This volume includes the commentaries on two works from the third volume of the Critical Studies Edition of Nietzsche's Works: Morgenröthe (The Dawn), and Idyllen aus Messina (Idylls from Messina). Volume 3.2 will be devoted to commentary on The Gay Science. This volume includes the manuscript facsimiles of the Idyllen aus Messina.

Mit seinen Unterscheidungen zwischen verschiedenen Spielarten des Relativismus macht Martin Kusch deutlich, dass es eine einfache ja-/nein-Antwort darauf, ob sich Wittgenstein in Über Gewissheit zum Relativismus bekennt, nicht gibt (vgl. Kusch 2013: 38-41). Vielmehr gilt es zu klären, welche Formen des Relativismus durch Wittgensteins Überlegungen dort nahegelegt werden und welche Stellung er ihnen gegenüber einnimmt – falls er überhaupt eine klare Stellung einnimmt. Ich werde im Folgenden dafür argumentieren, dass sich Wittgenstein durch seine Überlegungen bezüglich des Zusammenhangs Moorescher Gewissheiten („Hier (...) ist eine Hand“) mit unserer Erziehung und der Bedeutung unserer Wörter von zwei Formen des Relativismus deutlich distanziert. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe ability to evaluate scientific claims and evidence is an important aspect of scientific literacy and requires various epistemic competences. Readers spontaneously validate presented information against their knowledge and beliefs but differ in their ability to strategically evaluate the soundness of informal arguments. The present research investigated how students of psychology, compared to scientists working in psychology, evaluate informal arguments. Using a think-aloud procedure, we identified the specific strategies students and scientists apply when judging the plausibility of arguments and classifying (...) common argumentation fallacies. Results indicate that students, compared to scientists, have difficulties forming these judgements and base them on intuition and opinion rather than the internal consistency of arguments. Our findings are discussed using the mental model theory framework. Although introductory students validate scientific information against their knowledge and beliefs, the.. (shrink)

COVID-19 vaccine refusal seems like a paradigm case of irrationality. Vaccines are supposed to be the best way to get us out of the COVID-19 pandemic. And yet many people believe that they should not be vaccinated even though they are dissatisfied with the current situation. In this paper, we analyze COVID-19 vaccine refusal with the tools of contemporary philosophical theories of responsibility and rationality. The main outcome of this analysis is that many vaccine-refusers are responsible for the belief that (...) they should not be vaccinated and epistemically rational in holding it. This is an important result because it provides insights into the legitimacy of certain public health policies. In particular, this result shows that a public health policy that would abandon the project of convincing certain vaccine-refusers with reasons – e.g., by simply making vaccination compulsory – is prima facie illegitimate. (shrink)

The normative force of evidence can seem puzzling. It seems that having conclusive evidence for a proposition does not, by itself, make it true that one ought to believe the proposition. But spelling out the condition that evidence must meet in order to provide us with genuine normative reasons for belief seems to lead us into a dilemma: the condition either fails to explain the normative significance of epistemic reasons or it renders the content of epistemic norms practical. The first (...) aim of this paper is to spell out this challenge for the normativity of evidence. I argue that the challenge rests on a plausible assumption about the conceptual connection between normative reasons and blameworthiness. The second aim of the paper is to show how we can meet the challenge by spelling out a concept of epistemic blameworthiness. Drawing on recent accounts of doxastic responsibility and epistemic blame, I suggest that the normativity of evidence is revealed in our practice of suspending epistemic trust in response to impaired epistemic relationships. Recognizing suspension of trust as a form of epistemic blame allows us to make sense of a purely epistemic kind of normativity the existence of which has recently been called into doubt by certain versions of pragmatism and instrumentalism. (shrink)

What should we believe when epistemic and practical reasons pull in opposite directions? The traditional view states that there is something that we ought epistemically to believe and something that we ought practically to (cause ourselves to) believe, period. More recent accounts challenge this view, either by arguing that there is something that we ought simpliciter to believe, all epistemic and practical reasons considered (the weighing view), or by denying the normativity of epistemic reasons altogether (epistemic anti-normativism). I argue against (...) both accounts and defend the traditional view. An agent can be blameworthy in doxastic dilemmas for complying with their practical but not their epistemic reasons. This reveals how epistemic reasons are normative: the concept of epistemic blame helps us track epistemic normativity. (shrink)

How can we be responsible for our attitudes if we cannot normally choose what we believe, desire, feel, and intend? This problem has received much attention during the last decades, both in epistemology and in ethics. Yet its connections to discussions about reasons and rationality have been largely overlooked. Responsibility for Rationality is the first book that connects recent debates on responsibility and on rationality in a unifying dialectic. It achieves four main goals: first, it reinterprets the problem of responsibility (...) for attitudes as a problem about the normativity of rationality; second, it breaks the stalemate between rationalist and voluntarist accounts of mental responsibility by defending a hybrid view; third, it provides novel support to recent accounts of the normativity of rationality by arguing that epistemic reasons and other ‘right-kind’ reasons are genuine normative reasons; fourth, it sets the foundations and the research agenda for an ‘ethics of mind’, including an illustration of how to approach applied issues in epistemology within the presented framework. After spelling out connections between responsibility and rationality (part I), the book engages in debates in normative epistemology (part II) and brings them to bear on the broader field of an ethics of mind (part III). -/- Full draft of current version available on request, comments welcome! (shrink)

It is often argued that there are no practical reasons for belief because we could not believe for such reasons. A recent reply by pragmatists is that we can often believe for practical reasons because we can often cause our beliefs for practical reasons. This paper reveals the limits of this recently popular strategy for defending pragmatism, and thereby reshapes the dialectical options for pragmatism. I argue that the strategy presupposes that reasons for being in non-intentional states are not reducible (...) to reasons to act. Pragmatists who want to preserve a motivational constraint on reasons therefore have exactly two options: either arguing that there are irreducible reasons for being in non-intentional states ; or arguing that we can believe directly for practical reasons. I argue that the prospects for the former option are dim because irreducible reasons to be in states are hard to square with the motivational constraint on reasons. Returning to the more traditional route of arguing for pragmatism by defending a version of doxastic voluntarism therefore seems to be the more promising way for pragmatists to go. (shrink)

Sebastian Schmidt (Zürich) fragt in seinem Beitrag »Wie vernünftig sind Verschwörungstheoretiker?«, wie es um die Vernunft derjenigen steht, die einer Verschwörungstheorie über die Corona-Pandemie anhängen. Im Umgang mit Corona scheint sich zu bestätigen, was die Psychologie seit Jahrzehnten lehrt: Menschen unterliegen in ihrem Denken kognitiven Fehlern und Verzerrungen. Doch ist verschwörungstheoretisches Denken, das solche Fehler ebenfalls begeht, deshalb irrational? Schmidt warnt davor, einander zu leichtfertig als irrational zu betrachten, und verweist auf die wichtige Rolle, die intellektuelles Vertrauen (...) in Wissensgemeinschaften spielt. Am Beispiel des sogenannten Bestätigungsfehlers führt er aus, dass Menschen, die ihre Überzeugungen nicht fortwährend kritisch prüfen, in diesem Verhalten durchaus rational sein können. (shrink)

Eva Schmidt argues that facts about incoherent beliefs can be non-evidential epistemic reasons to suspend judgment. In this commentary, I argue that incoherence-based reasons to suspend are epistemically superfluous: if the subjects in Schmidt’s cases ought to suspend judgment, then they should do so merely on the basis of their evidential reasons. This suggests a more general strategy to reduce the apparent normativity of coherence to the normativity of evidence. I conclude with some remarks on the independent interest (...) that reasons-first epistemology might have within an evidentialist framework. (shrink)

I argue that the problem of responsibility for attitudes is best understood as a puzzle about how we are responsible for responding to our object-given reasons for attitudes – i.e., how we are responsible for being (ir)rational. The problem can be solved, I propose, by understanding the normative force of reasons for attitudes in terms of blameworthiness. I present a puzzle about the existence of epistemic and mental blame which poses a challenge for the very idea of reasons for attitudes. (...) We are left with three options: denying that there are any reasons for attitudes, opting for pragmatism about reasons for attitudes, or arguing that the challenge rests on a misunderstanding of the normative force of reasons for attitudes. I finally suggest a version of the last strategy. We can understand the normative force of reasons for attitudes, and thereby solve the problem of mental responsibility, by acknowledging that the way we blame each other for failing to respond correctly to our reasons for attitudes is different from the way we blame each other when one failed to respond correctly to reasons for action. (shrink)

Many of our attitudes are non-culpable: there was nothing that we should have done to avoid holding them. I argue that we can still be blameworthy for non-culpable attitudes: they can impair our relationships in ways that make our full practice of apology and forgiveness intelligible. My argument poses a new challenge to indirect voluntarists, who attempt to reduce all responsibility for attitudes to responsibility for prior actions and omissions. Rationalists, who instead explain attitudinal responsibility by appeal to reasons-responsiveness, can (...) make sense of blameworthiness for non-culpable attitudes. In response, voluntarists could propose a revision of our actual practices. This would lead us into a quite different debate. (shrink)

Broome takes the debate on rationality to be concerned with the ordinary use of 'rational'. I argue that this is at best misleading. For the object of current theories of rationality is determined by a specific use of 'rational' that is intimately connected to blame and praise. I call the property it refers to 'rationalityRESP'. This focus on rationalityRESP, I argue, has two significant implications for Broome's critique of theories of rationality as reasons-responsiveness. First, rationalityRESP is plausibly conceived of as (...) a kind of reasons-responsiveness. Secondly, Broome's dispute with internalists about normativity as well as his dispute with externalists about rationality both hinge on questions regarding the concept of responsibility. I conclude that philosophers should integrate discussions about responsibility in their debates about rationality. (shrink)

This volume provides a framework for approaching and understanding mental normativity. It presents cutting-edge research on the ethics of belief as well as innovative research beyond the normativity of belief—and towards an ethics of mind. By moving beyond traditional issues of epistemology the contributors discuss the most current ideas revolving around rationality, responsibility, and normativity. -/- The book’s chapters are divided into two main parts. Part I discusses contemporary issues surrounding the normativity of belief. The essays here cover topics such (...) as control over belief and its implication for the ethics of belief, the role of the epistemic community for the possibility of epistemic normativity, responsibility for believing, doxastic partiality in friendship, the structure and content of epistemic norms, and the norms for suspension of judgment. In Part II the focus shifts from the practical dimensions of belief to the normativity and rationality of other mental states—especially blame, passing thoughts, fantasies, decisions, and emotions. These essays illustrate how we might approach an ethics of mind by focusing not only on belief, but also on debates about responsibility, rationality, These essays illustrate how we might approach an ethics of mind by focusing not only on belief, but also more generally on debates about responsibility and rationality, as well as on normative questions concerning other mental states or attitudes. -/- The Ethics of Belief and Beyond paves the way towards an ethics of mind by building on and contributing to recent philosophical discussions in the ethics of belief and the normativity of other mental phenomena. It will be of interest to upper-level students and researchers working in epistemology, ethics, philosophy of action, philosophy of mind, and moral psychology. (shrink)

I argue that believing at will – i.e. believing for practical reasons – is in some sense possible and in some sense impossible. It is impossible insofar as we think of belief formation as a re-sult of our exercise of certain capacities (perception, memory, agency). But insofar as we think of belief formation as an action that might lead to such a result (i.e. a deliberation or an in-quiry), believing at will is possible. First I present and clarify the problem (...) and its philosophical relevance (section 1). I then argue that a belief formation as an immediate reaction to practical reasons is not necessarily equivalent to believing at will because the causal mechanism that leads to the formation might be deviant (section 2). Finally, I explain the difference between the two above mentioned meanings of “belief formation” in order to clarify the possibility and impossibility of believing at will (section 3). (shrink)

This chapter locates our overall approach within the dialectic of contemporary philosophical debates and provides an overall framework for discussion. First, I introduce the problem of mental normativity. I show how this problem poses a prima facie threat to the common assumption in epistemology and metaethics that beliefs and other attitudes are governed by robust normative requirements. Secondly, I motivate philosophical inquiry about an ethics of mind by tracing this field back to recent debates in the ethics of belief. I (...) characterize the ethics of mind as being concerned with two main questions: 1. How can we be responsible for our attitudes? 2. What attitudes should we have? Finally, I give an overview over the structure of the book and summarize the chapters. (shrink)

The author defends the claim that there are cases in which we should promote irrationality by arguing (1) that it is sometimes better to be in an irrational state of mind, and (2) that we can often influence our state of mind via our actions. The first claim is supported by presenting cases of irrational _belief_ and by countering a common line of argument associated with William K. Clifford, who defended the idea that having an irrational belief is always worse (...) than having a rational one. In support of the second claim, the author then explains how the control we have over our beliefs could look like. In conclusion, the author suggests that the argument of this essay is not restricted to the irrationality of beliefs, but can be applied to irrational states of mind in general. In an outlook on the “ethics of belief” debate, the author points out that the argument of this essay need not conflict with evidentialism, but does so when combined with another plausible claim about the meaning of doxastic ought-statements. (shrink)

Danielle Celermajer advocates for reconceptualizing responsibility in light of the climate crisis. I argue instead that we must understand current concepts of responsibility which are implicit in actual responsibility practices. I illustrate this by appeal to the practice of holding each other responsible for our beliefs-a practice in which we are constantly involved, but which is often obscured. It extends our responsibility to involuntary aspects of our own mind and involves socially distributed cognitive duties. Cognitive responsibility is part and parcel (...) of shared human conceptual frameworks that we should work to uncover and fully understand rather than revise. (shrink)

The objective of this study was to examine whether the “step back and watch” attitude of mindfulness manifests in less emotional behavior. We hypothesized that the “acceptance” facet of mindfulness, but not the “presence” facet, is negatively associated with the magnitude of emotional behavior in four tests, i.e., rating of words, rating of aversive and neutral pictures, and evaluative conditioning . Additionally, we hypothesized that the acceptance facet is associated with increased reaction time in an emotional Stroop test, and that (...) the presence facet is associated with decreased RT and lower error rate. The sample consisted of N = 247 non-clinical adults and was tested in a cross-sectional study. The results provide partial evidence that the acceptance facet of mindfulness may be associated with less aversive reactions towards aversive stimuli. Future studies should substantiate these findings but also determine their clinical relevance. (shrink)

The dissertation is mainly concerned with the following question: How can we be responsible for our attitudes? Traditional formulations of the philosophical problem underlying this question see it as a conflict between responsibility and the absence of voluntary control. I interpret it, by contrast, as a problem about the responsibility that we have for being (ir)rational. To illuminate this responsibility, I engage in discussions about the normative status of object-given reasons for attitudes, present a novel case against pragmatism about reasons (...) for attitudes, and propose that we can understand our responsibility for being (ir)rational by grounding the normative force of reasons for attitudes in our practice of holding each other answerable for our (ir)rationality. Properly distinguishing the direct answerability we have for our attitudes from the indirect accountability that we have for managing our attitudes allows us to see that not all kinds of responsibility presuppose control. Rather, attitudes for which we are directly answerable are within the space of reasons without always being within our control. (shrink)

To successfully learn using open Internet resources, students must be able to critically search, evaluate and select online information, and verify sources. Defined as critical online reasoning, this construct is operationalized on two levels in our study: the student level using the newly developed Critical Online Reasoning Assessment, and the online information processing level using event log data, including gaze durations and fixations. The written responses of 32 students for one CORA task were scored by three independent raters. The resulting (...) score was operationalized as “task performance,” whereas the gaze fixations and durations were defined as indicators of “process performance.” Following a person-oriented approach, we conducted a process mining analysis, as well as a latent class analysis to test whether—following the dual-process theory—the undergraduates could be distinguished into two groups based on both their process and task performance. Using PM, the process performance of all 32 students was visualized and compared, indicating two distinct response process patterns. One group of students, defined as “strategic information processers,” processed online information more comprehensively, as well as more efficiently, which was also reflected in their higher task scores. In contrast, the distributions of the process performance variables for the other group, defined as “avoidance information processers,” indicated a poorer process performance, which was also reflected in their lower task scores. In the LCA, where two student groups were empirically distinguished by combining the process performance indicators and the task score as a joint discriminant criterion, we confirmed these two COR profiles, which were reflected in high vs. low process and task performances. The estimated parameters indicated that high-performing students were significantly more efficient at conducting strategic information processing, as reflected in their higher process performance. These findings are so far based on quantitative analyses using event log data. To enable a more differentiated analysis of students’ visual attention dynamics, more in-depth qualitative research of the identified student profiles in terms of COR will be required. (shrink)

Freiwilligkeit, personale Identität (im Sinne eines harmonisch verfassten und stabilen Selbst) und epistemische Gewissheit sind bei den meisten antiken Philosophieschulen untrennbar miteinander verbunden und garantieren im Rahmen einer als Lebenskunst verstandenen Philosophie das Glück. Im Anlehnung an Überlegungen bei Aristoteles und dem zeitgenössischen Philosophen Peter Bieri analysieren wir, wie Entscheidungen, die zum Zeitpunkt ihres Treffens als bedingt frei und selbstbestimmt wahrgenommen wurden, im Nachhinein vom Han-delnden aufgrund des damals fehlenden Wissens über die Handlungsumstände als unfrei wahrgenommen werden und zu Erfahrungen (...) der Selbstentfremdung führen können. Anknüpfend an Pamela Hieronymis Unterscheidung zwischen zwei Formen der Ausübung mentaler Freiheit zeigen wir anhand von fiktiven Fallbeispielen, wie die Protagonisten trotz epistemischer Ungewissheit zur Autorität über ihren Geist sowie zu einer funktionalen Selbstbeziehung zurückfinden können, und stellen dies in den Kontext einer zeitgenössischen Philosophie als Lebenskunst. (shrink)

In stark contrast to the legislative developments in the Louisiana Capitol, a bill is awaiting Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s signature that would expand a health care paradigm being hailed as the “best kind of end-of-life care that has come along.” The bill is an effort to improve upon an already successful medical order called physician orders for life-sustaining treatment. Specifically, it is an attempt to bridge the noticeable gap that exists between the number of patients who would rather die at (...) home and the actual one-third of patients who have that wish realized. The POLST paradigm was developed in order to improve the quality of care afforded to seriously ill patients by giving them the opportunity to direct the path that their care will take at the end of life. It is a legal document that specifies what care will be carried out in an emergency medical situation, and it is filled out by the patient, in consultation with their physician, and signed both by the patient and the physician. It is generally only appropriate for patients suffering from an advanced stage of terminal illness or whose prognosis indicates that they have approximately one year left to live, for the patient’s current health status points to the need for standing medical orders. The key component of the paradigm is thoughtful conversations between health care providers, patients, and their families and friends to determine what life-sustaining treatments fall in line with their personal values, beliefs, and goals. Although one might confuse POLST with an advance directive, which is designed to help healthy people make their end-of-life decisions known to loved ones in the event of serious illness or injury, POLST is actually a complementary tool. Signing such an order is highly encouraged for the target patient population due to clinical experience and research demonstrating that advance directives are not sufficient by themselves in ensuring that patients’ preferences in health care are respected and honored. The most recent high-profile case of Casey Kasem provides a striking example. A significant advantage in having POLST is that the order is completely portable, becoming a part of the patient’s medical record, thus reducing the risk of unwanted or ineffective care. However, it must be noted that POLST does not replace an advance directive, as it does not substitute for naming a health care agent or durable power of attorney for health care. POLST has already been available in Illinois for over a year, and its use throughout the country has been steadily increasing over the past twenty years, beginning with its introduction in Oregon in 1991. Today, almost all states employ POLST, with the forms varying in their language and structure from state to state. A recent study conducted in Oregon also found that POLST is successful, finding that the end-of-life preferences for patients only seeking comfort care were honored and only 6 percent of such patients died in the hospital.[1] Conversely, 34 percent of patients without a POLST order died in the hospital. Yet, POLST is not just about limiting the kind of life-sustaining measures that should be implemented; it can also be used to ensure that a patient’s wish for aggressive care is also fulfilled. So long as the patient and the physician engage in a dynamic conversation wherein the patient is adequately presented with the diagnosis, prognosis, treatment alternatives, and the burdens and benefits associated with life-sustaining treatment, then the patient’s informed decision must be respected regardless of the preferred course of treatment. As mentioned above, the bill presented to Gov. Pat Quinn is an expansion of the already existing POLST form in Illinois. It includes the opportunity to discuss additional treatment options that were not present in the previous form, such as IV solutions, feeding tubes, pain medications, and hospice. It allows for physician’s assistants, nurses, and senior medical residents to sign the POLST, in addition to physicians, which accurately reflects the fact that these health care providers are often the ones most likely to have the time to talk and discuss varying options with patients. It also provides three general options for their end-of-life care: • Comfort measures avoiding transfers to hospitals; • limited interventions of basic medical treatments and transfers to hospitals if indicated but avoiding intensive care; • and full treatment including a transfer to a hospital or intensive care unit. Critics of the bill and POLST itself have voiced issues concerning the validity and relevance of seriously ill patients’ advance choices, especially when taking into consideration the possibility of patients changing their minds. Furthermore, opponents often cite the inherent power imbalance that exists between patients and their physicians, stating that POLST is not “protective enough” and is “more about withholding treatment” than patient autonomy. These concerns are not unique to POLST, as similar arguments have been made in regards to advance directives. This is why continuous conversation must take place between health care providers and their patients and their families. A form is just a filled out piece of paper. It carries no weight if the necessary concentration is not given to the prerequisite conversation and the professional duty placed upon health care providers to honor the requests that come out of that conversation. Only then can the filled out piece of paper become actionable, hopefully resulting in the kind of delicate care that seriously ill Illinois patients deserve. [1] Fromme, E. K., Zive, D., Schmidt, T. A., Cook, J. N. B. and Tolle, S. W. “Association Between Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment for Scope of Treatment and In-Hospital Death in Oregon”. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12889. (shrink)

Anhand von zwei zentralen Schriften Hans Blumenbergs - den Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie (1960) und der Arbeit am Mythos (1979) - widmet sich der Band einer Relekture der ausgefeilten gedanklichen wie sprachlichen Verfahrensweisen, die der Philosoph zumeist unkommentiert zum Einsatz bringt. GEfragt wird damit nicht nur nach den spezifischen Darstellungsmitteln der Texte und dem Verhaltnis, das diese zu den verhandelten Themenkomplexen unterhalten, sondern auch, inwiefern deren reichhaltiges Arsenal an Denk- und Ausdrucksweisen gegenwartig Anschlussmoglichkeiten fur kulturanalytische Fragestellungen bereithalt. Die Beitrage stammen (...) von: Thomas Ballhausen, Eckhardt Kohn, Sebastian Lederle, Oliver Muller, Wolfgang Muller-Funk, Mauro Ponzi, Vahidin Preljevic, Matthias Schmidt, Tanja Veverka, Luca Viglialoro und Rudiger Zill. (shrink)

Die Aufsätze des Bandes leisten einen Beitrag zur Debatte über die Relevanz des Hegelschen Sittlichkeitsbegriffs. Sie nehmen verschiedene Begriffe, Argumentationsmuster und Lösungsvorschläge von Hegels Rechtsphilosophie auf, testen deren Gegenwartstauglichkeit und zeichnen Rezeptionslinien nach. Im Zentrum stehen dabei neben dem Gehalt des Sittlichkeitstheorems und der Geschichtlichkeit sittlicher Lebensformen sowohl Personenbegriff, Bildungsidee wie Komplexität des zentralen Freiheitgedankens bei Hegel, aber auch die Perspektive der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft und die Reichweite und Aktualität der Sittlichkeitssemantik. Mit Beiträgen von Christiane Bender, Thomas Sören Hoffmann, Christian Hofmann, (...) Christian Krijnen, Wolfgang Schild, Christian Schmidt, Steffen Schmidt, Sebastian Schwenzfeuer, Michael Spieker, Pirmin Stekeler-Weithofer und Benno Zabel. (shrink)

In these replies, I react to comments on my paper “Facts about Incoherence as Non-Evidential Epistemic Reasons”, provided by Aleks Knoks, Sebastian Schmidt, Keshav Singh, and Conor McHugh. I discuss potential counterexamples to my claim that the fact that the subject’s doxastic attitudes are incoherent is an epistemic reason for her to suspend; whether such incoherence-based reasons bear on individual attitudes or only on combinations of attitudes; the prospects of restricting evidentialism about epistemic reasons to reasons to believe; (...) whether incoherence-based reasons are truly epistemic; the alleged normative and motivational expendability of incoherence-based reasons; the possibility of incoherence-based reasons to suspend without actual belief in the incoherent propositions; the relationship between suspension, inquiry, and incoherence; and the nature of suspension of judgment. (shrink)

Die Frage, was Philosophie ist und wie sie betrieben werden sollte, kann nicht ein fur alle Mal beantwortet werden. Vielmehr muss jede Generation aufs Neue fur sich klaren, was unter einem philosophischen Problem zu verstehen ist und wie man philosophieren sollte. Die Verstandigung daruber, was Philosophie ist, bildet somit einen Teil der philosophischen Tatigkeit selbst. Der Sammelband bietet eine Bestandsaufnahme des Selbstverstandnisses von Philosophinnen und Philosophen unserer Zeit, die reprasentativ fur die Vielfalt der Gegenwartsphilosophie ist. Diese Vielfalt ergibt sich einerseits (...) aus der historischen und systematischen Breite der Themen, mit denen sich die Philosophie beschaftigt - den Feldern des Philosophierens. Daruber hinaus ist die Philosophie der Gegenwart andererseits auch dadurch charakterisiert, dass sie ihre Gegenstande auf verschiedene Weise, z. B. analytisch, phanomenologisch oder pragmatisch, untersucht. Diese Formen des Philosophierens konstituieren seine methodische Vielfalt. Mit Beitragen von Rolf Elberfeld, Markus Gabriel, Michael Hampe, Ludger Jansen, Matthias Kaufmann, Olaf Muller, Kristina Musholt, Jan Schmidt, Eva Schurmann, Marc Nicolas Sommer, Sebastian Spanknebel, Rainer Totzke, Christiane Voss und Hector Wittwer. (shrink)

This article replies to criticism of my article, “Is Religious Belief a Kind of Belief?” by Sebastian Gäb, Eva Schmidt and Michael Scott.

'Everyone knows what attention is’ according to William James. Much work on attention in psychology and neuroscience cites this famous phrase only to quickly dismiss it. But James is right about this: ‘attention’ was not introduced into psychology and neuroscience as a theoretical concept. I argue that we should therefore study attention with broadly the same methodology that David Marr has applied to the study of perception. By focusing more on Marr's Computational Level of analysis, we arrive at a unified (...) answer to the question of what attention is, what role it plays in the mind, and why organisms like us have that capacity. I propose a methodology for studying attention at Marr's Computational Level that optimizes in a three-dimensional space: it should capture core aspects of our first-person experience of attention, be explanatorily powerful in psychology and neuroscience, and fertile in an interdisciplinary context. I show how this methodology leads to what I call the priority structure account of attention. Attention is what organizes current information to make it more useful for the organism. We can identify it by four features. Attention, in this way, helps a cognitive system to integrate its informational state with its current motivational state. I describe how this account improves on alternatives and shows why attention is a useful concept in many disciplines and for connecting them. -/- This article is categorized under: Philosophy > Psychological Capacities Psychology > Attention Philosophy > Foundations of Cognitive Science. (shrink)

What is attention? How does attention shape consciousness? In an approach that engages with foundational topics in the philosophy of mind, the theory of action, psychology, and the neurosciences this book provides a unified and comprehensive answer to both questions. Sebastian Watzl shows that attention is a central structural feature of the mind. The first half of the book provides an account of the nature of attention. Attention is prioritizing, it consists in regulating priority structures. Attention is not another (...) element of the mind, but constituted by structures that organize, integrate, and coordinate the parts of our mind. Attention thus integrates the perceptual and intellectual, the cognitive and motivational, and the epistemic and practical. The second half of the book concerns the relationship between attention and consciousness. Watzl argues that attentional structure shapes consciousness into what is central and what is peripheral. The center-periphery structure of consciousness cannot be reduced to the structure of how the world appears to the subject. What it is like for us thus goes beyond the way the world appears to us. On this basis, a new view of consciousness is offered. In each conscious experience we actively take a stance on the world we appear to encounter. It is in this sense that our conscious experience is our subjective perspective. (shrink)