Hume's conception of causation and induction is discussed in the context where the causal evolution is represented by the motion of a free particle in space. The difference between classical and relativistic mechanics is shown to be significant for the discussion.
Presenting significant new research on the moral and religious philosophy of David Hume, this volume illustrates the importance of intellectual context in understanding the work and career of one of the most important thinkers of the eighteenth century. Distinctive in its reappraisal of the influence of John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and others, it examines how Hume reacted to, and in turn affected, other thinkers whose views, like his own, were bound up with specific philosophical, theological, and scientific traditions and commitments. (...) This volume also publishes for the first time in facsimile form the newly discovered fragment on evil. (shrink)
L’utilisation des réseaux socionumériques est sans doute l’activité en ligne qui enregistre actuellement la croissance la plus rapide parmi les jeunes. Cet article présente de nouvelles conclusions pan-européennes du projet EU Kids Online sur la façon dont les enfants et les jeunes exploitent les possibilités des réseaux peer-to-peer offertes par les réseaux socionumériques, en se basant sur une enquête menée auprès d’environ 25 000 jeunes . Globalement, 59 % des jeunes internautes européens âgés de 9 à 16 ans disposent de (...) leur propre profil sur un site de réseau social. Malgré des craintes, couramment exprimées, de voir la vie des jeunes entièrement exposée en public, la moitié ont moins de cinquante contacts, la plupart des contacts sont des personnes que l’enfant connaît déjà personnellement, et plus de deux tiers ont des profils privés ou partiellement privés. L’objectif de l’analyse est donc de comprendre quand et pourquoi certains enfants cherchent à élargir leurs cercles de contacts en ligne, et pourquoi certains préfèrent dévoiler leur intimité plutôt que protéger leur vie privée. L’étude montre que les différences démographiques entre les enfants, les facteurs culturels dans les différents pays, et les affordances spécifiques des réseaux socionumériques ont tous une influence sur l’élaboration des pratiques en ligne des enfants en matière de vie privée, d’identité et de connexions sociales.Social networking is arguably the fastest growing online activity among youth people. This article presents new pan-European findings from the EU Kids Online project on how children and young people navigate the peer-to-peer networking possibilities afforded by social networking sites, based on a survey of around 25,000 children . In all, 59 % of European 9-16 year olds who use the internet have their own social networking profile. Despite popular anxieties of lives lived indiscriminately in public, half have fewer than fifty contacts, most contacts are people already known to the child in person, and over two thirds have their profiles either private or partially private. The focus of the analysis, then, is to understand when and why some children seek wider circles of online contacts, and why some favour self-disclosure rather than privacy. Demographic differences among children, cultural factors across countries, and the specific affordances of social networking sites are all shown to make a difference in shaping the particularities of children’s online practices of privacy, identity and connection. (shrink)
Is Hume, or is he not, a realist about what Galen Strawson calls “Causation” (with a capital “C”) and Simon Blackburn calls “thick connexions”, that is, necessary connexions between events that go beyond functional relations of regular succession? With this “New Hume” debate now in its third decade, one might feel entitled to wonder whether there is any determinate answer to be had. Both sides have found plenty of Humean quotations to throw at their opponents, passages which taken (...) in isolation might appear to settle the question in their favour. At the same time, both sides have been able to construct plausible accounts of why their opponents’ favoured quotations lack the force that they initially appear to have, and some of these accounts have been not only plausible but philosophically illuminating, unearthing subtle complexities in Hume’s thought which promise – whatever the eventual outcome of the debate – to leave Hume scholarship much richer than had the debate never arisen. This might suggest that the appropriate response is to give up the quest for a definitive answer, to see partial truth on both sides, and to acknowledge that Hume’s thought contains an unresolved tension, with strains both of realism and antirealism about Causation.1 But such a reaction, though natural, would I believe be premature, for two related reasons, concerning respectively the importance to Hume of his theory of causation, and its intimate – but sometimes under-explored – relationships with other aspects of his thought. (shrink)
This book advocates dispositional essentialism, the view that natural properties have dispositional essences.1 So, for example, the essence of the property of being negatively charged is to be disposed to attract positively charged objects. From this fact it follows that it is a law that all negatively charged objects will attract positively 10 charged objects; and indeed that this law is metaphysically necessary. Since the identity of the property of being negatively charged is determined by its being related in a (...) certain way to the property of being positively charged, in any world in which these properties exist they must be related so that all negatively charged objects attract positively charged objects. 15 Bird opposes his dispositional essentialism to the view that properties are categorical in nature, with their identities grounded in quiddities that are not exhausted by their relations to other properties. The main exponents of this view are D.M. Armstrong and David Lewis. They take the laws of nature to be contingent though they entertain very different views about their nature: Armstrong is a necessitarian 20 about laws, taking them to be relations of nomic necessitation between universals, while Lewis is a Humean about laws who takes them to be a special kind of regularity. The book is a sustained defence of the dispositional essentialist conception of properties and laws against the competing conceptions espoused by Armstrong and Lewis. One rough way to characterize the difference between these conceptions is to say that 25 the categoricalist sees properties as passive and inert with the laws of nature being fixed independently of the nature of properties whereas, in contrast, the dispositional essentialist sees properties as active potencies from which the laws of nature automatically spring. A slightly more tendentious way to express the difference is to say, as Bird does, that the categoricalist views embrace the Humean doctrine that there are no 30 necessary connexions in nature, while the dispositional essentialist view, on the other hand, repudiates this doctrine.. (shrink)
In A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume seems to use the term “object” to refer to different things in different contexts, including impressions, ideas, perceptions, and bodies. Does he ever use the term “external bodies” to refer to things in the extra-mental world? I argue that what Hume means by external bodies when he affirms their existence is not externally existing, material objects that are somehow presented to the mind or presented in impressions. Rather, the bodies that Hume affirms are, (...) at bottom, no different from perceptions, but they can be distinguished from merely internal perceptions like pain or pleasure in terms of their “different relations, connexions, and durations”. I conclude that in order to be consistent, given the various statements he makes throughout Book One of the Treatise, Hume must reject the philosopher’s doctrine of double existence of perceptions and objects and affirm only the existence of perceptions, sometimes conceived as internally existing and mind-dependent and sometimes conceived as existing outside and independent of the mind. (shrink)
Dans la première partie, les auteurs étudient Wittgenstein en tant que morphologue. Ils expliquent son concept de vue synoptique et de connexions et offrent quelques notes sur les auteurs l’ayant influencé . En outre, les auteurs résument certains points chez Wittgenstein ainsi que certains commentaires à propos de sa méthode morphologique et de son application. L’objectif est de commenter les Investigations philosophiques : 122 et les Remarques sur Le Rameau d’or de Frazer : 133 ; la présentation, claire et (...) compréhensible, semble être une étude conceptuelle qui consiste à trouver des similitudes et des analogies parmi de nombreux cas différents et d’apparence disparate, ce qui désigne la morphologie comme une méthode. Dans la deuxième partie, les auteurs étudient Wittgenstein en tant que morphologue. Ils débattent de la nature de la morphologie à l’égard de la grammaire ou des institutions, et tentent de formuler ses avantages et ses inconvénients par rapport à la méthode de recherche philosophique. La reconnaissance du rôle de la morphologie nous aide à mieux comprendre la phase tardive de Wittgenstein. Ceci offre un aperçu clair, du moins de certaines parties, des Investigations philosophiques. Les auteurs tentent également, en citant Wittgenstein, d’en finir avec certaines objections importantes à la méthode morphologique. Ce qui est important du point de vue morphologique est l’organisation des phénomènes et leur modèle qui doit être vu afin d’être compris. On peut distinguer la morphologie comme méthode de la morphologie comme structure et organisation, lorsqu’elle s’explique à partir des phénomènes. (shrink)
En 1910, Jan Lukasiewicz publiait Du principe de contradiction chez Aristote. Dans cet article, on explique les points principaux du livre de Lukasiewicz. Ce dernier affirme qu’Aristote n’a pas réussi dans sa tentative pour justifier le principe de contradiction. En fait, ce principe est moins logique qu’éthique, selon Lukasiewicz, et cela explique bien des difficultés posées par la théorie d’Aristote. On discute également de la façon dont Lukasiewicz utilise la notion d’« objets contradictoires », empruntée à la Théorie des Objets (...) de Meinong ; on montre que Lukasiewicz se situe dans le cadre d’une version brentanienne de l’aristotélisme. Certaines connexions entre Lukasiewicz et la conception wittgensteinienne de la nécessité ou le conservatisme logique de Quine sont indiquées. Le but de mon article est essentiellement d’encourager une lecture attentive du livre qui n’a pas reçu l’attention qu’il mérite parce qu’il a été écrit à l’origine en polonais. Souvent, les philosophes croient connaître son contenu à travers le résumé que Lukasiewicz écrivit en allemand en 1910, et qui a été traduit en anglais. Mais, en fait, il y a bien des choses importantes dans le livre qui n’apparaissent nullement dans le résumé.In 1910, Jan Lukasiewicz published On the Principle of Contradiction in Aristotle. In the present paper, I explain the main points in Lukasiewicz's book. Lukasiewicz claims that Aristotle was not successful in his attempt to justify the principle of contradiction. In fact, this principle is less logical than ethical, according to Lukasiewicz ; and this accounts for many of Aristotle's difficulties. Lukasiewicz's use of the notion of “contradictory objects”, taken from Meinong's Theory of Objects , is also discussed, and Lukasiewicz is shown to be situated within the Brentanian form of Aristotelism. I also indicate some connections between Lukasiewicz and Wittgenstein on necessity, and between Lukasiewicz and Quine on logical conservatism. The goal of the present paper is principally to encourage an attentive reading of a book that has not received the consideration it deserves because it was initially written in Polish. Often, philosophers believe that they grasp the content of the book through the brief abstract which Lukasiewicz wrote in German in 1910, and which has been translated into English ; but in fact there is much of importance which the abstract does not cover. (shrink)
Die Zusammenhänge die zwischen G. Freges und R. H. Lotzes logischen Lehren bestehen, sind, wie die gemeinsame Beurteilung der Gebrauchssprache zeigt, noch tiefer als allgemein angenommen. Insbesondere die von Frege konzipierte logische Sprachkritik ist in drei Punkten von Lotze beeinflußt. Lotze fordert nämlich die strenge Trennung von Logik und Gebrauchssprache. Daneben spielt der Begriff des Logischeinfachen eine zentrale Rolle in seiner Logik. Schließlich unterscheidet er den objektiven Gedanken von seiner Färbung. The connexions that exist between the logical doctrines of (...) G. Frege and R. H. Lotze are, as shows their common treatment of natural language, deeper than is generally admitted. In particular, the logical criticism of language conceived by Frege is influenced in three points by Lotze. Firstly, Lotze postulates the strict separation of logic and natural language. Furthermore, the idea of logical simplicity plays an important role in his logic. Finally, he distinguishes objective thought from its tone. (shrink)
It is a pleasure to read Hume, and to watch him explore recalcitrant problems with agility of mind and grace of style. Ironically these twin abilities have worked against each other from the beginning, in the first place because in the matter of writing Hume was an innovator — nobody before him had so successfully albeit unwittingly adapted French syntax to the writing of English-and-Scottish - and in the second place because on the grace of his style subtleties of thought (...) flow past his readers, who then accuse him of obscurity. So abstruse were his writings to his contemporaries that he failed to achieve the literary recognition for which he craved; and even today, long after the elegance of his style has been received, it is said by Passmore that Hume in contrast to Berkeley ‘was a philosophical puppy-dog, picking up and worrying one problem after another, always leaving his teeth-marks in it, but casting it aside when it threatened to become wearisome.’ Similarly Selby-Bigge says in his introduction to the Enquiries : His pages, especially those of the Treatise, are so full of matter, he says so many things in so many different ways and different connexions, and with so much indifference to what he has said before, that it is very hard to say positively that he taught, or did not teach, this or that particular doctrine. He applies the same principles to such a great variety of subjects that it is not surprising that many verbal, and some real inconsistencies can be found in his statements. He is ambitious rather than shy of saying the same thing in different ways, and at the same time he is often slovenly and indifferent about his words and formulae. This makes it easy to find all philosophies in Hume, or, by setting up one statement against another, none at all. (shrink)
This essay brings together some lines of thought contained in Maria Markus’s ‘Lovers and Friends’ (2010) and ‘Decent Society and/or Civil Society?’ (2001), and, on that basis, explores possibilities for thinking about friendship in the context of contemporary social change. I begin by situating current problems concerning the semantics of friendship in their historical trajectory. I then go on to elaborate friendship’s ‘normative flexibility’, that is, its relative immunity to reifying societal pressures. Finally, I reflect upon the connexions between (...) friendship’s normative particularities and Markus’s elaboration of ‘decency’. (shrink)
Long before self-awareness, memory, foresight and powers of conscious deliberation emerge to give an advantage over those creatures that lack those things, there is a more promising alternative to consciousness at every step of the way: more efficient unconscious mechanisms, which seem equally or more likely to be thrown up by spontaneous variation. If you had to undertake something really difficult – for example growing in utero a brain with all its connexions in place – consciousness is the last (...) thing you would want to oversee the task. (shrink)
The pascalian use of indivisibles is here considered in the context of the theological and mathematical debates of the time, by distinguishing it clearly from this of Cavalieri. The combinatory and geometrical approaches are closely linked in Pascal’s work. His use of indivisibles has a heuristic, inventive character and not only a demonstrative one. Ontologically speaking, it stems out from the acceptance of actual infinite. The use of the symmetry axiom of Archimedes is the basis of the pascalian use of (...) the infinitesimals, which has, in other respects, some close connexions with the Leibnizian conception of infinitesimals. (shrink)
This paper examines the asymmetrical aspect of causal relation, confronting it to Humean and Neo-Humean's view. Following Hausman and Ehring, we favor a situational approach to causal asymmetry. We explore the Hausman's analysis of flagpole's example, clearing the connexions between causation and explanation. Our general diagnosis is that the Neo-humean tradition wrongly supposes that nomic relations, with the exception of minor details, exhaust the causal relations.
Dissertatio proposita circa “argumentum ontologicum” pro existentia Dei, quem K. Goedel construxit, versatur. In prima parte structuram logicam dicti argumenti exponimus, singulos gradus argumenti explicamus, “collapsumque modalitatum”, quo argumentum invalidari invenitur, examinamus. Sequenti parte recentiores quasdam confectiones argumenti pertractamus; et scil. praecipue formam eius, quae super conceptum mathematicum multitudinis seu “complexus elementorum terminatorum” fundatur, et formam “algebraicam”, quarum affinitates quasdam notabiles prae oculos ponimus. Ultima parte disceptationes, quae circa huiusce argumenti validitatem ac momentum respectu modernae theisticae philosophiae agebantur, describimus. Loco (...) conclusionis observamus, Goedelii argumentum exemplum esse notabile “fidei quaerentis intellectum”.The article deals with Gödel’s ontological proof of God’s existence. It consists of three parts. In the first part we present the logical structure of the argument, analyse its individual steps and discuss the implied collapse of modalities, which is fatal for the proof. In the second part we focus on some more recent versions of the argument, especially the set-theoretical version and the algebraic version, and we show several interesting connexions between the algebraic and the set-theoretical version. In the final part of the paper we briefly recount the discussions concerning the validity of the argument and its importance for modern theistic philosophy. We conclude by observing that Gödel’s argument is an interesting modern instance of “faith seeking understanding”. (shrink)
J.S. Mill has formulated a classical statement of the "argument from analogyâ€? concerning knowledge of other minds: "I must either believe them [other human beings] to be alive, or to be automatonsâ€? (Mill 1872, 244). It is possible that Wittgenstein had this in mind when writing the following: "I believe he is suffering.â€?â€”Do I also believe that he isn"t an automaton? It would go against the grain to use the word in both connexions. (Or is it like this: I (...) believe he is suffering, but am certain the he is not an automaton? Nonsense!) Suppose I say of a friend: "He isn"t an automatonâ€?.â€”What information is conveyed by this, and to whom would it be information? To a human being who meets him in ordinary circumstances? What information could it give him? (At the very most that this man always behaves like a human being, and not occasionally like a machine.) "I believe he is not an automatonâ€?, just like that, so far makes no sense. My attitude towards him is an attitude towards a soul [eine Einstellung zur Seele]. I am not of the opinion that he has a soul. (PI p. 178) Here Wittgenstein contrasts opinion (Meinung) and attitude (Einstellung). How should this contrast be understood? On a view such as Mill"s, to regard someone as a conscious being is to hold certain beliefs about him, beliefs that can perhaps ultimately be grounded in a theory of some sort. To have an "attitude towards a soulâ€? is, on the contrary, to see a person"s gestures and facial expressions as "filled with meaningâ€?. We have an attitude towards a soul when confronted with a person, which means that we react to his presence and behaviour in a certain way. (shrink)
It is argued that we should distinguish between an ‘early Hume’ and a ‘mature Hume’ on causality. In his early period, represented by the Treatise, Hume had not yet adopted Newtonian active principles. In the mature period, however, represented in particular by the First Enquiry, his theory of causation has been transformed by a reception of Newton. This leads Hume to drop the condition of contiguity, which had excluded action-at-a-distance in the Treatise. It also leads him to allow real necessary (...)connexions in nature which are inaccessible to us just as the real cause of gravitation was thought by Newtonians to be unknown. (shrink)
This is cassette 12, concerned with more connexions between late medieval and early modern thought. The first writer we will look at is George Berkeley, who criticised Locke's theory of abstract ideas and put forward his own theory of universality.
Possession is preeminently the form in which the other becomes the same, by becoming mine. (Levinas, TI, 46)If perceptions are distinct existences, they form a whole only by being connected together. But no connexions among distinct existences are ever discoverable by human understanding. We only feel a connexion or determination of the thought to pass from one object to another. It follows, therefore, that the thought alone feels personal identity, when reflecting on the train of past perceptions that compose (...) a mind, the ideas of them are felt to be connected together, and naturally introduce each other. (Burne, T, App., 635)The I think must accompany all my representations, for otherwise something would be represented in me which could not be thought: .... they must conform to the condition under which alone they can exist altogether in a common self-consciousness, because otherwise they would not all without exception belong to me. (Kant, CPR, 76-7). (shrink)
An axiomatic treatment of the relation part of is shown to lead naturally to an account of the ways in which parts of things are matched. The determination of matchings by the properties of parts and by the relations between parts is discussed and shown to be relevant to certain classificatory problems in science. The connexions between matchings and symmetries of parts are explored, and a general account is given of the ways in which ambiguities in the matching of (...) parts may be resolved. (shrink)
This report provides a summary of findings from an ethnographic study of work?based learning provision for 16?18?year?olds who would otherwise fall into the UK Government category of not in education, employment or training (NEET). The research project took place in the north of England during 2008?2009, and investigated the biographies, experiences and aspirations of young people and practitioners working on Entry to Employment (E2E) programmes in four learning sites. The detailed research findings are reported in four papers covering the conceptual (...) background to E2E, and the experiences of learners, tutors and Connexions personal advisers involved with the programme. This report highlights and synthesises some of the key issues raised by these papers and looks ahead to a three?year longitudinal study of NEET young people which is intended to continue and extend this work, providing an opportunity to follow this group during a period of far?reaching economic and political change. (shrink)
To the bulk of the British reading public ‘contemporary French philosophy’ would seem to be interchangeable with ‘the works of M. Bergson.’ And it can scarcely be otherwise when, as an erudite correspondent of Le Temps relates, Paris now prints in a week one million books—as many as were printed annually in the reign of the Roi Soleil. For the proportion of these devoted to philosophy is not small. One voracious reader and professor of philosophy in Switzerland, Monsieur J. Benrubi (...) , has withstood for thirty years the annual avalanche of philosophical books, read steadily on, abstracted and collated his gleanings. In him we have a most competent guide. Familiar with every rivulet and path, and with the historic formation of the country, he now reveals to us the whole panorama. His encyclopaedic enterprise, 1 treating some hundred and sixty authors, is neither a chronicle nor a classification, except in a secondary way. It aims principally at tracing cross-currents in recent philosophies so as to discover their internal connexions, and thence in what direction present French thought is heading. M. Benrubi's scrupulousness in seeing nobody is left out tends perhapsto overcrowding, and his emphasis on that which coheres may somewhat overshadow that which divides. And it may be inevitable, too, with a field of figures so vast, that the accounts of some should be insufficiently detailed. But the total effect is substantial, and his volumes are invaluable to whomever would appreciate whence and whither French thought is proceeding. There are three threads to guide us through the labyrinth. The distinct though still interacting tendencies are described as ‘empirical and scientific positivism,’ ‘epistemological and critical idealism,’ and ‘metaphysical and spiritual positivism.’ Each rests on certain characteristics manifested with varying explicitness in the thought of its many representatives. I indicate summarily and quite inadequately some points of M. Benrubi's conclusions. (shrink)
It is argued that the opposition of nature and ethics ought to be overcome by the cooperation of scientific and ethical studies. Beyond that, theoretical, practical and specifically political reasons suggest a serious examination of the possibilities for an ethical orientation derived from evolutionary biology. So far, however, the conceptual connexion between evolutionary facts and ethical norms appears to be insufficiently understood. Given that, suggestive connexions offered by biological thinkers need critical examination, especially of their hidden historical conditions and (...) their potentially dangerous political implications. (shrink)
In Book III of A Treatise on Human Nature,' Hume puts two questions which he says are distinct. The first concerns "the manner in which the rules of justice are established by the artifice of men." The second concerns "the reasons which determine us to attribute to the observance or neglect of these rules a moral beauty and deformity." Whatever his sympathies, the reader is bound to be struck by the sustained ingenuity of Hume's answer to the first question. He (...) is likely to be less impressed by the way in which Hume copes with the second. I shall be concerned with certain difficulties in Hume's treatment in the Treatise of this second question-difficulties which are of far more than exegetical interest. However, because the two questions are by no means as distinct as Hume declares-something which is rapidly made evident even by Hume's own discussion-I cannot exclude all reference to the first. What I shall avoid is any attempt to assess what is commonly received as Hume's answer to that question. Furthermore, I say next to nothing about what Hume takes just and unjust behaviour to consist in: about that remarkably confined area of human affairs which for Hume defines the limits within which people may be said to behave justly (and unjustly)-and, of course, to display other parasitic artificial virtues (and vices). My concern is rather with Hume's efforts to explain how there can be as well as natural, artificial virtues; how certain practices, whatever their detailed anatomies and inter-connexions, can be found morally estimable. And my conclusion is that his efforts are bound to fail. (shrink)
Comme le titre l’indique (« Théorie de l’objet et intentionnalité chez Alexius Meining »), ce volume d’Arkadiusz Chrudzimski récemment publié chez Springer a pour but d´étudier les multiples connexions entre la théorie de l’intentionnalité et la théorie de l’objet au sein du développement de la pensée d’Alexius Meinong (1853-1920). Plus précisément, selon l’auteur, la théorie de l’objet formulée par Meinong en 1904 – dans ses traits fondamentaux mais pas définitifs – serait l’aboutissement in..
This paper attempts to take a new look at the famous Lewis Carroll paradox about Achilles and the Tortoise. It examines in particular the connections between Lewis Carroll's regress argument for logical inferences and a similar regress for practical inferences. The Tortoise's point of view is espoused: no norm of reasoning or of conduct can in itself only the brute force of belief can. This conclusion is a Humean one. But it does not imply that we renounce altogether the normative (...) force of such principles of reasoning as modus ponens. Connexions with the Wittgensteinian rule-following problem are indicated. (shrink)