Online research in philosophy

We attack the SSK's rejection of the distinction between discovery and justification (the DJ distinction), famously introduced by Hans Reichenbach and here defended in a "lean" version. Some critics claim that the DJ distinction cannot be drawn precisely, or that it cannot be drawn prior to the actual analysis of scientific knowledge. Others, instead of trying to blur or to reject the distinction, claim that we need an even more fine-grained distinction (e.g. between discovery, invention, prior assessment, test and (...) justification). Adherents of the SSK, however, maintain that the distinction is useless and perhaps nonexistent. We first argue against the assumption that the SSK's objection to the DJ distinction is just the same as Thomas Kuhn's. Second, we point out general weaknesses of the SSK's arguments against the DJ distinction. Finally, we argue that the distinction is useful not only in order to explicate what is meant by an evaluation but even for the empirical explanation of knowledge. We use two case studies from the history of cognitive science to support this point. (shrink)

La vida entera de muchos ensayistas transcurre sin dar jamás con un tema. Este ensayo no sólo se topa con un tema, sino que incluso se da el lujo de aprovecharlo. El tema es la felicidad. Sin embargo, La herida de Spinoza es un libro de ?losofía, no de autoayuda. Parte de algunas conclusiones recientes de la neurología, en particular de las investigaciones de Antonio Damasio acerca de la impertinencia de la secular división entre mente y cuerpo. El propio Damasio (...) vincula sus investigaciones con las ideas que Spinoza expuso en su Ética. Para Damasio, la tranquila aceptación de la muerte, una de las señas de identidad de la ética de Spinoza –de hecho, la «herida» de Spinoza–, resulta «irritante». Ese comentario de Damasio parece inocuo, pero para Vicente Serrano no lo es, sino que apunta a una especie de «desajuste», a una extraña incomprensión de la diferencia última de la ética spinozista. A partir de ahí el autor no se propone criticar solamente esa y otras lecturas de Spinoza, sino que plantea además una amplia crítica a la modernidad, y también a la posmodernidad. La herida de Spinoza se convierte entonces en una revisión de la historia entera de la ?losofía en esa zona en que ética y metafísica (u ontología) se superponen. Aunque el proyecto parece apabullante, el autor se asegura de estar bien equipado. Por una parte suprime el aparato académico, lo que le permite ser más breve y directo, y por otra echa mano de una erudición notable y, sobre todo, de una capacidad absolutamente inusual de explicación. Si hubiera que buscar parangones a esa capacidad, no quedaría más remedio que acudir a Rüdiger Safranski. El autor, sin embargo, no hace biografías, ni siquiera historia de la ?losofía como tal, sino que intenta ?losofar de la mano de los más grandes pensadores de la historia. El ensayo se completa con la inclusión de una pieza maestra: los afectos. Los afectos serían la respuesta posible de la ?losofía al problema de la biopolítica. La progresión de la modernidad no sólo implica la desaparición de la naturaleza, sino la sustitución absoluta de los afectos por la voluntad (de voluntad). Si la vuelta a la naturaleza es imposible, e incluso indeseable –dado que la naturaleza no fue nunca más que una metáfora–, Serrano se inspira en Foucault para proponer una «vuelta» a los afectos como la pieza fundamental que cierra la reflexión sobre el poder. «Un ensayo en el sentido más ágil del término, obra a mitad de camino entre lo reflexivo y lo literario… Bien pensado y bien escrito, muchísimo más de lo que se ha vuelto habitual en nosotros» (Gabriel Albiac, Leer). «La cuestión de fondo teórica –a qué responde la religión y qué problemas de comprensión existencial atiende o atendía– es algo mucho más complejo y creo que más apasionante. Un buen tratamiento filosófico de la cuestión es el que ofrece Vicente Serrano en La herida de Spinoza, reciente ganador del Premio Anagrama de Ensayo… Serrano explora las consecuencias posmodernas del abandono de las religiones: un tema más sugestivo que la refutación de las iglesias...» (Fernando Savater, El País). «Iniciado como un arroyo para abrirse en un delta que abarca toda la modernidad filosófica, la obra de Serrano analiza, sin pedantería ni falsas oscuridades, las inflexiones que han tenido los conceptos de religión, deseo, naturaleza, esperanza, progreso, poder y felicidad» (Juan Malpartida, ABC). «Entre quienes lo lean sumará cientos de fascinados. Ojalá miles» (Félix Soria, La Voz de Galicia). «La vida entera de muchos ensayistas transcurre sin dar jamás con un tema. Este ensayo no sólo se topa con un tema, sino que incluso se da el lujo de aprovecharlo. El tema es la felicidad… Plantea una amplia crítica a la modernidad, y también a la posmodernidad. La herida de Spinoza se convierte entonces en una revisión de la historia entera de la filosofía en esa zona en que ética y metafísica (u ontología) se superponen» (Diario de León). (shrink)

I propose that the passage of time is the successive occurrence of sets of simultaneous events (assuming classical or Newtonian spacetime structure as background). This conception of passage, I claim, is lean enough to survive the criticisms of passage-deniers while robust enough to satisfy the needs of passage-affirmers. I undertake to describe and defend this minimal notion of passage.

The motivation of this paper is to contribute to the project of finding new ways to use "utopia" in philosophy again. Since philosophers as well as poets can look to their forbears for inspiration in re-inventing terms, it would be nice if those of us trying to rehabilitate the term could lean a bit on our own disciplinary heavies, especially in the current climate of philosophical skepticism, even cynicism, about the very idea of utopia. My contribution to that task (...) here will be to present a vision of utopian commitment that I see taking shape in the interface between Kant's ethics and aesthetics. This vision is broadly speaking a moral one, insofar as it describe the barriers to, but also the necessary conditions of, human motivation to strive for the creation of a just society in the real world. But turning to Kant's ethics as a model for a theory of utopia requires some explanation. After all, his moral theory, when it takes into account the really existing conditions of human existence, appears to do so only to dismiss them as obstacles or diversions in the path of correct moral judgment. When he discusses human community, it is often to dismiss it as driven by self-interest and and an "each against all" struggle that can be responsibly regulated but never eliminated. At best this "unsocial sociability" might be evidence for a hypothetical natural purpose: human strife and misery is a mechanical force driving the progress of our talents and capacities in the long evolutionary run.1 But this is hardly a utopian vision in the sense in which we would wish to see a well-regulated society be.. (shrink)

I argue that Kant’s four Paralogistic conclusions concerning (a) substantiality; (b1) unity and (b2) immortality, in the famous “Achillesargument”; (c) personal identity; and (d) metaphysical idealism, in the first edition Critique of Pure Reason (1781), are all connectedby being grounded in a common underlying rational principle, an a priori (universal and necessary) presupposition, namely, that boththe mind and its essential attribute of thinking are immaterial and unextended, i.e., simple. Consequently, despite Kant’s predilectionfor architectonic divisions and separations, I show that in (...) fact the simplicity assumption grounds all four Paralogisms and reinforcesKant’s corresponding commitments to the principles of continuity and coherence. Further, I maintain that Kant, under the influence ofhis earlier Leibnizian and subjective idealist leanings, continued to be guided in the first edition Critique, not only in the Paralogismsbut also in certain sections of the Analytic, by emphasizing unconscious activities, which once more reinforced his commitments to aparadigm of the simplicity, unity, and identity of self-consciousness or apperception. (shrink)

As is known, a logic S is paraconsistent if the rule ECQ (E contradictione quodlibet) is not a rule of S. Not less well known is the fact that Lewis’ modal logics are not paraconsistent. Actually, Lewis vindicates the validity of ECQ in a famous proof currently known as the “Lewis’ proof” or “Lewis’ argument.” This proof essentially leans on the Disjunctive Syllogism as a rule of inference. The aim of this paper is to define a series of paraconsistent logics (...) included in S4 where the Disjunctive Syllogism is valid only as a rule of proof. (shrink)

A good number of therapists have tumed to the antirealism of postmodern theory in general, and postmodern literary theory in particular, to justify their antitheoretical preferences. Does this turn make sense? Given what drives the antitheoretical agenda - the aspiration to individualize therapeutic practice so as to optimize each client’s unique potential for change - the answer is no. More specifically, I argue that it is the composition (i.e., the completeness) of the theoretical system that guides therapeutic practice, rather than (...) the therapist’s epistemological leanings, that does have considerable bearing on the recalcitrant problem of individualizing practice, otherwise known as the nomothetic/idiographic problem.Bon nombre de thérapeutes se sont toumés vers I’antiréalisme de la théorie postmoderne, en particulier de la théorie littéraire postmoderne, pour justifier leurs positions antithéoriques. Qu’en est-il de ce choix? Si l’on considère le moteur de l’idéologie antithéorique - à savoir l’aspiration à individualiser la pratique thérapeutique afin d’optimiser le potentiel de changement propre à chaque patient - il faut admettre qu’elle ne tient pas. De façon plus spécifique, je soutiens que c’est la composition (c’est-à-dire la complétude) du système théorique qui guide la pratique thérapeutique, non pas les inclinations épistémologiques du thérapeute, lesquelles ont par ailleurs une incidence considérable sur le problème tenace de I’individualisation de la pratique, connu aussi en tant que problème nomothétique/idiographique. (shrink)

What Is Man? is Mark Twain's skeptical assessment of free will, and determinism, religious belief, and the nature of humanity. He put off publishing it for 25 years, and then released it anonymously in a limited edition of 250 copies. The book takes the form of a Socratic dialogue between a romantic young idealist and an elderly cynic, who debate such issues as whether man is a machine or a free actor, whether personal merit is meaningless given how our environment (...) shapes who we are, and whether man has any impulse other than pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. As readers "we listen attentively, leaning forward in our chairs," Charles Johnson writes in his introduction, weighing on our own such statements as the Old Man's claim that "No man ever originates anything.... Men observe and combine, that is all. So does a rat." Linda Wagner-Martin, in the afterword, sees the ideas expressed in this volume as "a thread that runs through even the lightest of Mark Twain's fiction, the calmest of his memoirs; and as the questioning hook that may provide a rationale for his becoming a writer in the first place.". (shrink)

It has been argued that all compatibilist accounts of free action and moral responsibility succumb to the manipulation problem: evil neurologists or their like may manipulate an agent, in the absence of the agent's awareness of being so manipulated, so that when the agent performs an action, requirements of the compatibilist contender at issue are satisfied. But intuitively, the agent is not responsible for the action. We propose that the manipulation problem be construed as a problem of deviance. In troubling (...) cases of manipulation, psychological elements such as desires and beliefs, among other things, are acquired via causal routes that are deviant relative to causal routes deemed normal or baseline. We develop and defend rudiments of a baseline that is acceptable independently of whether one has compatibilist or incompatibilist leanings. (shrink)