Přednáška poukazuje na roli O. Marquarda v úvahách o poválečném němectví. Jeho studie Obtíže s filosofií dějin je představena jako cenné vodítko, které napomáhá lépe charakterizovat hlavní rysy reflexe němectví a současně nastiňuje východisko ze slepých uliček, do nichž se toto téma dostává v literárních i neliterárních textech. Marquardem nastíněný střet mezi filosofií dějin a antropologií, který u něho vyústil do skeptického postoje, je v této studii analogicky přenášen mimo filosofii. Vypovídá o opakujících se rozporech mezi německými historiky a rovněž (...) umožňuje výstižně popsat proměny úvah o němectví v díle německých literátů – Marquardových vrstevníků -, jako jsou Martin Walser, Günter Grass nebo H. M. Enzensberger. (shrink)

El artículo presenta la vertiente práctica del escepticismo alemán de Odo Marquard y Wilhem Weischedel en tres momentos: inicio con la propuesta de Marquard, quien lo define como la sensibilidad para lo usual, en vez de un sistema de criterios veritativos; prosigo con la Ética Escéptica de Weischedel, mostrando que la cuestionabilidad radical de la realidad abre un espacio para que el escéptico pueda formular siempre una pregunta; y termino mostrando que, a partir de Weischedel y Marquard, (...) la despedida se erige como la actitud fundamental del escepticismo práctico. (shrink)

The lecture focuses on the role of O. Marquard in the discussions on post-war Germany. His study The Difficulties with Philosophy of History is introduced as a valuable guide to the characterization of the main features of the reflection of German identity and it outlines the ways to the resolution of a stalemate that this theme has reached in both literary and non-literary texts. In this study, the clash between philosophy of history and anthropology, which Marquard outlined and (...) which resulted in his sceptical stance, is applied outside philosophy. It describes repeated conflicts between German historians and enables an apt characterization of the changes in the discussions on German identity in the works of German authors – Marquard’s contemporaries – such as Martin Walser, Günter Grass or H. M. Enzensberger. (shrink)

A brief contribution to the conference held as a homage to O. Marquard focuses on his basic, that is, sceptical stance in philosophy and life. It merely aspires to remark (not necessarily justify) that philosophy can be cultivated in various areas with various basic ingredients, and it can develop thinking in multifarious forms. Marquard’s preferred form was Pyrrhonian scepticism, resulting in irony, which leads to further crossroads and contingencies showing no sign of a blessed state, just like the (...) previous ones. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that crossroads exist, but a blessed state does not. There is no way he can tell; but he can doubt both. (shrink)

Nedílnou součástí textů Odo Marquarda je humor i úvahy o humoru, který spojuje s rozumem člověka. Proto je tématem příspěvku na počest Odo Marquarda připomenutí možného spojení humoru, smíchu a rozumu. Marquardovým úvahám o spojení humoru a rozumu předsazuji v textu nejprve interpretaci dílčích výzkumů evolučně biologického pohledu na vznik a roli smíchu, jemuž je přisuzována podstatná role při porozumění vývoje člověka, tedy i schopností jeho rozumu. Z biologické perspektivy je smích chápán jako typ společenského chování. Díky sociálním aspektům smíchu (...) je zřetelná linie mezi humorem, který smích vyvolává a rozumem, který je schopen humor a smích produkovat. Dále navážu Marquardovými tezemi, představujícími některá možná spojení mezi rozumem a humorem v intencích jeho filozofické antropologie. V závěru s pomocí mikroetymologického připomenutí naznačím, proč humor náleží mezi filozoficky vrcholné aktivity lidského rozumu a kde se Marquardovy úvahy mohou doplňovat s evolučně biologickým výzkumem smíchu. (shrink)

Krátký příspěvek na konferenci konané jako homage na O. Marquarda se v nástinu vztahuje k jeho základnímu, tzn. skeptickému postoji ve filosofii a v životě. Chce (jako připomínka, bez hlubších analytických nároků) odkázat na možnost pěstovat filosofii v různých půdách, s různými živinami, a rozvíjet myšlení různými cestami. Tou Marquardovou byla moderní pyrrhónská skepse, ústící v ironii, jež ale sama vede jen na další rozcestí a k další kontingenci, odkud není vidět na žádný požehnaný stav, stejně jako tomu bylo na (...) všech předchozích. Možná je to tím, že rozcestí jsou, kdežto požehnaný stav ne. Vědět to nemůže; o obojím lze ale pochybovat. (shrink)

Příspěvek vychází z autorova disertačního projektu, který mapuje myšlenkovou spřízněnost mezi Hansem Blumenbergem a jednotlivými filosofy tzv. Ritterovy školy, tedy Odo Marquardem, Hermannem Lübbem, Robertem Spaemannem a Martinem Krielem. Autor předkládá obecnou charakteristiku Ritterovy školy a „skeptické generace“ (H. Schelsky), hledá argumenty, které by osvětlily, proč bývá zdůrazňována spřízněnost mezi Blumenbergem a „Ritterovci“, a poukazuje na její filosofické konvergence v oblasti praktické filosofie. V analýze vychází z několika nesporných afinit mezi Marquardovým a Blumenbergovým myšlenkovým světem: z návaznosti na gehlenovské pojetí (...) člověka jako deficitní (a kompenzující) bytosti, z oslavy polyteismu, ze společných obtíží s filosofií dějin, které je vedou ke kritice diskurzivní etiky (v duchu Nové levice). Předkládá a zdůvodňuje tezi, podle níž se zmínění Ritterovi žáci přiblížili k sobě navzájem – a současně i k Blumenbergovi – nejvíce poté, co byli nuceni reagovat nejen na studentské hnutí druhé poloviny 60. let, jež zpochybnilo demokratické struktury Spolkové republiky, ale i na neomarxismus, o nějž se studentské hnutí opíralo. Druhou část studie tvoří analýza liberálně konzervativní kritiky diskurzivní etiky, jejíž jádro představuje překvapivé Marquardovo čtení Descarta: Descartes dočasné a provizorní morálky je zde postaven proti Descartovi nepochybnému metodicky zajištěnému. (shrink)

Idea końca historii jest nośna filozoficznie i szeroko komentowana przez przedstawicieli wielu tradycji filozoficznych. W niniejszym tekście przedstawiamy, jak owa idea jawi się w filozofii postmetafizycznej, odwołując się do trzech jej reprezentantów: Gianniego Vattima, Odo Marquarda i Viléma Flussera. Mimo różnic, które występują w ich ujęciach końca historii, można także zauważyć pewien wspólny rys, związany głównie z rozumieniem historii jako metanarracji oraz z krytycznym stosunkiem do metafizyki.

ZusammenfassungDer Text versucht in Auseinandersetzung mit den Ansätzen von Jürgen Moltmann, Johann Baptist Metz und Odo Marquard und im Anschluss an lutherische Theologie zu einer Verhältnisbestimmung von Theodizeefrage und Kreuzestheologie zu gelangen. Dabei wird Luthers Einsicht fruchtbar gemacht, dass Gott verborgen im Leiden wirkt, das Leiden aber nicht zu seiner Wesenseigenschaft wird. Vielmehr eröffnet sich in der Klage des leidenden Menschen die Möglichkeit, das Leiden an Gott zu beenden und gegen Gott zu Gott zu fliehen. Von Luthers Kreuzestheologie her (...) ist eine gegenseitige Durchdringung von Theodizeefrage, Hamartiologie, Kreuzestheologie und Eschatologie anzumahnen. Gleichzeitig verhelfen Klage und Anklage dazu, sich aufgrund von erfahrenen Leiden nicht in sich selbst zu verschließen, sondern kontrafaktisch an Gott festzuhalten.SummaryDiscussing the thoughts of J. Moltmann, J. B. Metz and O. Marquard the essay attempts – whilst following Martin Luther's theologia crucis – to find a relation between the theodicy-question and the theology of the cross. For this concern it refers to the aspect that God acts in suffering in a hidden way but does not posses suffering as an intrinsic characteristic. Rather, the lament of suffering people address to God, as we find it in the Psalms, gives the opportunity of bringing suffering from God's hiddenness to an end and to “flee from God to God”. Returning to Luther's theologia crucis should lead to further reflections on theodicy, sin, theology of the cross and eschatology. At the same time, lamentation as bringing human suffering before God provides an aid for suffering people not to lock their suffering in themselves, but to maintain the relationship to God – even against the supposedly factual evidence of the experience of suffering. (shrink)

La vida cotidiana y la cultura contemporáneas experimentan un alto grado de estetización que parece hacer superfluo el arte. El presente artículo responde a esta problemática y plantea la pregunta por la función del arte en la sociedad moderna, e ilustra el debate con las tesis de W. Welsch, R. Bubner, J. Ritter, O. Marquard y K. Konig. El artículo se inclina por las tesis de Marquard, quien aboga por un arte estético contra un arte escatológico. Sólo un (...) arte estético como "organon" de la experiencia puede compensar la pérdida de percepción, de juicio autónomo y el fomento de la ficción que genera el poder de los medios en la cultura actual. Un arte escatológico como "organon" de la idea, por el contrario, se hace cómplice de dicha perversión cultural. (shrink)

The article opens (§ 1) with the paradoxical situation of philosophical anthropology between a heralded destiny of decadence (W. Schulz) and the surge of its argumentations and notions in the present-day debate on ethical themes and on the very idea of “human nature,” as well as in the redefinition of social philosophy (J. Habermas and P. Sloterdijk). It seeks, then (§§ 2-5), to trace a sort of “metaphilosophy” of philosophical anthropology, discussing the principal interpretations (H. Schnädelbach, H. Paetzold, O. (...) class='Hi'>Marquard, W. Lepenies, etc.) that characterize it as reactive, open to a broader range of disciplines (the natural, human, social and cultural sciences) and installed in the clash between nature and history, intertwining empirical and theoretical elements and capable of providing a descriptive base for moral choices. It then takes up (§§ 6-8) the more recent perspectives of a philosophical anthropology for the twenty-first century that oscillate between its reconstruction around a strong theoretical core – excentric positionality – as a current of unitary thought and the divergent interpretation that focuses on the biopolitical approach, in order to redefine the specifically human along the vertical axis of anthropogenesis and evolutionary comparison and the horizontal axis of the analysis of diverse cultures in search of the premises of human vital practice. It concludes (§ 9) by suggesting an exploration – through the articles that follow – of the role of stimulus that philosophical anthropology and its authors play in the most disparate currents on the scene of contemporary German philosophy, such as critical theory, historical anthropology, neopragmatism, social philosophy, and the philosophy of culture. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Philosophiegeschichte als philosophisches Problem. Kritische Überlegungen namentlich zu Kant und HegelJoachim LandkammerPetra Kolmer, Philosophiegeschichte als philosophisches Problem. Kritische Überlegungen namentlich zu Kant und Hegel. Freiburg/München: Alber Philosophie, 1998. Pp. 423. Cloth, DM 98.00.Das Thema verführt zu paradoxen und widersprüchlichen Selbstbezüglichkeiten: die systematische Frage, wie sich die Philosophie zu ihrer Geschichte verhält (eine Frage, die so alt ist wie die Geschichte der Philosophie selbst) kommt ihrerseits um philosophiegeschichtliche Erörterungen (...) nicht herum. Der daher eigentlich naheliegenden Einsicht, daß die Philosophie ihre eigene Geschichte ist, bzw. daß „Philosophieren" immer bedeutet, Philosophiegeschichte zu betreiben, möchte Kolmer durch ein Plädoyer für eine sozusagen „philosophiefreie", d.h. - nun in ihren Worten - eine „‚bloße' Philosophiehistorie" (379 u.ö.) entgegentreten. Unter lockerer Anlehnung an die skeptischen und anti-idealistischen Individualitäts- und Endlichkeitsphilosopheme von Odo Marquard und Hans Michael Baumgartner, soll die Philosophiegeschichte „als der Philosophie gegenüber eigenständige Wissenschaft" (57) alternativ und konträr zu einer durchwegs platonistisch-teleologisch konzipierten „Philosophiegeschichtsphilosophie" aufgefaßt werden, um so pluralistische Deutungsmöglichkeiten und weitere philosophische Entwicklungen („offene Zukunft") zuzulassen, zeitbedingte Kontexte mitzuberücksichtigen, [End Page 445] randständige Philosophen vor dem Vergessen zu bewahren (vergleichbar dem Problem der „Kleinmeister" in der Musikgeschichte) sowie das vorrationale und irreduzibel Individuelle zu seinem Recht kommen zu lassen. Warum diese hehren Ziele aber nur durch eine Abkoppelung von „der" Philosophie überhaupt und nicht lediglich durch die Abkehr von einer bestimmten, zum Teil ja vielleicht wirklich geschichtsphilosophisch „verseuchten" Tradition der Philosophiegeschichte zu erreichen sein sollen, bleibt allerdings unklar.Immerhin unternimmt Kolmer beachtenswerte interpretatorische Anstrengungen, um in den philosophiegeschichtlichen Teilen ihrer Arbeit Hintergründe und Vorausssetzungen derjenigen Konzeptionen von Philosophiegeschichte herauszuarbeiten, die das Kontrastprogramm zu ihrem Plädoyer für eine philosophisch abstinente Philosophiegeschichte darstellen: dabei werden drei kurz abgehandelten zeitgenössischen Positionen (H. Lübbe, L. Braun, J. Mittelstraß) die eingehender besprochenen Theorien der Philosophiegeschichte von Hegel und Kant (in dieser Reihenfolge!) an die Seite gestellt. Der letztgenannte scheint v.a. mit seinen in den Nachlaßaufzeichnungen dokumentierten Intentionen einer „philosophierenden Geschichte der Philosophie" die gemeinsame Plattform der genannten Theorien zu bilden; denn zum einen berufen sich die erwähnten zeitgenössischen Philosophiegeschichtstheoretiker explizit auf ihn, zum anderen liegen deutliche Analogien vor zwischen Kants Anspruch auf definitive Schlichtung aller vorausgegangenen (und noch auftauchenden) philosophischen Streitigkeiten durch den endgültigen (weder Fichtesche noch sonstige „Nachbesserungen" erfordernde) Richtspruch der kritischen Vernunft einerseits und Hegels Behauptung der „Aufhebung" der gesamten philosophiegeschichtlichen Vergangenheit im System des absoluten Geistes andererseits. Um nun Kant von diesen idealistischen Vereinnahmungen zu befreien und ihn ihrem eigenen Projekt wieder anzunähern, versucht nun Kolmer, diese Strukturähnlichkeit dadurch einzuschränken und zu differenzieren, daß sie auf der einen Seite die heutigen Theorien der Philosophiehistorie generell unter Hegelismus-Verdacht stellt (es handle sich um implizite „Theorien der geschichtlichen Vernunft"), auf der anderen aber den Graben zwischen Hegel und Kant tiefer zieht (ganz anders die Konstanzer Dissertation von Jung-Min Kang, Philosophische Philosophiegeschichte von 1998.) Dafür muß man aber bei der Kant-Exegese wegen der geringen Textbasis relativ weit ausholen und die Konfrontation mit Hegel auf allgemeinere geschichtsphilosophische Theoreme verlagern. Die Autorin übersieht dabei großzügig, daß diese sich nicht ohne weiteres auf die spezielle Programmatik der Philosophiegeschichte übertragen lassen, weswegen es hier des öfteren zu interpretatorischen Schnellschüssen und Oberflächlichkeiten kommt. Daß aber ein Buch, das für „historische Bildung" und für eine vorurteilslose („nichtkonzeptualistische") „Arbeit an den Texten" (82) plädiert - die monistisch-idealistische Philosophiegeschichtsphilosophie sei der kompensatorische Versuch, „mit allen Texten, die man nicht selbst verfaßt hat, grundsätzlich schon fertig zu sein, noch bevor man sie gelesen hat" (399) - darüberhinaus eine gewisse Schlampigkeit im Umgang mit den interpretierten Schriften an den Tag legt, entzieht dem Plädoyer für die anti-spekulative „literarische Einstellung zu Texten" (81) das historistisch-philologische Fundament. So will die Autorin auf S. 333 die Sicht Kants auf den vorkritischen Zustand der Philosophie u.a. mit einem Zitat aus Kants Streit der Fakultäten [End Page 446] belegen, wo („A 44") die Rede sei vom „Krieg, d.i. Zwietracht aus der Entgegensetzung der Endabsichten in Ansehung des gelehrten Mein und Dein". Im Wortlaut steht bei... (shrink)

A dos años de su publicación original (Kunst als menschliche Praxis. Eine Asthetik, 2014) ingresa por primera vez, en manos de la excelente traducción de José Francisco Zuñiga García, un libro completo de Georg Bertram. Este profesor alemán de filosofía de la Freien Universitat Berlin cuenta con una productividad destacada como sorprendente, pues atraviesa diversos campos y tradiciones de discusión filosófica con cierta comodidad. Bertram puede discutir tanto con la tradición analítica como con los herederos de la tradición crítica de (...) la estética alemana (Albrecht Wellmer, Martin Seel, Christoph Menke) y las fuentes de la hermenéutica contemporánea. Probablemente, este hecho tenga que ver con su trayectoria intelectual y formativa que, como bien indica la edición de esta colección de estética de la editorial española Comares, el autor ha investigado al lado de pensadores provenientes de muy diversas corrientes de pensamiento, desde Martin Seel u Odo Marquard hasta los circuitos académicos de Pittsburgh orientados por John McDowell. Esto último es evidente en la reconstrucción de Kant y Hegel que Bertram realiza en los capítulos dos y tres de este texto. Los trabajos de los llamados “neohegelianos de Pittsburgh” o Pittsburgh School (John McDowell, Robert Brandom, Robert Pippin, Terry Pinkard) se vuelven visibles en el análisis de los idealistas alemanes. (shrink)

How is it that we think and refer in the first-person way? For most philosophers in the analytic tradition, the problem is essentially this: how two apparently conflicting kinds of properties can be reconciled and united as properties of the same entity. What is special about the first person has to be reconciled with what is ordinary about it. The range of responses reduces to four basic options. The orthodox view is optimistic: there really is a way of reconciling these (...) apparently contradictory properties as contained within the same thing. The heretical views are pessimistic and content to be so: there is no such way, and that is because there is simply nothing to reconcile – because there is really nothing special about what is in question; or there is really nothing ordinary about it; or there is really nothing …. (shrink)

Philosophical theories of emotions, and to an extent some theories of scientific psychology, represent attempts to capture the essence of emotions basically as they are conceived in common sense psychology. Although there are problems, the success of explanations of our behavior in terms of believes, desires and emotions creates a presumption that, at some level of abstraction, they reflect important elements in our psychological nature. It is incumbent on a theory of emotions to provide an account of two salient facts (...) about emotions as conceived in common sense psychology. As intentional states, emotions have representational and rational properties: emotions represent states of affairs; and they are rationally related to other mental representations, figure in rational explanations of behavior, and are open to rational assessment. Emotions also have a close relationship to a range of non-intentional phenomena: in typical cases, emotions involve physiological changes, usually associated with the activation of the autonomic nervous system, which are proprioceptively experienced; and they often involve behavioral tendencies, as well. (shrink)

A review of deVries' and O'Shea's books, both titled "Wilfrid Sellars". By Jaroslav Peregrin.

Thomas Kuhn had little to say about scientific change in biological science, and biologists are ambivalent about how applicable his framework is for their disciplines. We apply Kuhn’s account of paradigm change to evolutionary microbiology, where key Darwinian tenets are being challenged by two decades of findings from molecular phylogenetics. The chief culprit is lateral gene transfer, which undermines the role of vertical descent and the representation of evolutionary history as a tree of life. To assess Kuhn’s relevance to this (...) controversy, we add a social analysis of the scientists involved to the historical and philosophical debates. We conclude that while Kuhn’s account may capture aspects of the pattern of an episode of scientific change, he has little to say about how the process of generating new understandings is occurring in evolutionary microbiology. Once Kuhn’s application is limited to that of an initial investigative probe into how scientific problem-solving occurs, his disciplinary scope becomes broader. (shrink)

This study explores consumer expectations and attitudes related to gender-based price discrimination. Although much research has focused on pay inequalities and gender diversity, considerably less attention has been focused on situations in which men and women are charged different prices based on gender. In two studies, expectations and attitudes toward gender-based price discrimination are examined. In Study 1, two scenarios related to prices at hair salon and dry cleaning services were manipulated to measure expectations and attitudes toward gender-based price discrimination. (...) We found that the nature of the service results in expectations of price differences between men and women. We also found men expect gender-based pricing more than women. In Study 2, qualitative research was conducted to reveal the cognitions that men and women experience when exposed to gender-based price discrimination. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Aristotle’s Phantasia in the Rhetoric:Lexis, Appearance, and the Epideictic Function of DiscourseNed O’GormanIntroductionThe well-known opening line of Aristotle's Rhetoric, where he defines rhetoric as a "counterpart" (antistrophos) to dialectic, has spurred many conversations on Aristotelian rhetoric and motivated the widespread interpretation of Aristotle's theory of civic discourse as heavily rationalistic. This study starts from a statement in the Rhetoric less discussed, yet still important, that suggests that a visual (...) aspect inheres in Aristotle's theory of rhetoric. Near the beginning of book 3, which deals with lexis (style, sometimes subsuming delivery1 ), Aristotle conjoins lexis and phantasia with the copula "is" (eimi): "The subject of expression [lexeôs], however, has some small necessary place in all teaching; for to speak in one way rather than another does make some difference in regard to clarity, though not a great difference; but all these things are forms of outward show [phantasia] and intended to affect the audience" (1404a).2 Whereas scholars exploring the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic have compared and contrasted the Rhetoric and the Topics, I explore rhetoric's relationship with phantasia by reading the Rhetoric alongside De Anima. De Anima is Aristotle's seminal account of the senses and their relationship to psychê (often translated "soul"). It addresses topics intimately connected to rhetoric: perception, cognition, deliberation, visualization, imagination, and the image. Phantasia is integral to each of these psychic processes and to Aristotle's understanding of the function of appearance in human experience. Hence, itis a lens suitable for exploring the relationship between Aristotle's conception of civic discourse and his notions of sight and appearances as they relate to perception, interpretation, deliberation, and judgment. I find in Aristotle's phantasia a tie between his art of rhetoric and his psychology and phenomenology (anachronistic though these terms are). Aristotle's psychological works, as Richard McKeon points out, are foundational to Aristotle's philosophy, and thus to his Rhetoric. [End Page 16] "Psychological inquiries occupy an extremely important position in the philosophy of Aristotle, for the conception of the psychê lays the foundation for the continuity of functions in nature" (1947, 142). De Anima, especially, articulates the psychological and phenomenological conceptions often tacitly at work in the Rhetoric.The importance of phantasia for the trajectory of ancient rhetorical and aesthetic theory is seen in the parallels between the visual arts, rhetoric, and poetics in Greek and Roman thought.3 As David Freedberg states (perhaps, slightly overstates), parallels between painting and poetry are "to be found everywhere in classical literature" (1989, 50). With respect to such visual-verbal parallels in Aristotle, D. Thomas Benediktson's reading of Aristotle's psychological, poetic, and rhetorical works concludes that phantasia ties together the visual and the literary. "[Aristotle's passages on phantasia] do help to see why Aristotle took for granted the similarity, almost the identity, of literature and the visual arts. Both types of art are imagistic; they present to the viewer either an image, as in visual art, or as in literature, a set of moving images that the soul then uses as raw data (phantasia) to enable thought to occur" (2000, 170). Phantasia developed a legacy in Hellenistic aesthetics, where it came to designate suprarealism in painting, moving art "beyond imitation" (Fowler 1989, 180–81). In later Greco-Roman works, phantasia was used to designate vivid imagery in written and oral discourse, imagery that could create sights and scenes in the minds of audience members. As Quintilian noted in his discussion of forensic rhetoric, in Latin phantasiai were termed visiones. Here, phantasiabecame a mode of displacing narrative in rhetorical discourse:There are certain experiences which the Greeks call phantasiai, and the Romans visions [visiones], whereby things absent are presented to our imagination with such extreme vividness that they seem actually to be before our very eyes.... From such impressions arises that enargeia which Cicero calls illumination [illustration] and actuality [evidential], which makes us seem not so much to narrate [dicere] as to exhibit [ostendere] the actual scene.(Institutio Oratoria 4.2.29, 32)Quintilian's invocations of phantasia and enargeia can be traced to Aristotle's discussion of rhetorical style in book... (shrink)

Here we prove the existence of sheaf cohomology theory in arbitrary o-minimal structures.

Recent discoveries of geographical patterns in microbial distribution are undermining microbiology’s exclusively ecological explanations of biogeography and their fundamental assumption that ‘everything is everywhere: but the environment selects’. This statement was generally promulgated by Dutch microbiologist Martinus Wilhelm Beijerinck early in the twentieth century and specifically articulated in 1934 by his compatriot, Lourens G. M. Baas Becking. The persistence of this precept throughout twentieth-century microbiology raises a number of issues in relation to its formulation and widespread acceptance. This paper will (...) trace the conceptual history of Beijerinck’s claim that ‘everything is everywhere’ in relation to a more general account of its theoretical, experimental and institutional context. His principle also needs to be situated in relationship to plant and animal biogeography, which, this paper will argue, forms a continuum of thought with microbial biogeography. Finally, a brief overview of the contemporary microbiological research challenging ‘everything is everywhere’ reveals that philosophical issues from Beijerinck’s era of microbiology still provoke intense discussion in twenty-first century investigations of microbial biogeography. (shrink)

In this paper, I aim to clarify the role of ‘wonder’ in education. Most of us who work in education want to provide valuable experiences for our students, and we want them to be driven by intrinsic values such as truth and recognition of the dignity of human existence. However, whilst I echo many of the sentiments espoused by advocates of the utility and ethical significance of wonder, I contend that some recent developments—and in particular, Schinkel’s argument that ‘deep’ (‘contemplative’ (...) or ‘cosmic’) wonder has a ‘fundamental’ role in education—are misconceived. This is, I argue, because any concept deployable within educational spaces (whether formal or informal) must pay due regard to the conceptual constraints of the concept of ‘education’; that is, attention must be paid to the role of ‘learning’. Schinkel’s proposals are, I suggest, vulnerable to a critique of sentimentalism and excessive romanticism. As such, they offer little in terms of practical import for educators. As I will propose, if we are to take ‘wonder’ seriously in educational contexts, we must pay attention to the purpose of wonder as an epistemic emotion; namely, aiming for knowledge and understanding, and getting there requires sensitivity to practical know-how and conceptual competence. (shrink)

The need to address our question arises from two sources, one in Kant and the other in a certain type of response to so-called Reformed epistemology. The first source consists in a tendency to distinguish theoretical beliefs from practical beliefs , and to treat theistic belief as mere practical belief. We trace this tendency in Kant's corpus, and compare and contrast it with Aquinas's view and a more conservative Kantian view. We reject the theistic-belief-as-mere-practical-belief view: it is bad descriptive anthropology, (...) it embraces a misguided ideal of a fragmented self unattainable by human beings, and it will deter people from the most desirable sort of faith. The second source consists in the idea that since theistic beliefs function as answers to why-questions, their epistemic status hangs on whether they meet certain distinctively explanatory standards, whatever support they might receive from other sources. We argue that this is a non-sequitur and suggest questions for further research. (shrink)

According to familiar accounts, Rousseau held that humans are actuated by two distinct kinds of self love: amour de soi, a benign concern for one's self-preservation and well-being; and amour-propre, a malign concern to stand above other people, delighting in their despite. I argue that although amour-propre can (and often does) assume this malign form, this is not intrinsic to its character. The first and best rank among men that amour-propre directs us to claim for ourselves is that of occupying (...) 'man's estate'. This does not require, indeed it precludes, subjection of others. Amour-propre does not need suppression or circumscription if we are to live good lives; it rather requires direction to its proper end, not a delusive one. (shrink)