besonderen Gegenwartsmodus zu sprechen komme. (shrink)

The contingency of biological regularities—and its implications for the existence of biological laws—has long puzzled biologists and philosophers. The best argument for the contingency of biological regularities is John Beatty’s evolutionary contingency thesis, which will be re-analyzed here. First, I argue that in Beatty’s thesis there are two versions of strong contingency used as arguments against biological laws that have gone unnoticed by his commentators. Second, Beatty’s two different versions of strong contingency are analyzed in (...) terms of two different stabilities of regularities. Third, I argue that Beatty and his commentators have focused on the more ineffective trajectory stability version of the argument, whereas the constancy stability version provides a more substantial and applicable argument against the existence of biological laws. Fourth, I develop a counterexample to Beatty’s thesis. Finally, I discuss the possibility of evolution producing repeatable and general non-lawlike regularities and patterns by utilizing the notion of generative entrenchment and by criticizing the thesis of multiple realizability of biological properties. (shrink)

According to an influential line of thought, from the assumption that indeterminism makes future contingents neither true nor false, one can conclude that assertions of future contingents are never permissible. This conclusion, however, fails to recognize that we ordinarily assert future contingents even when we take the future to be unsettled. Several attempts have been made to solve this puzzle, either by arguing that, albeit truth-valueless, future contingents can be correctly assertable, or by rejecting the claim that future contingents are (...) truth-valueless. The paper examines three of most representative accounts in line with the first attempt, and concludes that none of them succeed in providing a persuasive answer as to why we felicitously assert future contingents. (shrink)

In this study John Bowlin argues that Aquinas's moral theology receives much of its character and content from an assumption about our common lot: the good we desire is difficult to know and to will, in particular because of contingencies of various kinds - within ourselves, in the ends and objects we pursue, and in the circumstances of choice. Since contingencies are fortune's effects, Aquinas insists that it is fortune that makes good choice difficult. Bowlin then explicates Aquinas's treatment of (...) a number of topics in light of this difficulty: the moral and theological virtues, the first precepts of the natural law, the voluntariness of virtuous action, and the happiness available to us in this life. By noting that Aquinas proceeds with an eye on fortune's threats to virtue, agency, and happiness, Bowlin places him more precisely in the history of ethics, among Aristotle, Augustine, and the Stoics. (shrink)

Is the cultural evolution of morality fairly contingent? Could cultural evolution have easily led humans to moral norms and judgments that are mostly false by our present lights? If so, does it matter philosophically? Yes, or so we argue. We empirically motivate the contingency of cultural evolution and show that it makes two major philosophical contributions. First, it shows that moral objectivists cannot explain the reliability of our moral judgments and thus strengthens moral debunking arguments. Second, it shows that (...) the reliability of our moral judgments is evidence for theism over metaphysical naturalism. (shrink)

I argue against a principle that is widely taken to govern metaphysical explanation. This is the principle that no necessary facts can, on their own, explain a contingent fact. I then show how this result makes available a response to a longstanding objection to the Principle of Sufficient Reason—the objection that the Principle of Sufficient Reason entails that the world could not have been otherwise.

There is widespread disagreement as to what the facts are concerning just when a collection of objects composes some further object; but there is widespread agreement that, whatever those facts are, they are necessary. I am unhappy to simply assume this, and in this paper I ask whether there is reason to think that the facts concerning composition hold necessarily. I consider various reasons to think so, but find fault with each of them. I examine the theory of composition as (...) identity, but argue that the version of this doctrine that entails universalism is implausible. I consider the claim that the a priority of such facts leads to their necessity, but give a defence of substantial contingent a priori truths. I ask whether the contingency of such facts would lead to unwelcome possibilities, but argue that the worrying looking possibilities can be blocked if it is desired. Next, I argue against the thought that the Lewis-Sider argument against restricted composition might give us reason to accept the necessity of universalism. Lastly, I respond to two objections from the 2006 BSPC. I conclude in favour of the contingency of the facts concerning when some things compose some thing. (shrink)

Kripke maintains that one who stipulatively introduces the term ' one meter' as a rigid designator for the length of a certain stick s at time t is in a position to know a priori that if s exists at t then the length of s at t is one meter. Some (e.g., Soames 2003) have objected to this alleged instance of the contingent a priori on the grounds that the stipulator's knowledge would have to be based in part on (...) substantive metalinguistic knowledge. I examine Soames's argument for the a posteriority of the relevant metalinguistic knowledge, and I argue that its main premise is false. (shrink)