C. D. Broad

Emergence is a notorious philosophical term of art. A variety of theorists have appropriated it for their purposes ever since George Henry Lewes gave it a philosophical sense in his 1875 Problems of Life and Mind. We might roughly characterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them. (For example, it is sometimes said that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain.) Each (...) of the quoted terms is slippery in its own right, and their specifications yield the varied notions of emergence that we discuss below. There has been renewed interest in emergence within discussions of the behavior of complex systems and debates over the reconcilability of mental causation, intentionality, or consciousness with physicalism. (shrink)

Two extremely detailed accounts of temporal experience can be found in the work of C. D. Broad. These accounts have been subject to considerable criticism. I argue that, when we look more carefully at Broad’s work, we find that much of this criticism fails to find its target. I show that the objection that ultimately proves troubling for Broad stems from his commitment to two principles: i) the Thin-PSA, and ii) the ‘Overlap’ claim. I use this result to demonstrate that (...) we can learn two extremely important lessons from Broad’s work on temporal experience. -/- The first lesson is that there is a structural problem facing any account that commits to these two principles. This is significant given that a number of recent accounts of temporal experience are so committed. The second lesson is that the problem facing these accounts stems only from commitment to the Thin-PSA and ‘Overlap’, rather than to commitment to a particular conception of how experiences are to be individuated. This, I argue, gives us reason to reject Tye’s recent claim that the problems facing accounts of temporal experience can be dissolved simply by making stipulations about how experiences are to be individuated. (shrink)

Rather than attempt to trace the development of his thought throughout these fifty years this book considers his most representative work, namely, The Mind and ...

Zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts war die Frage, ob Leben rein mechanisch erklärt werden könne, noch genau so heiß umstritten wie das Leib-Seele- Problem heute. Zwei Parteien standen sich unversöhnlich gegenüber. Auf der einen Seite die Biologischen Mechanisten mit der Auffassung, daß die für Lebewesen charakteristischen Eigenschaften (Stoffwechsel, Fortpflan- zung, Wahrnehmung, zielgerichtetes Verhalten, Morphogenese) genauso mechanisch erklärt werden können wie das Verhalten einer Uhr, das sich mit physikalischer Zwangsläufigkeit aus den Eigenschaften und der Anord- nung ihrer Zahnräder, Federn und Gewichte (...) ergibt. Auf der anderen Seite die Substanz-Vitalisten, die die entgegengesetzte Meinung vertraten, Leben könne nur durch die Annahme einer nichtphysischen Substanz erklärt wer- den – einer Entelechie oder eines élan vital. Als Broad in den frühen zwan- ziger Jahren seine Überlegungen zum Begriff der Emergenz entwickelte, verfolgte er unter anderem das Ziel, Raum für eine dritte Position zwischen diesen beiden Extremen zu schaffen – eine Position, die er Emergenten Vi- talismus nannte. (shrink)

At the start of the 20th century the question of whether life could be explained in purely me- chanical terms was as hotly debated as the mind-body problem is today. Two factions opposed each other: Biological mechanists claimed that the properties characteristic of living organisms could be ex- plained mechanistically, in the way the behavior of a clock can be explained by the properties and the arrangement of its cogs, springs, and weights. Substantial vitalists, on the other hand, maintained that (...) the explanation envisaged by the mechanists was impossible and that one had to postulate a special nonphysical substance in order to explain life. (shrink)

This book brings together an international group of neuroscientists and philosophers who are investigating how the content of subjective experience is...

In what follows, I shall first outline Broad's description of, and attitude to, psychological egoism. Then, I shall examine briefly the form which a defense against his criticisms might take. This raises the query whether such a defense is consistent with the doctrine's empirical character. It is suggested that the egoist could evade this difficulty by questioning an assumption which Broad (and others) make about psychological egoism. By abandoning this assumption, we can state the doctrine in a more adequate form-a (...) form which emphasizes the point that men, although psychological egoists, are also rational beings, capable of acting on principle! (shrink)

This book, first published in 1975, provides critical and comprehensive introduction to the philosophy of Leibniz.