This volume explores the many different meanings of the notion of the axiomatic method, offering an insightful historical and philosophical discussion about how these notions changed over the millennia. The author, a well-known philosopher and historian of mathematics, first examines Euclid, who is considered the father of the axiomatic method, before moving onto Hilbert and Lawvere. He then presents a deep textual analysis of each writer and describes how their ideas are different and even how their ideas progressed over time. (...) Next, the book explores category theory and details how it has revolutionized the notion of the axiomatic method. It considers the question of identity/equality in mathematics as well as examines the received theories of mathematical structuralism. In the end, Rodin presents a hypothetical New Axiomatic Method, which establishes closer relationships between mathematics and physics. Lawvere's axiomatization of topos theory and Voevodsky's axiomatization of higher homotopy theory exemplify a new way of axiomatic theory building, which goes beyond the classical Hilbert-style Axiomatic Method. The new notion of Axiomatic Method that emerges in categorical logic opens new possibilities for using this method in physics and other natural sciences. This volume offers readers a coherent look at the past, present and anticipated future of the Axiomatic Method. (shrink)

This essay attempts to develop a new theoretical model for business ethics distinct from the two canonical business‐ethics theories, the stakeholder theory and the shareholder value theory. Milton Friedman argued that because managers are agents of the company's owners, their sole moral responsibility is to maximize owner returns. Thomas Pogge has recently suggested that such a view involves a kind of moral incoherence and that we should reject the efficacy of social arrangements like the principal‐agent relationship in altering moral obligations. (...) Both views fail to give proper account of the dispersal of moral responsibilities in business contexts. We must distinguish “minimal moral obligations” (stemming from justice and rights) from “maximal moral obligations” (stemming from all other moral considerations, including duties of aid, beneficence, and the virtues). Minimal obligations apply to all persons, but maximal obligations can be effected by social arrangements like the owner‐manager relationship. There may be moral obligations incumbent on owners that do not apply to managers. Understanding this distribution of responsibilities enables us to develop a new and attractive model of business ethics––“the ownership model”––which places greater emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of the owners of business than has been traditional in business ethics. (shrink)

This volume explores the state of literary theory today, decades after the repeatedly proclaimed end of theory. It builds on the idea that theory is historically constituted as it is “always becoming something else” as Leslie Fiedler claimed in the 1950s, arguing that the historical constitution of theory relies on theory’s procedural nature. In order to assess theory’s procedural challenge to the fundamental notions that all the disciplines within an episteme have brought to the fore, it addresses these questions: What (...) are the procedures theory has relied on? Are they a secret to its resistance, or is resistance its primary procedure? And if so, a resistance to what? Secondly, if resistance were theory’s principal vehicle, at which point does resistance, conceptualized only procedurally (as resisting something, questioning anything, criticizing whatever), display hallmarks of a disciplinary closure that must call for new resistances, and perhaps for a fundamentally another kind? The book turns to what theory does in order to avoid a partial answer to what theory is. (shrink)

No-free-lunch theorems are important theoretical result in the fields of machine learning and artificial intelligence. Researchers in this fields often claim that the theorems are based on Hume’s argument about induction and represent a formalisation of the argument. This paper argues that this is erroneous but that the theorems correspond to and formalise Goodman’s new riddle of induction. To demonstrate the correspondence among the theorems and Goodman’s argument, a formalisation of the latter in the spirit of the former is sketched.

In eighteen chapters of the third book of his writings named The Book of the Art of Trade (1458) Croatian Renaissance philosopher Benedetto Cotrugli (c. 1416–1469) presented a list of ethical virtues a perfect merchant should possess. His ethical teaching was largely influenced by Aristotle’s thought. Hence, Cotrugli’s list of ethical virtues resembles the list Aristotle made in the seventh chapter of the second book of his Nicomachean Ethics. In this paper, their lists of ethical virtues were examined and compared, (...) thus providing insight into their differences and similarities, consequently revealing the extent of their accordance. Previous research has shown that Cotrugli and Aristotle had a corresponding understanding of the virtue of justice. However, the paper proves that another six out of thirteen ethical virtues (confidence, astuteness, integrity, liberality, modesty, and temperance) on Cotrugli’s list have their foundation in Aristotle’s ethics. (shrink)

For the purpose of enabling a dialogue between Martin Heidegger’s philosophy and Rudolf Steiner’s work, we start from Rainer Thurnher’s hypothesis that Heidegger’s “existentials”, Befindlichkeit, Verstehen and Rede, represent correlates of psychic phenomena in their traditional triple division into thinking, willing and feeling. To test this hypothesis, we analyze the temporal constitution of these psychic phenomena, that is, their existential correlates from the temporal dimensions of future, present, and past in Heidegger’s Being and Time and in some of Steiner’s lectures.

This essay focuses on the logic of the aesthetic argument used in the eighteenth century as a conceptual tool for formulating the modern concept of “(fine) art(s).” The essay also examines the main developments in the history of the art of modernity which were initiated from the way the “nature” of art was conceived in early modern aesthetics. The author claims that the formulation of the “aesthetic nature” of art led to the process of the gradual disappearance of all of (...) the formal elements that had previously characterized the visual arts; the result was “emptiness” or “nothingness” as art. The author refers to this process in terms of “vanishing acts” that allow for the formulation of an aesthetics of absence in connection to twentieth-century art (complementing the Ästhetik der Absenz, formulated in German art theory). The author also briefly addresses the consequences that these processes have for the way contemporary art, and art world operate. (shrink)

Utjecajni Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon Christiana Gottlieba Jöchera u svom trećem svesku sadržava natuknicu o filozofu Frani Petriću. Izuzevši dvojbe o mjestu rođenja, Jöcherovi su podaci točni, ali oskudni. Da bi se ustanovilo kojim je podacima raspolagao ili mogao raspolagati njemački leksikograf, proučeni su Jöcherovi izvori. Od njih devet, koje je Jöcher popisao na kraju svoje natuknice o Petriću, njemački se leksikograf poslužio samo djelom Les Eloges des hommes savans Antoinea Teissiera i drugim izdanjem rječnika Dictionaire historique et critique Pierra Baylea. Najstariji (...) i najmlađi među Jöcherovim izvorima, Elogia illustrium Belgii scriptorum Auberta Le Mirea i Mémoires Jean-Pierrea Nicerona, nemaju ni retka o Petriću. Ostalih pet Jöcherovih izvora sadržavaju vrijedne podatke o Petriću, ali se Jöcher njima nije poslužio.The third volume of the authoritative Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon , compiled by Christian Gottlieb Jöcher, contains an entry on the philosopher Frane Petrić. Apart from Petrić’s obscure place of birth, Jöcher’s data, if scarce, are correct. In order to establish the information that had been or may have been available to the German lexicographer, Jöcher’s sources have been traced. Out of the nine sources Jöcher listed at the end of his entry on Petrić, the German lexicographer consulted only the work Les Eloges des hommes savans by Antoine Teissier and the second edition of the Dictionaire historique et critique by Pierre Bayle. The oldest and most recent among Jöcher’s sources, Elogia illustrium Belgii scriptorum by Aubert Le Mire and Mémoires by Jean-Pierre Niceron, make no reference to Petrić. Although the remaining five sources contain valuable information on Petrić, Jöcher failed to consult them. (shrink)

In this review article, I present and discuss some theories and arguments which we can find in Derek Matravers’s opinonated textbook on the philosophy of art. Texbook consists of an introduction and eight chapters, but only some of the most important claims are discussed: various theories and definitions of art, the notions of expression and value of art and artworks, as well as the question whether we can learn something from artworks, beside, of course, what is considered as artistic and (...) aesthetic. A little more emphasize I gave on the notions of forgeries and on the concept of beauty in connection with the artworks. (shrink)

Mit der Arbeit will man die große Popularität des Films Joker von Tod Filips aus dem Jahr 2019 verstehen. Der Film und die Figur Joker wird im Rahmen der Philosophie, bzw. Ästhetik und Politik des Ressentiments interpretiert. Die Arbeit bietet den Schluss, dass der Film und die Figur Jokers das Gefühl der Ungleichheit als ein in der Welt verbreitetes Gefühl zwischen seiner Ästhetisierung und Politisierung wiederholen.

In this article, the authors give an answer to the question of whether God would be worthy of worship had He created (or even permitted) a world where no human action was freely done. Presupposing God’s omnibenevolence in applying the doctrine of no responsibility for actions not freely done, we consider two possible answers to the question of why God would create such a deterministic world. Whichever of these answers proved to be true, we conclude that God would be worthy (...) of worship because He would provide the best outcome for everyone. (shrink)

In trying to understand God and faith in a proper way, philosophy and theology could be very complementary. I would like to review and examine a few modern challenges and relationships between philosophy, theology and faith, seen also from important hints from history of these disciplines. I shall just take some points I consider as the most interesting. I would suggest that the most important relationship between philosophy and theology is threefold: pure philosophical works arguing for theistic conclusion; philosophical explications (...) of existing theological matters, and there is philosophical theology – mixed philosophical and theological components densely intertwined in texts. I give some examples of problems of interest for both disciplines and what significance the solutions, in general, can have for practical faith. (shrink)

In this article I defend Strong Agent-Causal Libertarianism in O’Connor’s version against several objections raised by David Widerker. More specifically, I try to show that we can overcome difficulties raised by the question whether an agent has a control over controlling doing action E, by objection of possible nomically sufficient condition for obtaining of E and by objection of possible logically or metaphysically sufficient condition for obtaining of E.U ovom članku branim tzv. jaki djelovateljsko-uzročni libertarijanizam u verziji koju je dao (...) O’Connor od prigovora koje je uputio David Widerker. Specifičnije, nastojim pokazati da se mogu svladati teškoće koje se tiču pitanja da li djelovatelj ima kontrolu nad kontroliranjem činjenja djelatnosti E, koje se tiču prigovora nomički dostatnog uvjeta da bi se dogodila djelatnost E i koje se tiču mogućih logički ili metafizički dostatnih uvjeta da bi se dogodila djelatnost E. (shrink)

When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and philosophers. -/- Winner of the American Philosophical Association Frank Chapman Sharp Memorial Prize.

When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and moral philosophers. By applying the theory of self-defense to international relations, Rodin produces a (...) far-reaching critique of the canonical Just War theory. The simple analogy between self-defense and national defense - between the individual and the state - needs to be fundamentally rethought, and with it many of the basic elements of international law and the ethics of international relations. (shrink)

When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and moral philosophers. By applying the theory of self-defense to international relations, Rodin produces a (...) far-reaching critique of the canonical Just War theory. The simple analogy between self-defense and national defense - between the individual and the state - needs to be fundamentally rethought, and with it many of the basic elements of international law and the ethics of international relations. (shrink)

Is a nation ever justified in attacking before it has been attacked? If so, under precisely what conditions? This volume of new, specially commissioned chapters provides the most definitive assessment to date of the justifiability of preemptive or preventive military action.

This book consists of eleven new essays that provide new insights into classical and contemporary issues surrounding free will and human agency. They investigate topics such as the nature of practical knowledge and its role in intentional action; mental content and explanations of action; recent arguments for libertarianism; the situationist challenge to free will; freedom and a theory of narrative configuration; the moral responsibility of the psychopath; and free will and the indeterminism of quantum mechanics. Also tackling some historical precursors (...) of contemporary debates, taken together these essays demonstrate the need for an approach that recognizes the multifaceted nature of free will. This book provides essential reading for anyone interested in the current scholarship on free will. (shrink)

In this article, I develop a general explanatory model of the liability and lesser evil justifications of harm. Despite their respective provenance in consequentialist and deontological ethics, both justifications are, at root, rich forms of the proportionality relationship between a shared set of underlying normative variables. The nature of the proportionality relationship, and the conditions under which it operates, differ between the two forms of justification. The article explores these differences in detail and the implications they have for the justification (...) of self-defense and war. (shrink)

Can a soldier be held responsible for fighting in a war that is illegal or unjust? The chapters in the book both challenge and defend many deeply held assumptions: about the liability of soldiers for crimes of aggression, about the nature and justifiability of terrorism, about the relationship between law and morality.

This article asks whether a country that suffers from serious environmental problems caused by another country could have a just cause for a defensive war? Danish philosopher Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen has argued that under certain conditions extreme poverty may give a just cause for a country to defensive war, if that poverty is caused by other countries. This raises the question whether the victims of environmental damages could also have a similar right to self-defense. Although the article concerns justice of war, (...) we will concentrate only on the issue of what can be just causes of war, instead of evaluating the entire justification of war. This is to say that we will limit our discussion to the question concerning just cause and leave aside more general questions concerning justness and moral permissibility of war. Our aim is to list the questions that must be made and settled if defensive war in the case of serious environmental problems is said to have (or not to have) a just cause. We will argue that there are three questions that are most important in this context. They are the question concerning liability, the question of collective responsibility, and the question whether environmental harms may create a “sufficient reason” for raising a war. (shrink)

In this article, the author examines two kinds of eliminativisms in the philosophy of mind – eliminative materialism and functional eliminativism. He shows that mature neuroscience has to explain phenomena which are denoted by the concepts »perception«, »mind« or »consciousness« and that these concepts are not introduced as explanations of something. Consciousness, for example, is a factual phenomenon that should be explained and cannot be eliminated, by eliminative materialism or by functional eliminativism, as an explanandum and as a fact.

In this article, the author examines two kinds of eliminativisms in the philosophy of mind – eliminative materialism and functional eliminativism. He shows that mature neuroscience has to explain phenomena which are denoted by the concepts »perception«, »mind« or »consciousness« and that these concepts are not introduced as explanations of something. Consciousness, for example, is a factual phenomenon that should be explained and cannot be eliminated, by eliminative materialism or by functional eliminativism, as an explanandum and as a fact.

In this article, I try to show that if we analyse causality in terms of perceiving regular succession of events in which one event is followed by another, and if we do not perceive further "necessity" by which these regular events be necessitated in the sense that they must always be as they are and how we perceive them, like David Hume did, then there is a possibility that there is no kind of necessity and that this analysis can be (...) used to support libertarianism concerning free will problem, and not as a support to compatibilism, which was held by Hume. I also try to show, contra Hume, that there are chance events and that under certain circumstances, similar causes can have very different effects.U ovom tekstu nastoji se pokazati da ukoliko se uzročnost analizira kao opažanje pravilnih i ponavljajućih sljedova događaja i neopažanje ikakve daljnje nužnosti koja bi "ponužnjivala" da ti sljedovi moraju uvijek biti takvi kakvi se događaju i kakvima ih opažamo, kao što je to učinio David Hume, onda je moguće da nikakva nužnost i ne postoji te da se takva analiza može uporabiti kao potpora libertarijanizmu što se tiče problema slobode volje a ne kompatibilizmu koji je zastupao Hume. Također se pokazuje da, suprotno Humeu, slučajnosti postoje i da pod određenim uvjetima vrlo slični uzroci mogu dovesti do vrlo različitih učinaka. (shrink)

Concerning the question about consciousness, Georges Rey argues that it does not exist from the success of computational theory of human mind. Everything that such a theory requires can be fulfilled by machines which do not have consciousness. So, according to theoretical parsimony, we do not have to attribute consciousness even to human beings. I wish to offer reasons why we should not doubt the existence of consciousness by showing that computational explanations can be explanations of just one part of (...) an aspect of the human mind. Consciousness is also an explanandum rather than an explanans, and the possible reference of “what it is like” expression. Epistemic situation regarding possible accesses to consciousness is also considered. (shrink)

In his book "Freedom of the Will: A Conditional Analysis", Ferenc Huoranszki tries to defend improved and amended version of the conditional analysis of free will. In my critical review, taking chapters 2 and 4 of his book as the most crucial for his theory, I try to show that incompatibilism is still more persuasive and that amended conditional analysis is not compatible with determinism. Despite my criticism, I consider this book as a significant contribution to the free will debate.