Online research in philosophy

In this paper I take up the question of the possible influence of J. G. Fichte on Wilhelm von Humboldt’s theory of language. I first argue that the historicalrecord is unclear, but show that there is a deep philosophical difference between the two views and, as a result of this difference, we should conclude thatthe influence was small. Drawing on a distinction made by Michael Dummett, I show that Fichte understands language as encoding thought while Humboldtunderstands language as a medium (...) of thought. The consequences of this difference affect a wide range of issues from their views on the nature of personal pronouns, to their theories of communicative understanding, to their theories of the proper nature of inquiry into language. (shrink)

In several works on modality, G. H. von Wright presents tree structures to explain possible worlds. Worlds that might have developed from an earlier world are possible relative to it. Actually possible worlds are possible relative to the world as it actually was at some point. Many logically consistent worlds are not actually possible. Transitions from node to node in a tree structure are probabilistic. Probabilities are often more useful than similarities between worlds in treating counterfactual conditionals.

With an unpublished letter by W. von Humboldt about the possibility of establishing a uniform phonetic alphabet as a starting point, we investigate the ideological assumptions shared by such a project and by some attempts of Universal languages or Pasigraphies at the end of the eighteenth century. The almost unanimous dismissal of these attempts among philologists and linguists aiming at comparison seems to be responsible for their suspicion about phonetic studies, while the history of problems of transcription in Humboldt's writings (...) ends up with a condemnation of any transfer of foreign sounds on the ground of the uniqueness of the genuine articulated sound in every language. (shrink)

Frankfurt verteidigt die Auffassung, daB ,,x hatte anders handeln konnen" keine not- wendige Bedingung fiir Freiheit und Verantwortlichkeit ist. ...

Lessons from the Footnotes: The Reception of Burke’s Aesthetics and Social Theory in Szerdahely’s Conception of Aesthetics and Schedius’s Theory of Philokalia This article discusses the early phase of the Hungarian reception of the aesthetic views of Edmund Burke. It does so by considering two reference works on aesthetics, one by György Alajos Szerdahely (1740–1808), the other by Johann Ludwig Schedius (1768–1847). Both authors were, in their day and later, well known amongst the scholars of Europe. Their reference works became (...) university textbooks, and should therefore not now be neglected. The specialist literature has, however, to this day one-sidedly interpreted their conceptions as eclectic mixtures of German, English, and French works on aesthetics. In this article, the author seeks to surmount the poor methodology and unsatisfactory conclusions concerning the reception of foreign authorities in Hungarian aesthetics. She does so by using the example of Burke, reconstructing the context of the places that he is mentioned, presenting them as period topoi, and analysing the narrative strategies of the two Hungarian authors. These approaches allow her more profoundly to explore the relationship between Burke’s Enquiry and the two reference works. In the foreground of the comparison are the key terms ‘beauty’ and ‘the sublime’, the use of narration and metaphor, and also reflections on art, society, and sociability. (shrink)