Thomas Hobbes, The Correspondence edited by Noel Malcolm. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994 (The Clarendon Edition of the Works of Thomas Hobbes, vols. VI and VII), pp. lxxvi-1008. ISBN 0-19-824065-1 (v. 1), 0-19-824099-6 (v. 2). 60.00 each.
Traduites et publiées sous la direction de Yves Charles Zarka (Bibliothèque des Textes Philosophiques), Paris, Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin 1990ff., ISBN 2?7116?2112?X.
Für den frühen Meinong gilt das „Prinzip der Relativität des Werts": Werte sind nicht Eigenschaften von Gegenständen, sondern subjektive Gefühlsantworten auf solche Eigenschaften. Dabei ist es nicht so sehr der einzelne Gefühlsakt, sondern die ihm zugrundeliegende Gefühlsdisposition des Individuums oder sogar der Gemeinschaft, welche den Wert von etwas ausmacht. Die Beziehung der Gefühlsdisposition zum Objekt wird durch das darauf bezügUche Urteil vermittelt. Sofern Meinong im Lauf seiner Entwicklung nicht das Objekt, sondern das Objektiv als den eigentlichen Urteilsgegenstand herausstellt, bedarf weniger (...) der subjektive und relative Ansatz seiner Werttheorie einer Revision, sondern ist diese als Lehre von den Werten als Sachverhaltselementen weiter auszubauen. (shrink)
Neo-Kantianism is common conceived as a philosophy ‘from above’, excelling in speculative constructions – as opposed to the attitude of patient description which is exemplified by the phenomenological turn ‘to the things themselves’. When we study the work of Emil Lask in its relation to that of Husserl and the phenomenologists, however, and when we examine the influences moving in both directions, then we discover that this idea of a radical opposition is misconceived. Lask himself was influenced especially by Husserl’s (...) Logical Investigations, and Husserl, especially in his later writings, was in some respects closer to Kant than were the Neo-Kantians. The contrast between the two philosophers can be illustrated by looking at their view of the objects of judgment; for Lask, as for Kant, judgment can relate to the thing as such only in an indirect way. The world of judgment is a collection of ‘imitations holding a secondary position’. It is cut apart from the plain world of real things by what Lask calls a ‘chasm of artificiality and imagery’. For Husserl, in contrast, the object of judgment is a ‘Sachverhalt’ or state of affairs, something ontologically ‘positive’ in the sense that it is an entity in its own right and does not point beyond itself in the manner of a mere sign or proxy for something else. (shrink)
Johannes Daubert he was an acknowledged leader, and in some respects the founder, of the early phenomenological movement, and was considered – as much by its members as by Husserl himself – the most brilliant member of the group. In Daubert’s unpublished writings we find a series of reflections on Lask, and on Neo-Kantianism, which form the subject-matter of this paper. They range over topics such as the ontology of the ‘Sachverhalt’ or state of affairs, truthvalues (Wahrheitswerte) and the value (...) of truth, negative judgments and the copula, and the relation between perception and judgment. (shrink)
The idea of a theory of speech acts, when taken in its strict sense,1 has been employed of late to indicate a bundle of theories growing out of J. L. Austin’s How to Do Things with Words of 1962. John Searle’s book Speech Acts, published in 1969, is undoubtedly the most conspicuous contribution to this theory to date. With the lapse of time, however, our distance to these fundamental works has become great enough to allow some reflection on the criteria (...) which must be met by a ‘theory of speech acts’ properly so called, so that it has become possible also to consider in this light candidate.. (shrink)
A number of logicians and philosophers have turned their attention in recent years to the problem of developing a logic of interrogatives. Their work has thrown a great deal of light on the formal properties of questions and question-sentences and has led also to interesting innovations in our understanding of the structures of performatives in general and, for example, in the theory of presuppositions. When, however, we examine the attempts of logicians such as Belnap or Åqvist to specify what, precisely, (...) a question is, or what it is to ask or raise a question, then what we are offered is somewhat less illuminating. Two alternative reductionist accounts seem in particular to have gained most favor: questions are identified either as special sorts of statements, or as special sorts of requests. As we hope will become clear in what follows, neither of these accounts is even nearly adequate; and matters are not improved if questions are identified, by force majeure, as combinations of statements and requests. (shrink)
