Name der Zeitschrift: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie Jahrgang: 98 Heft: 4 Seiten: 478-481.

Im vierdimensionalen Raum-Zeit-Kontinuum der Speziellen Relativitätstheorie gibt es dreidimensionale geometrische Objekte, sogenannte Hyperebenen, die für die Theorie von zentraler Bedeutung sind. Jede solche Hyperebene kann zum einen als raumartig charakterisiert werden und zum anderen als Gleichzeitigkeitsebene. Dasselbe geometrische Objekt ist also je nach Betrachtungsweise raumartig oder räumlich. Während der Ausdruck „raumartige Hyperebene“ ein lorentzinvariantes, absolutes Objekt bezeichnet, ist mit „Gleichzeitigkeitsebene“ etwas Beobachterabhängiges benannt. Daher läßt sich sagen: Dasselbe, das in seiner Beobachterabhängigkeit als räumlich charakterisiert ist, ist in seiner Beobachterunabhängigkeit betrachtet (...) raumartig. Ganz ähnlich argumentiert auch Kant bezüglich empirischer Objekte: Dasselbe ist auf zwei verschiedene Weisen betrachtbar – nämlich zum einen „als Erscheinung“ und zum anderen „an sich selbst“. Es als Erscheinung zu betrachten, bedeutet, es in seiner Subjektabhängigkeit zu erfassen, es an sich selbst zu betrachten, heißt, in ihm auch Subjektunabhängiges zu erblicken. Daß dies keine bloße Analogie ist, soll im ersten Teil gezeigt werden. Hier wie dort geht es letztlich um denselben Zweck – nämlich um die Charakterisierung empirischer Objekte als wirklicher: Ein wirkliches Objekt ist nach Kant subjektabhängig, aber nicht subjektiv. Weil subjektabhängig, ist es als Erscheinung betrachtbar; aber weil nicht subjektiv, auch immer an sich selbst. In der SRT wiederum ist ein empirisches Objekt in seiner Wirklichkeit nur dann voll erfaßt, wenn man es sowohl als räumliches wie als raumartiges betrachtet. Als bloß räumliches wäre es nämlich für verschieden bewegte Beobachter nicht zugleich gegenwärtig und nicht in allen seinen Teilen gleichzeitig; als bloß raumartiges hingegen wäre es noch gar nicht inhaltlich, sondern bloß formal bestimmt. Die SRT gibt mithin dem kantischen „an sich selbst“ einen neuen Namen , was man als eine Konkretisierung ansehen kann. (shrink)

Dividing, Separating and Unifying. EPR Without Holism. In the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics parts of composed systems are correlated in a non-causal way, they are ontologically dependent on each other. In this paper I try to defend traditional realism giving a non-holistic interpretation of the EPR-paradox. An analysis of events in the macroscopic world shows that dividing and unifying objects is quite dif-ferent from changing (modifying) objects. In application to quantum mechanics I argue that a measurement at a given (...) single-system changes (modifies) this object, but the EPR-measurement divides the given object. Therefore this given object is an undivided and dividable One and not a composed system. If parts are produced (by EPR-measurement) correlations do not occur. (shrink)

Psychoanalysis is concerned with neurotic behaviour that counts as an action if one takes into account “repressed” mental states. Freud's paradigmatic examples are a challenge for philosophical theories of action explanation. The main problem is that such symptomatic behaviour is, in a characteristic way, irrational. In line with standard interpretations, I will recap that psychoanalytic action explanation is not in accordance with Davidson's classical reason-explanation model, and I will recall that Freud's unconsciousness is not a second mind with its own (...) rationality but that it is non-propositional in character. However, I then will argue that this characterization is not discriminating enough to explain the dynamical unconscious and overlooks the crucial role of “counter-cathexis”. With counter-cathexis the relevant desire turns out to be a complex with two inseparable aspects , so that the causing belief–desire pair is still part of the space of reasons, although it cannot ratio.. (shrink)

Using meta-metaphysical instruments, the paper analyzes the dispute between ‘reductionist’ Humean categoricalism and ‘bold’ Anti-Humean dispositionalism. It is argued that both views are non-Quinean, hence, heavyweight ontological realisms: careful analysis of specific scientific theories alone is not sufficient. Further, sophisticated philosophical reasoning is needed to defend Anti-Humeanism as well as Humeanism. The paper finally suggests that most if not all ontological disputes are unavoidably “speculative” due to essentialism which cannot be read off contemporary physical theories.

Relativity allegedly contradicts presentism, the dynamic view of time and reality, according to which temporal passage is conceived of as an existentially distinguished ‘moving’ now. Against this common belief, the paper motivates a presentist interpretation of spacetime: It is argued that the fundamental concept of time—proper time—cannot be characterized by the earlier-later relation, i.e., not in the B-theoretical sense. Only the presentist can provide a temporal understanding of the twins’ paradox and of universes with closed timelike curves.

Scientific Metaphysics is a collection of essays in which prominent philosophers of science explore how metaphysics looks like that is judged by scientific standards. Common to all chapters is the requirement that scientific results and methods should be applied to metaphysical puzzle solving and, hence, the skepticism about philosophical reasoning that is based on the analysis of common-sense concepts and appeals to intuitions and a priori knowledge. It is, however, controversial what exactly naturalistic metaphysics might be, since at present there (...) is no clear-cut criterion that distinguishes between scientific metaphysics and its analytic opponent, i.e., no consensus is reached about the sense in which metaphysics can be ‘grounded’ in empirical science.In the first chapter, Anjan Chakravartty expresses some doubts that there is a coherent sense of scientific metaphysics and, as Harold Kincaid points out in the introduction , .. (shrink)

Under the eternalist hypothesis that objects or events exist temporally, but independently of being present two different views of persistence are on the market: Persisting objects endure if they are multiply located in time, and persisting objects perdure if they are singly located by having numerically different temporal parts. In the framework of the special theory of relativity, the metaphysics of persistence is confronted with peculiar difficulties. Things persist by being “wholly present” at more than one time; but what are (...) times within a temporally non-separated spacetime? Things persist by having different temporal parts at different times; but what are the temporal parts of a four-dimensional object in Minkowski spacetime? Recently, several authors have argued that SR favours perdurantism over its endurantist rival. In this paper, I intend to show that the purported arguments are only those against endurantism. The first simply fails, but the second, more convincing one, is such that with a similar strategy we should argue against perdurantism as well: Enduring and perduring entities are hence both in conflict with SR which undermines the eternalist hypothesis. (shrink)