There are good reasons for thinking that any sharp division between ontology and epistemology is untenable, because ontology is characterized by the fact that objects are standardly seen by us in terms of a conceptual apparatus that is substantially driven by mind-involving elements.

This paper examines Richard Rorty’s “ironic liberalism,” arguing that it has no rational justitication. Rorty’s neopragmatism is first taken into account, tracing its origin and development to the political education he received in his youth. As is well known, Rorty defines himself as a liberal democrat, claiming that Westem liberal thought has produced the best form of political and social life which has ever appeared on our planet. However, if one asks why he is so positive about that, no answer (...) can be found in Rorty’s works. The paper goes on revealing Rorty’s political philosophy as a corollary of his overall meaning holism, which takes the social and political body to be a Quinean net with no center and no boundary. Resorting to a mental experiment, the paper eventually shows that Rorty’s ironic liberalism is not a position which facilitates human choice in dramatic conditions. Any totalitarian ideology rnight readily discard ironic liberalism, because it would be easy to show that its supporters cannot even argue in favor of their convictions. (shrink)

This paper examines Richard Rorty’s “ironic liberalism,” arguing that it has no rational justitication. Rorty’s neopragmatism is first taken into account, tracing its origin and development to the political education he received in his youth. As is well known, Rorty defines himself as a liberal democrat, claiming that Westem liberal thought has produced the best form of political and social life which has ever appeared on our planet. However, if one asks why he is so positive about that, no answer (...) can be found in Rorty’s works. The paper goes on revealing Rorty’s political philosophy as a corollary of his overall meaning holism, which takes the social and political body to be a Quinean net with no center and no boundary. Resorting to a mental experiment, the paper eventually shows that Rorty’s ironic liberalism is not a position which facilitates human choice in dramatic conditions. Any totalitarian ideology rnight readily discard ironic liberalism, because it would be easy to show that its supporters cannot even argue in favor of their convictions. (shrink)

This book presents, in one single volume, the first cogent overview of Nicholas Rescher's position in theoretical philosophy. Marsonet's wide ranging knowledge of American philosophy enables him to position Rescher's work in the wider setting of its relationships with various contemporary American and European thinkers.

This work manages to present a complete and informative overview of Nicholas Rescher s philosphy. A prominent representative of contemporary pragmatism and of 20th century s thought at large, Rescher wrote an impressive amount of volumes and essays on a wide variety of philosophical topics. The present book purports to make his theses and theories accessible in one single volume. Moreover, it provides an apparatus of references to the relevant literature produced by Rescher s critics, and positions his work in (...) the wider setting of its links with various contemporary American and European philosophers. The mixture of pragmatism and idealism, typical of Rescher s stance, is carefully taken into account, along with his contributions to logic, philosophy of science, metaphysics, theory of knowledge, ethics, social and political philosophy.". (shrink)

In the 1950’s Quine rejected the analytic/synthetic distinction insisting, instead,on language conceived of as a tool created by mankind for practical purposes, and this move allowed him to overcome the strictures of a purely analytic conception of language by resorting, instead, to the pragmatist tradition represented by thinkers like James, Peirce and Dewey and C.I. Lewis. In the subsequent phases of his philosophical development, however, his commitment to pragmatism became looser, maybe because Dewey and the other main fi gures of (...) American classical pragmatism always stress the practical side of the scientifi c enterprise, thus not giving too much importance to the construction of artificial languages. What kind of metaphysics, if any, cana pragmatically oriented philosopher consistently endorse? All we have to do is to envision a more modest concept of metaphysics. A pragmatist metaphysics can indeed be construed, provided we recall that metaphysics – just like science – evolves with the passing of time. An author like Rescher follows this path. Nowhere he presents his own system as giving the “final” answer to all metaphysical, epistemic or ethical interrogatives. After all, if science is no longer held to give the ultimate answers, why should such a burden be put on the philosopher’s shoulders? (shrink)

Nicholas Rescher’s work can be deemed as the most serious endeavor at both reviving the idealist perspective within contemporary analytic philosophy and making it compatible with a scientifically oriented outlook on reality. It can be argued, however, that Rescher’s conceptual idealism cannot be defined as a “true” idealism because, while adopting an idealist stance at the epistemological level, he nevertheless endorses a clear realist position at the ontological one, and this means that a non-dogmatic realism can actually be compatible with (...) his position. Furthermore, his particular brand of idealism gives rise to a rather flexible system, which can face criticisms without giving up its basic premises. In the present paper I would like to clarify—and possibly deepen—these remarks taking into account, besides two Rescher’s well-known volumes on conceptual idealism and scientific realism, a more recent paper of his also devoted to the theme of conceptual idealism. I believe in fact that the issues raised by Rescher in these works are fundamental for both a correct understanding of the current realism/anti-realism debate in metaphysics and the philosophy of science, and for the clarification as well of the manifest “idealistic turn” that took place within analytic philosophy in the last few decades. (shrink)

Pragmatists always had clear ideas about the relations between the natural and the social worlds. Most of them tell us, first of all, that human beings have evolved within nature as creatures that solve their survival problems through intelligence. The emergence of intelligence, on the other hand, must not be seen as a purpose of nature itself, but rather as our functional version of survival mechanisms such as physical force or numerousness. The systematic use of this intelligence in a conte...

A striking feature of the contemporary debate between realists and anti-realists, which is thriving in current metaphysics and the philosophy of science, is the Kantian flavour of many anti-realist arguments. The question is: are the philosophers involved in this debate aware of such a descent and, if so, to what extent? I have argued in a previous paper of mine that, although many authors recognize some kind of debt to Kant, the awareness of the Kantian heritage widespread in the current (...) realism/anti-realism debate is not as strong as it should be. And this is particularly true within the analytic tradition which, although originally inspired by strong empiricist standards, subsequently turned to a sort of “linguistic idealism” that is shared—often unconsciously—by most of its representatives. (shrink)

Nicholas Rescher's epistemology is fully evolutionary. However, which kind of evolution are we referring to when talking of evolutionary epistemology? If we take evolution to be an undifferentiated concept we are on a wrong track. The evolutionary "pattern" is certainly one, but this should not lead us to assume that the specific characteristics of mankind must be left out of the picture. Rescher's evolutionary framework is pluralistic. We have both a biological evolution which is Darwinian, and a cultural evolution which (...) is Teilhardian, governed by a rationally-guided selection among purposefully devised mutational variations. (shrink)

This book explains why anti-realism is so popular with philosophers of science by showing that many contemporary philosophers of science and language, who define themselves as empiricists, in fact have evolved into linguistic idealists.

This book explores the problem of realism, both metaphysical and scientific. Renowned specialists in the field - including Michael Devitt, David Papineau, Mark Sainsbury and Wesley Salmon - contribute new essays that shed new light on the main topics in the current realism/antirealism debate. Discussing a wide range of issues related to realism, both in metaphysics and in the philosophy of science, they address more specific questions including those concerning metaphysical realism, scientific realism, the relations between epistemology and ontology, causation, (...) dispositions and personal identity, and the relations between science and common sense. Presenting a comprehensive overview of the problem of realism, as well as in-depth discussion of particular topics, this book offers valuable insights for both students and researchers in the field. It can also be used in undergraduate and graduate courses of philosophy. (shrink)

In a short but important article, the Polish philosopher Izydora Dambska criticized the thesis-endorsed by Tadeusz Kotarbinski the effect that there are "empty" terms which denote no objects at all, besides the usual general and singular terms. Dambska remarked that "we usually find cited as examples of empty names such self-contradictory names as or, or names of mythical deities-fictitious figures that exist only in legends, poems, novels, etc." She also pointed out, however, that the basic semantic function of names consists (...) in denoting. This means that, if we admit the concept of a name which denotes nothing, either we arbitrarily change the meaning of the term "name" or run into contradiction. In fact-she observed- "for the everyday interpretation of the term, a name which does not denote anything is practically a non-name.". (shrink)

One 1120 pages volume, with 4000 entries covering - Western philosophy: authors, schools, concepts and terminology; - religions, cultural anthropology, eastern philosophies; - Psychology and psychoanalysis; - linguistics and semiotics; - sociology and political theory.

This volume, Applied Social Sciences: Philosophy and Theology, provides the reader with an important set of essays related to the two aforementioned fields of study. Aesthetics plays a key role in contemporary philosophy and several authors examine its various aspects, such as the question of identification of works of art; the concept of â oesocial aestheticsâ ; the social therapeutic function that art can have; and the relationships among hermeneutics, aesthetics and communication sciences. Other papers deal with ethical issues, such (...) as the role of human values in applied ethics and moral determinations in public life. The meaning and role of postmodernism in philosophy and society is examined at length in various contributions to the volume, and the same is true for phenomenology at large. Even the theoretical seduction and practical failure of Marxism is addressed, while anthropological issues are studied with reference to truth and other key philosophical concepts. John Searleâ (TM)s theory of intentionality is seen as a factor for creating social institutions, and the real meaning of â oeglobalizationâ is investigated in another article. Many essays deal directly with theological and religious topics. For instance the alleged â oeillusionâ of religion versus its persistency is analyzed, along with the current relations between Church and civil government in Romania, the presence of different forms of Christianity in the Romanian nation, the dialogue between social theology and anthropological research, and the antinomic nature of the Church. All papers included in the volume are original and open new perspectives on the many issues addressed by the authors. Even the philosophical styles are different: hermeneutics, analytic philosophy, historical approach, postmodernism, communication theory and linguistic approach. Some papers are theoretical and others have a more empirical or historical flavour. There is however an underlying unity because they all purport to provide new ideas to professionals involved in the socio-humanistic field. The information is divided into chapters in order to help readers to form by themselves an image of the issues that are studied. However, the volume is not addressed only to specialists, and is accessible to a wider public interested in an interdisciplinary approach. (shrink)

The article remarks that, despite what many relativists claim, realism still is an arguable and defendable position. Realism is for sure quite an unpopular stance today, but the standard arguments against it are by no means conclusive. If one asks what difference is made to our knowledge claims if we accept the existence of an extra-conceptual world, the answer is the following: such recognition is likely to undermine the largely diffused anthropocentric stance which identifies reality with our knowledge of it.

An examination of the relation between war and politics, by one of the twentieth century’s most influential thinkers From 1971 until 1984 at the College de France, Michel Foucault gave a series of lectures ranging freely and conversationally over the range of his research. In Society Must Be Defended , Foucault deals with the emergence in the early seventeenth century of a new understanding of war as the permanent basis of all institutions of power, a hidden presence within society that (...) could be deciphered by an historical analysis. Tracing this development, Foucault outlines the genealogy of power and knowledge that had become his dominant concern. (shrink)

... PREFACE Paul Gochet (Liege) "[...] une entite physique ne peut etre envisagee que comme une sorte de concretisation, de consolidation locale dans un ...

Schopenhauer’s invective is legendary among philosophers, and is unmatched in the historical canon. But these complaints are themselves worthy of careful consideration: they are rooted in Schopenhauer’s philosophy of language, which itself reflects the structure of his metaphysics. This short chapter argues that Schopenhauer’s vitriol rewards philosophical attention; not because it expresses his critical take on Fichte, Hegel, Herbart, Schelling, and Schleiermacher, but because it neatly illustrates his philosophy of language. Schopenhauer’s epithets are not merely spiteful slurs; instead, they reflect (...) deep-seated theoretical and methodological commitments to transparency of exposition. (shrink)