This volume offers a critical appreciation of the work of 16 leading curriculum theorists through critical expositions of their writings. Written by a leading name in Curriculum Studies, the book includes a balance of established curriculum thinkers and contemporary curriculum analysts from education as well as philosophy, sociology and psychology. With theorists from the UK, the US and Europe, there is also a spread of political perspectives from radical conservatism through liberalism to socialism and libertarianism. Theorists included are: John Dewey, (...) Lev Vygotsky, Ralph Tyler, Joseph Schwab, Jerome Bruner, Maxine Greene, Basil Bernstein, Micheal Foucault, Paul Hirst, Donald Schon, Lawrence Stenhouse, Elliott Eisner, John White, Michael Apple, Henry Giroux and Robin Usher. This book is ideal for students looking for an introduction to some of the key educational thinkers of our time. It can also be used as a companion volume to the Routledge four-volume set on Curriculum Theory , 2003, which is also edited by David Scott. (shrink)
Over the past forty years or so a critique has emerged of a long-standing interpretation of Descartes on the nature of thought. The view being rejected is that Descartes departs from his Aristotelian forbears by “mentalizing” the faculties of sensation and imagination when he includes them under the general category of “thought” and thus completely excludes them from the material domain. I focus on what is arguably the central piece of textual evidence cited in this revisionist case, the eighth paragraph (...) of Descartes’s second Meditation. This passage contains an extensive list of acts that Descartes designates as “thought”: doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, willing or assenting, withholding will or assent, imaging and sensing. I trace the history of this revisionist reading of this list through six modern interpreters of Descartes, and for both textual and philosophical reasons I conclude that this passage provides no support for their interpretation. (shrink)
This paper replies to Fred Ablondi’s discussion of Descartes’s treatment of madness in the Meditations. Against Ablondi’s interpretation that Descartes never seriously takes on board the skeptical hypothesis that he might be mad, because to do so would be for him to undermine the logical thought processes required to realize his agenda in the Meditations, I contend that Descartes does employ madness as a skeptical device, by assimilating its skeptical essentials into the dream argument. I maintain that while Descartes does (...) not use madness to undermine logical processes, he does adduce other considerations that reveal him to be prepared to see those processes undermined. On the question why Descartes abandons madness in the Meditations, I argue that, despite its attractiveness as a skeptical device, the madness hypothesis involves methodological shortcomings that render it unfit for service in the doubt. (shrink)
The topic to be addressed in this paper, that is, the distinction between the “concept” of time and the being of the clock, divides into two parts: first, in the debate between Albert Einstein and Henri Bergson, one discovers the ground for the diverging concepts of time characterized by physics in its opposing itself to philosophy. Bergson’s durée or “duration” in opposition to Einstein’s ‘physicist’s time’ as ‘public time,’ one can argue, sets the terms for Martin Heidegger’s extending, his ontological (...) analysis of Da-sein, as human being-in-the-world. Second, in this the ‘concept of time’ gives way to the analysis of the ‘being of the clock.’ What is this being of the clock that makes evident the fundamental temporality of Da-sein? This question is rehearsed in Division Two of Being and Time. My claim is that the fundamental insight into the nature of time revealed by the encounter between Bergson and Einstein is that time extemporizes itself. Temporality “is” not a being but a process that temporalizes itself, precisely because it “is not.”. (shrink)
The subject of this paper is Malebranche’s relation to Descartes on the question of method. Using recent commentary as a springboard, it examines whether Malebranche advances a nonpsychologistic account of method, in contrast to the psychologism typically thought to characterize the Cartesian view. I explore this question with respect to two issues of central importance to method generally: doubt and free will. My argument is that, despite superficial differences of emphasis, Descartes and Malebranche adopt positions on doubt and free will (...) that effectively ensure that their respective accounts of method aresubstantially the same. (shrink)
It is well known that Leibniz's advances metaphysical, logical and moral reasons why monads possess their own force of action; but what is not well known is that he also advances an account of the divine creative act in explicit support of force-endowed monads. This paper's goal is to highlight and critically examine this doctrine of creation, and to contrast it with the doctrine of creation underlying the occasionalist denial that substances possess their own force of action.
Malebranche's Dialogues on Metaphysics and on Religion is in many ways the best introduction to his thought, and provides the most systematic exposition of his philosophy as a whole. In it, he presents clear and comprehensive statements of his two best-known contributions to metaphysics and epistemology, namely, the doctrines of occasionalism and vision in God; he also states his views on such central issues as self-knowledge, the existence of the external world and the problem of theodicy. His skilful handling of (...) the dialogue form enables the reader to see how he responds to objections made to his earlier work The Search after Truth. This edition presents a translation of the text which is clear, readable and more accurate than any of its predecessors, together with an introduction that analyses Malebranche's central teachings and explains the importance of the Dialogues in the context of seventeenth-century philosophy. (shrink)
Art restoration has been around as long as human beings have been involved with artifacts and works of art. Pliny mentions the Shrine of Ceres in the Circus Maximus at Rome.1 When the shrine was undergoing restoration, the embossed work of the walls was cut out and enclosed in framed panels, and figures were taken from the pediment and dispersed. Alteration, or the lack of it, clearly impacts the aesthetic appreciation of works of art, and the hermeneutics of that debate (...) are important in terms of both education and historical understanding.The purpose of this article is to survey the field of restoration and its interaction with problems of interpretation, aesthetic debate... (shrink)
Abstract This article seeks to determine if Buddhism can best be understood as primarily a functionalist tradition. In pursuing this, some analogies arise with various Western strands?particularly James? ?pragmatism?, Dewey's ?instrumentalism?, Braithwaite's ?empiricism?, Wittgenstein's ?language games?, and process thinkers like Hartshorne and Jacobson. Within the Buddhist setting, the traditional Therav?da framework of sila (ethics/precepts), sam?dhi (meditation) and pañña (wisdom) are examined, together with Therav?da rituals. Despite some ?correspondence? approaches with regard to truth claim statements, e.g. vipassan? ?insight? and Abhidharma analysis, (...) a more profound functionalism seems present. This is even more clear with the Mah?y?na. Apart from the basic and explicit Mah?y?na underpinning of up?ya, the M?dhyamika, Tantras and Ch'an (Zen) schools are clearly functionalist. Moreover, despite initially seeming more ?absolutist? in their positions, other strands like the Pure Land and Nichiren faith traditions, and Dharmakirti's Vijñ?nav?da epistemology can also be tied into this functionalist setting. (shrink)
In a popular paper, Bruce Russell argues that our nonperception of divine reasons for apparently pointless suffering justifies belief in the nonexistence of God. Russell generally accepts the common interpretive norm that we are justified in believing that something does not exist when we do not perceive it, if and only if we have reason to believe that we would perceive it if it did exist. However, on the strength of an example from the film The Matrix, Russell argues that (...) this interpretive norm does not apply to the belief in God’s nonexistence based on our nonperception of reasons that would justify apparently pointless suffering. My paper undermines Russell’s effort to restrict the scope of this interpretive norm. It thereby leaves open the door to agnosticism. (shrink)
While typically unapologetic in expressing admiration, notably Gilles Deleuze admits his concern one time, in passing, that Gilbert Simondon's thought might hide a pernicious kind of ‘disguised moralism’, in which the form of the transcendent lurks, the enemy of the philosophy of immanence. Might there in fact be an ulterior motive in Deleuze's concern? But might this potential critique invite its own reversal? That is, might Deleuze's accusation be in fact a strategy for teasing out what, perhaps, is unrecognisable as (...) such, but structurally essential for how Simondon constructs his onto-epistemological goals? Moreover, might this Simondonian response, unmasked, not only deflect but anticipate a ‘critique’ like Deleuze's? Extending this question further reveals I believe the implications for Simondon's ‘ethics without morality’, bringing him closer to Deleuze's interpretation of Spinoza. As a result, Deleuze's ‘critique’ invites the question: ‘What exactly is Spinozan in Simondon's ethics?’ Such a question compels our re-evaluation of humanism, its underlying prerogatives, if now in light of its consequences, the re-evaluation of poststructuralism: first, because it is predicated on the critique of the humanistic subject and, second, because ‘poststructuralism’ has come to designate how Simondon's relatedness is determined to Deleuze. (shrink)
PIU PUbJlllhollboth invited reviews and unsolicited reviews of new and significant books in . phllolophy. Wo post on our website a list of books for which we seek reviewers, and welcome IdontlOcllltion of books deserving review. Normally reviews are 1000 words.
Mostly what Bennett learns from these six philosophers is not their positive doctrines. Rather, his learning takes the form of reconstruction and analysis of what he deems to be otherwise incorrect views. A good example is found in his treatment of Berkeley’s attack on the conceptual defects of materialism. On Bennett’s analysis Berkeley’s case rests on a flawed theory of representation, but Bennett sticks with Berkeley nonetheless. We see the same kind of learning in his excellent chapter 29 on the (...) reasons behind Berkeley’s mistaken reading of Locke, as well as in his discussion of the nature of and reasons for phenomenalism in Berkeley’s work. Incidently, many scholars will take exception to Bennett’s argument that Berkeley’s assurances that idealism squares with commonsense materialism are merely rhetorical. Throughout his study Bennett readily and generously acknowledges debts for insights he has received from other interpreters of these six great philosophers, insights which often cause him to revise or recant some of his own earlier views. For instance, a big climbdown is found in his assessment that the doctrine of tropes, which he once dismissed as nonsense but now accepts, does not bear negatively upon the notion of bodies as modes in Spinoza’s monist philosophy. Again, Bennett revises his earlier views on Locke’s two-faced attitude toward substance, as something both indispensible and “intellectually disgraceful,” and shows it to be a case of “genius in a bind.”. (shrink)
Claiming to learn something from a philosopher can be fraught with difficulty. I may dispute your claim that Descartes taught you the tenability of voluntarism because I dispute the tenability of Descartes’s voluntarism: I just don’t think it is there to be learned. The idea of learning from a philosopher becomes even more charged given that what one learns is in some sense relative to what one already holds true. What Jonathan Bennett learns from Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and from the (...) empiricists Locke, Berkeley and Hume, is often relative to his functionalist leanings. Obviously, if functionalism is the standard of truth by which learning is judged, nonfunctionalists may well not buy those lessons. As for Jonathan Bennett’s brand of history of philosophy, he agrees with Robert Sleigh that it “is not necessary to study the history of a philosophical problem in order to make a fundamental contribution toward the understanding, perhaps even the solution, of that problem”. He and Sleigh may be right, though this does not mean that one’s understanding of a problem is not altered by knowledge of its history, or that a contribution or solution to it would not be different if conditioned by such knowledge. Bluntly put, built into philosophical ideas are further ideas reflecting the times and constituting part of the issue in question; so while in the process of bending an idea one need not expose its historical fibers, those fibers are there for consideration as part and parcel of philosophical analysis generally. It is not clear, however, that Bennett fully accepts this point about the historical nature of ideas, for in his recommendation that “[e]arly modern studies would be healthier, more muscular, if every practitioner also sometimes did work that was purely philosophical and in no way historical” is a distinction between muscle-building “pure philosophy” and history of philosophy. Clearly he rejects the idea that early modernists can get fit for their subject at home rather than in the “pure philosophy” gym. (shrink)
Merleau-Ponty et Deleuze demandent « Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? »La naïveté de la pensée et l’innocence de la questionLa philosophie doit reconnaître que son obligation pressante à l’égard de « l’histoire souterraine du problème du monde » implique qu’elle affronte les conditions de sa propre détermination. En d’autres termes, l’historicité de la philosophie est l’histoire du « monde » en tant qu’il devient problématique. Mais ce devenir problématique « n’appartient pas à l’histoire ». Dans la pensée de Merleau-Ponty comme dans (...) celle de Deleuze, est à l’oeuvre une historicité qui refl ète la genèse du problème du « monde » en tant que l’être problématique de l’ontogenèse. Je soutiendrai que Merleau-Ponty et Deleuze cristallisent la thématique qui est déjà en germe chez Fink : le problème du monde contraint la pensée à se confronter à sa pratique. Toute philosophie se trouve comme nue face à sa propre naïveté en cherchant un rapprochement avec le monde. Dans le retour vers le monde, le philosophe est contraint de mettre sa pensée en rapport avec la naïveté qui la nourrit. Mais inversement, le philosophe doit admettre le rôle intrinsèque joué par la naïveté dans la pensée elle-même, dans sa pratique philosophique propre. Ce faisant, le statut philosophique de la naïveté se trouve confirmé. Le problème du monde est dès lors le problème philosophique de la construction d’un plan pour orienter notre pensée sur larelation entre la connaissance et l’être. Par là, on a identifi é le parallélisme épistémicoontologique structurant la question « Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? », que posent et à laquelle répondent nos deux philosophes. C’est pourquoi la présente étude soutient que c’est par la répétition philosophique du chemin par lequel le « monde » prend le statut d’un problème ontologique qu’un seuil épistémologique se trouve exposé. Le monde requiert du philosophe qu’il retrouve la naïveté intrinsèque à l’engendrement du penser, qu’il apprécie le monde en tant que problème philosophique, concept opérationnel et acte authentiquement créatif. Nous devons donc redécouvrir ce qui est importait tant à Merleau-Ponty et à Deleuze : l’expressionnisme philosophique. Ainsi, reposer la question « Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? » constitue une répétition afi n de penser le problème du monde. Le défiposé par la naïveté contraint le philosophe à admettre lebesoin de réconcilier l’impuissance inhérente à la naïveté avec l’exigence insistante de surmonter cette impuissance d’une manière ou d’une autre et de rendre la pensée possible. Bref, ce texte cherche à dramatiser la manière dont les deux philosophes, chacun différemment, posent la question « Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? » comme une propédeutique à l’ontologisation de la pensée. C’est pourquoi je montrerai que ce qui motive leur insistance à revenir à cette question est le besoin de comprendre leur propre pratique en tant qu’expression d’une sorte d’intuition philosophique – une pure naïveté de la pensée, une stimulation de la créativité – et, ainsi, de saisir l’être du devenir libéré de toute prétention à représenter, communiquer, fi xer l’ontogenèse. Inversement, il faut reconnaître qu’une telle transformation du motif transcendantal de la philosophie requiert de la pratique philosophique qu’elle se place aux marges de ce qui est considéré comme « savoir ».Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze chiedono “Che cos’è la fi losofia?”L’ingenuità del pensiero e l’innocenza della domandaLa filosofia non può non ammettere che il suo insistente riferimento alla “storia sotterranea del problema del mondo” deve portarla ad affrontare le condizionedella sua propria determinazione. In altre parole, la storicità [Geschichte] che guida la filosofia è la storia del “mondo” in quanto esso diviene problematico. Ma questo problematico “‘divenire’ non appartiene alla storia” [Historie]. Implicita nel pensiero di Merleau-Ponty e di Deleuze è la scoperta di una storicità che rifl ette la genesi del problema del “mondo” come il problematico essere dell’ontogenesi. In questo modo, vorrei sostenere che Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze cristallizzano il germe tematico inizialmente formulato da Fink: il problema del mondo forza il pensiero ad affrontare il suo esercizio. Ogni filosofia rimane nuda di fronte alla propria ingenuità quando cerca una riconciliazione col mondo. Ritornando al mondo, un filosofo si ritrova obbligato a mettere il pensiero alla prova di quella stessa ingenuità che lo nutre.Ma, inversamente, il filosofo deve confessare il ruolo giocato dall’ingenuità nel pensiero stesso, nella sua pratica filosofica. Così facendo, lo status filosoficodell’ingenuità resta confermato. Il problema del mondo è il problema filosofico della costruzione di un piano utile a orientare il nostro modo di pensare la relazione fra conoscenza e essere. Con ciò abbiamo identifi cato il parallelismo ontologicoepistemologico che struttura la domanda “Che cos’è la filosofia?”, così com’è posta e affrontata da Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze. Questo saggio, perciò, sostiene che è attraverso la ripetizione da parte del fi losofo del percorso mediante cui il mondo assume lo statuto di un problema ontologico che una soglia epistemologica viene dischiusa. Il mondo esige che il fi losofo trovi questa ingenuità intrinseca per generare il pensare nel pensiero, per considerare il mondo in quanto problema filosofico, in quanto concetto operativo e in quanto atto veramente creativo. Si potrebbe affermare che qui si scopre ciò che è importante per Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze: una forma di espressionismo filosofico. Pertanto, la riproposizione della domanda “Che cosa è la filosofia?” è una riproposizione, per il pensiero, del problema del mondo. La sfida dell’ingenuità costringeil filosofo a riconciliare l’impotenza relativa all’ingenuità con l’insistente esigenza di sormontare quell’impotenza, rendendo possibile, così, il pensiero stesso. In breve, questo saggio vorrebbe ‘drammatizzare’ il modo in cui entrambi i filosofi, in maniere distinte e divergenti, pongono la domanda “Che cosa è la filosofia?”, avviando in tal modo una sorta di propedeutica all’ontologizzazione del pensiero. Vorrei argomentare, dunque, che ciò che motiva la loro insistenza nel tornare sulla questione “Che cos’è la fi losofi a?” è il bisogno, per Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze, di comprendere il loro esercizio come espressione di una sorta di intuizione filosofica, una pura ingenuità di pensiero, uno stimolo alla creatività e, di conseguenza, una maniera per cogliere dell’essere del divenire libero da ogni pretesa di rappresentare, comunicare o arrestare l’ontogenesi. Per converso, riconosciamo immediatamente che una tale trasformazione della sua forza trascendentale richiede che la filosofia e il suo esercizio circoscrivano il proprio luogo ai margini di ciò che la filosofia considera propriamente come “conoscenza”. (shrink)
Merleau-Ponty et Deleuze demandent « Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? »La naïveté de la pensée et l’innocence de la questionLa philosophie doit reconnaître que son obligation pressante à l’égard de « l’histoire souterraine du problème du monde » implique qu’elle affronte les conditions de sa propre détermination. En d’autres termes, l’historicité de la philosophie est l’histoire du « monde » en tant qu’il devient problématique. Mais ce devenir problématique « n’appartient pas à l’histoire ». Dans la pensée de Merleau-Ponty comme dans (...) celle de Deleuze, est à l’oeuvre une historicité qui refl ète la genèse du problème du « monde » en tant que l’être problématique de l’ontogenèse. Je soutiendrai que Merleau-Ponty et Deleuze cristallisent la thématique qui est déjà en germe chez Fink : le problème du monde contraint la pensée à se confronter à sa pratique. Toute philosophie se trouve comme nue face à sa propre naïveté en cherchant un rapprochement avec le monde. Dans le retour vers le monde, le philosophe est contraint de mettre sa pensée en rapport avec la naïveté qui la nourrit. Mais inversement, le philosophe doit admettre le rôle intrinsèque joué par la naïveté dans la pensée elle-même, dans sa pratique philosophique propre. Ce faisant, le statut philosophique de la naïveté se trouve confirmé. Le problème du monde est dès lors le problème philosophique de la construction d’un plan pour orienter notre pensée sur larelation entre la connaissance et l’être. Par là, on a identifi é le parallélisme épistémicoontologique structurant la question « Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? », que posent et à laquelle répondent nos deux philosophes. C’est pourquoi la présente étude soutient que c’est par la répétition philosophique du chemin par lequel le « monde » prend le statut d’un problème ontologique qu’un seuil épistémologique se trouve exposé. Le monde requiert du philosophe qu’il retrouve la naïveté intrinsèque à l’engendrement du penser, qu’il apprécie le monde en tant que problème philosophique, concept opérationnel et acte authentiquement créatif. Nous devons donc redécouvrir ce qui est importait tant à Merleau-Ponty et à Deleuze : l’expressionnisme philosophique. Ainsi, reposer la question « Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? » constitue une répétition afi n de penser le problème du monde. Le défiposé par la naïveté contraint le philosophe à admettre lebesoin de réconcilier l’impuissance inhérente à la naïveté avec l’exigence insistante de surmonter cette impuissance d’une manière ou d’une autre et de rendre la pensée possible. Bref, ce texte cherche à dramatiser la manière dont les deux philosophes, chacun différemment, posent la question « Qu’est-ce que la philosophie? » comme une propédeutique à l’ontologisation de la pensée. C’est pourquoi je montrerai que ce qui motive leur insistance à revenir à cette question est le besoin de comprendre leur propre pratique en tant qu’expression d’une sorte d’intuition philosophique – une pure naïveté de la pensée, une stimulation de la créativité – et, ainsi, de saisir l’être du devenir libéré de toute prétention à représenter, communiquer, fi xer l’ontogenèse. Inversement, il faut reconnaître qu’une telle transformation du motif transcendantal de la philosophie requiert de la pratique philosophique qu’elle se place aux marges de ce qui est considéré comme « savoir ».Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze chiedono “Che cos’è la fi losofia?”L’ingenuità del pensiero e l’innocenza della domandaLa filosofia non può non ammettere che il suo insistente riferimento alla “storia sotterranea del problema del mondo” deve portarla ad affrontare le condizionedella sua propria determinazione. In altre parole, la storicità [Geschichte] che guida la filosofia è la storia del “mondo” in quanto esso diviene problematico. Ma questo problematico “‘divenire’ non appartiene alla storia” [Historie]. Implicita nel pensiero di Merleau-Ponty e di Deleuze è la scoperta di una storicità che rifl ette la genesi del problema del “mondo” come il problematico essere dell’ontogenesi. In questo modo, vorrei sostenere che Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze cristallizzano il germe tematico inizialmente formulato da Fink: il problema del mondo forza il pensiero ad affrontare il suo esercizio. Ogni filosofia rimane nuda di fronte alla propria ingenuità quando cerca una riconciliazione col mondo. Ritornando al mondo, un filosofo si ritrova obbligato a mettere il pensiero alla prova di quella stessa ingenuità che lo nutre.Ma, inversamente, il filosofo deve confessare il ruolo giocato dall’ingenuità nel pensiero stesso, nella sua pratica filosofica. Così facendo, lo status filosoficodell’ingenuità resta confermato. Il problema del mondo è il problema filosofico della costruzione di un piano utile a orientare il nostro modo di pensare la relazione fra conoscenza e essere. Con ciò abbiamo identifi cato il parallelismo ontologicoepistemologico che struttura la domanda “Che cos’è la filosofia?”, così com’è posta e affrontata da Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze. Questo saggio, perciò, sostiene che è attraverso la ripetizione da parte del fi losofo del percorso mediante cui il mondo assume lo statuto di un problema ontologico che una soglia epistemologica viene dischiusa. Il mondo esige che il fi losofo trovi questa ingenuità intrinseca per generare il pensare nel pensiero, per considerare il mondo in quanto problema filosofico, in quanto concetto operativo e in quanto atto veramente creativo. Si potrebbe affermare che qui si scopre ciò che è importante per Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze: una forma di espressionismo filosofico. Pertanto, la riproposizione della domanda “Che cosa è la filosofia?” è una riproposizione, per il pensiero, del problema del mondo. La sfida dell’ingenuità costringeil filosofo a riconciliare l’impotenza relativa all’ingenuità con l’insistente esigenza di sormontare quell’impotenza, rendendo possibile, così, il pensiero stesso. In breve, questo saggio vorrebbe ‘drammatizzare’ il modo in cui entrambi i filosofi, in maniere distinte e divergenti, pongono la domanda “Che cosa è la filosofia?”, avviando in tal modo una sorta di propedeutica all’ontologizzazione del pensiero. Vorrei argomentare, dunque, che ciò che motiva la loro insistenza nel tornare sulla questione “Che cos’è la fi losofi a?” è il bisogno, per Merleau-Ponty e Deleuze, di comprendere il loro esercizio come espressione di una sorta di intuizione filosofica, una pura ingenuità di pensiero, uno stimolo alla creatività e, di conseguenza, una maniera per cogliere dell’essere del divenire libero da ogni pretesa di rappresentare, comunicare o arrestare l’ontogenesi. Per converso, riconosciamo immediatamente che una tale trasformazione della sua forza trascendentale richiede che la filosofia e il suo esercizio circoscrivano il proprio luogo ai margini di ciò che la filosofia considera propriamente come “conoscenza”. (shrink)
Dieser Aufsatz untersucht Malebranches Begriff von der Macht oder Kraft des Willens, die für Malebranche eine notwendige Bedingung der Freiheit ist. Mein Ziel ist, festzustellen, welcher Art genau die Macht des Willens ist, indem ich Malebranches Hauptdarstellungen zu Freiheit, Sünde und Tugend untersuche. Der problematischste Zug dieser Lehre zeigt sich in Verbindung mit Malebranches Okkasionalismus, einer Lehre, die die kausale Ohnmacht aller spirituellen und materiellen Schöpfung zu benötigen scheint und innerhalb derer Gott das einzige kausal wirkende Wesen ist. Wie wirkt (...) sich dieser Grundsatz auf Malebranches Lehre von der Kraft der Seele aus? Welche Art Kraft ist innerhalb des okkasionalistischen Systems zulässig? Malebranches Antworten auf diese Fragen, die ich in diesem Aufsatz kurz darstelle, enthalten eine wichtige Unterscheidung zwischen dem 'Realen' und dem 'Moralischen' oder dem Ontologischen und dem Deontologischen. Ob diese Unterscheidung Malebranche weiterhilft, ist eine Frage, die ich offenlasse. (shrink)
Since Voltaire’s caricature of him in Candide, Leibniz has had the unenviable reputation of representing the worst excesses of metaphysical rationalism. Bernard Williams once characterized Leibniz’s view that ours is the best of all possible worlds—defining “best” as maximum variety by the simplest laws—as “crass” and “untruthful.” Drawing on the character of Ivan in The Brothers Karamasov, A. W. Moore recently developed Williams’s view, claiming that Leibniz’s system lacks the resources to support a connection between what for Leibniz “matters in (...) the end, and what matters now, to us.” The author attempts to disarm Moore’s objection using Leibniz’s theory of truth and his principle of sufficient reason. More generally he argues that for Leibniz, when it comes to reconciling individual circumstance with the cosmic order of things, theodicy cannot provide any principled substitute for individual effort of will. This tempers the optimism typically associated with Leibniz’s philosophy. (shrink)
