Professor Bergmann is an original thinker who has for many years wrestled with some of the most important and difficult problems of philosophy. Although at first mainly interested in epistemology, he has gradually come to the conclusion that the fundamental questions of philosophy are ontological and that even epistemology is in the last analysis “the ontology of the knowing process.” He holds that by neglecting the explicit formulation of his ontology, a philosopher courts intellectual disaster because the inadequacies of the (...) ontological foundation are likely to affect all philosophical superstructures built on it. In his last book [1], Bergmann explains some of the main features of his ontology in systematic form and criticizes competing systems, especially those of Brentano and Meinong, by comparing them with his own. In the critical parts of his work he tries to show that the competing ontologies are not adequate to the tasks for which they are intended and why this is so. The constructive and the critical parts supplement each other very well, since Brentano's and Meinong's questions and emphases are similar to Bergmann's. Broadly speaking, he regards his own ontology as a phase in a development of ontological insight which consists, at least negatively, in the gradual elimination of three major errors: nominalism, reism, and representationalism. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is first to explain a general notion of transcendental deductions, of which the Kantian are special cases; next to show, and to illustrate by examples from Kant’s work, that no transcendental deduction can be successful; and thirdly to put one of Kant’s achievements in its proper light by substituting for his spurious distinction between metaphysical exposition and transcendental deduction, a revised notion of metaphysical exposition and of the philosophical tasks arising out of it.

S. Körner; I—The Presidential Address: On the Concept of the Practicable, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 67, Issue 1, 1 June 1967, Pages 1–16.

In this article the author proposes "to state the problem (of explanatory propositions) by defining and discussing the requirements for a satisfactory account of the laws of nature, In a somewhat narrow sense of the term which does not include probability statements and statistical propositions; next to examine two mutually exclusive theories and their common assumptions; finally to suggest and try to justify a solution to the problem." (staff).

Since the question of the relations between philosophy and science is never very far from the minds of philosophers of science, an occasional attempt at answering it seems permissible and may even be useful. The paper is divided into three parts. First, philosophical and scientific theories are compared by reference to commonsense thought. Secondly, some of the reasonable and unreasonable constraints will bediscussed which philosophical theories may impose upon scientific ones, and scientific theories upon philosophical ones. In the third part (...) I try to indicate briefly the relevance of these comparisons to some special problems in the philosophy of science. (shrink)