Logic has a fundamental role in the philosophy of Franjo Marković (1845-1914). His theory of concepts and reasoning is analyzed, especially with respect to the essential role of the principle of sufficient reason and in connection with the concept of causality. The interplay of various types of evidence in Marković's inductive-deductive logic is analysed by means of contemporary justification logic tools.

The structure "home - world - ideals" is presented as the structure of "philosophical striving" (F. Marković). It could be formally described as a model consisting of a domain, relations and a valuation. On that basis, the identity, openness, and the significance of Croatian philosophy is investigated. The programme of the renewal of Croatian philosophy (as proposed 1882 by Franjo Marković) is re-examined, and some unsolved historical-cultural discontinuities within the programme are described. The written beginnings of Croatian philosophical thought (...) are detected in the Charter of Duke Trpimir (852). (shrink)

A brief overview of the main Croatian philosophers of the 19th century is given (regardless of whether they worked in or outside of Croatia). Special attention is paid to Šimun Čučić (logic, metaphysics, ethics) and Franjo pl. Marković (logic, aesthetics). The philosophy of other authors is briefly summarized on the ground of the existing research results.

The book is a collection of papers addressing the role of logic in forming and developing philosophy. In particular, on the ground of modern development of logic, it is shown that philosophy can be established (and, in fact, to a large extent is established) as a modern science. The following problems are addressed: general relationship between philosophy and science (especially from a logical viewpoint); the use of logic in ordinary language; names and descriptions; Quine's pragmatic extensional Platonism and predicate-functor logic; (...) philosophical and logical aspects of Gödel's onto-theological system. In the last two chapters, an early critique and emendement of algebraic logic by Croatian philosophers Franjo Marković and Mate Meršić, respectively, is examined. (shrink)

After delineating the corpus of Croatian philosophy, the historical and conceptual identity and continuity of Croatian philosophy are analysed with respect to several aspects: (1) the historical space and time of Croatian philosophy; (2) its socio-cultural role and character (educational, linguistic and national-political); (3) its traditions and interconnections; and (4) the idea of Croatian philosophy. Special attention is paid to the difference between Franjo pl. Marković’s views on Croatian philosophy and the present state-of-the-art. Finally, the roots of Croatian philosophy (...) are considered at the moment of transition from myth to Christianity and in the introductory reflections of the Charter of Duke Trpimir. (shrink)

Plotinus criticizes the view that individual human souls are parts of the world-soul arguing that they would lack individual agency since their alleged actions would have to be attributed to the whole they are parts of (iii.1.4). He nevertheless holds that individual souls are parts of a larger whole, the so-called hypostasis soul, a soul that does not ensoul any body but encompasses and produces all individual souls including the world-soul (iv.3.4.14–21; iv.8.36–12; iv.9.5). In this paper, I ask whether Plotinus, (...) in the face of his own arguments, can consistently attribute agency to individual souls and hold that they are parts of the hypostasis soul. I argue that Plotinus’ model of intelligible mereology (vi.2.20) allows individual souls to depend on the hypostasis soul as parts in a way that grounds their agency by providing them with the capacity for rational thought. (shrink)

In the realm of medical ethics, the foundational principle of respecting patient autonomy holds significant importance, often emerging as a central concern in numerous ethically complex cases, as authorizing medical assistance in dying or healthy limb amputation on patient request. Even though advocates for either alternative regularly utilize prima facie principles to resolve ethical dilemmas, the interplay between these principles is often the core of the theoretical frameworks. As the ramifications of the sustainability crisis become increasingly evident, there is a (...) growing need to integrate awareness for sustainability into medical decision-making, thus reintroducing potential conflict with patient autonomy. The contention of this study is that the ethical standards established in the 20th century may not adequately address the challenges that have arisen in the 21st century. The author suggests an advanced perception of patient autonomy that prioritizes fostering patients’ knowledge, self-awareness, and sense of responsibility, going beyond a sole focus on their intrinsic values. Empowering patients could serve as a tool to align patient autonomy, beneficence, and the aim to reduce resource consumption. (shrink)

Popular culture continues fuelling public imagination with things, human and non-human, that we might beco-me or confront. Besides robots, other significant tropes in popular fiction that generated images include non-human humans and cyborgs, wired into his-torically varying sociocultural realities. Robots and artificial intelligence are re-defining the natural order and its hierar-chical structure. This is not surprising, as natural order is always in flux, shaped by new scientific discoveries, especially the reading of the genetic code, that reveal and redefine relationships between (...) life forms. However, for the first time, a new, artificial, species is being introduced into the existing diagrams, and, for the first time, it appears to hybridise the anthro-pocentric natural world order. (shrink)

Petrić motivira svoj pokušaj deheleniziranja filozofije i kršćanske teologije činjenicom da su oko četiri stotine godina nakon »starih teologa«, koji su bili pod utjecajem Platonove filozofije, skolastički teolozi počeli u teologiju uvoditi Aristotelovu filozofiju i uzimati njegove »bezbožnosti« kao temelje vjere. Ispričava ih što nisu poznavali niti mogli poznavati stare teologe jer nisu znali grčki i stoga su im bili nepoznati Platonovi i Aristotelovi izvorni tekstovi u kojima se ti stari mudraci spominju. Ne oprašta im, međutim, što su pokušali »bezbožnošću (...) poduprijeti pobožnost«. Stoga Petrić nastoji pokazati da je Aristotel našao sve problemske motive svoje metafizike, fizike i etike u prastarih egipatskih i kaldejskih mudraca, i to najvećim dijelom posredovanjem Platona. Isto tako nastoji pokazati kako je spomenute probleme Aristotel preformulirao, pretumačio u duhu starogrčkog jezika i duha, ali djelomično i prešućivao.Heideggerov analogni noviji pokušaj dehelenizacije filozofije i kršćanske teologije polazi od teze o »zaboravu pitanja o bitku«, odnosno o »smislu bitka«. Taj »zaborav« skrivila je tradicionalna metafizika koja je tretirala bitak kao »najopćenitiji« i stoga »najrazumljiviji« pojam i na taj način dispenzirala filozofiju da ponovo promišlja pitanje o bitku. Pitanje o bitku blokirala je metafizika i time što je bitak tretirala kao »biće« i navela teologiju da i Boga tretira kao »biće«, doduše kao »najviše«, ali ipak kao biće. To je omogućilo da se teologija razumije kao »pozitivna« znanost i time se uvrsti među druge »pozitivne« znanosti. Heideggerov motiv da »destruira« tradicionalnu metafiziku jest da usmjeri mišljenje prema njegovoj zaboravljenoj bitnoj zadaći, a time i teologiju da se, oslobođena od tradicionalne metafizike, uputi novim putovima.Najnoviji poticaj kritičkom tematiziranju dehelenizacije kršćanske vjere, i uopće europskog duha, dao je teolog i sadašnji papa Joseph Ratzinger, posebno u svom predavanju na Sveučilištu u Regensburgu, u kojem je desetak puta kritički apostrofirao dehelenizaciju. Podvrgnuo je kritici tri vala dehelenizacijskog programa u kršćanskoj teologiji: od izgona metafizike iz teologije u Reformaciji, preko historiziranja u liberalnoj teologiji 19. i 20. stoljeća, do brisanja tragova helenizacije kršćanske vjere u ideji inkulturacije. Ratzinger podvrgava kritici ograničavanje uma , započeto matematizacijom europske znanosti u renesansnom platonizmu, koje je Kant kanonizirao. Posljedice toga ograničavanja uma nisu relevantne samo za kršćanstvo koje teži suprotnome, tj. proširenju uma , nego i za zapadnoeuropski duh u cjelini.Petrić’s attempt at dehellenizing philosophy and Christian theology was motivated by the fact that about four centuries after the “ancient theologians”, who were influenced by Plato’s philosophy, scholastic theologians began to introduce Aristotle’s philosophy into theology and adopt his “impieties” as the foundations of faith. He justifies their ignorance and inability to learn about the ancient wise men by the fact that they had no knowledge of Greek and were thus not familiar with the original texts of Plato and Aristotle in which the wise men were mentioned. He does not forgive them, however, for trying to “support piety by impiety”. Thus Petrić attempts to demonstrate how Aristotle found all the problem motives of his metaphysics, physics and ethics in the wise men, drawing mostly upon Plato. He also attempts to show how Aristotle reformulated the mentioned problems, reinterpreted them in the spirit of the old Greek language and thought, but also ignored some of them.Heidegger’s more recent similar attempt at dehellenizing philosophy and Christian theology is grounded on a thesis of the “neglect of the question of being” – that is, the “meaning of being”. This “neglect” is the result of traditional metaphysics which treated being as “the most general” and thus “the most understandable” notion, and in such a way dispensed philosophy to reconsider the question of being. The question of being was blocked by metaphysics in that it treated being as an “entity”, prompting theology to treat God as an “entity” as well, though “the supreme” but still an entity. This led to the understanding of theology as a “positive” science and its eventual classification among the “positive” sciences. Heidegger’s motive to “destroy” traditional metaphysics is to stream thought towards his forgotten major goal, and thus prompt theology, once freed from traditional metaphysics, to seek new strands.The most recent attempt at critical thematization of dehellenization of Christian faith and European spirit in general has been made by the theologian and present pope, Joseph Ratzinger, particularly in his lecture delivered at the University in Regensburg in which he repeatedly criticized dehellenization. Three stages of dehellenization program in Christian theology are the subject of his criticism: from the banishment of metaphysics from theology in the Reformation, through historization in liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth century to the erasing of the traces of Hellenization of Christian faith in the idea of inculturation. He also argues against mind limitation started by mathematization of European science in Renaissance Platonism and canonized by Kant. The consequences of mind limitation are not only relevant to Christianity which strives towards the very opposite – broadening of the mind , but to the Western spirit on the whole. (shrink)

This paper raises objections to the constitution of these lines in the OCT. The lines are gnomic but they generalize based on an actual sequence of events just described and should contain an allusion to the offence that will cause the Greeks to perish, the outrage against Athena's temple. This, it is argued, stood in a lacuna best marked after 95. The article has three theses: (1) sacking ‘cities, temples, and tombs’ is implausible because the latter two are parts of (...) the first; (2) plundering tombs refers to nothing in the play, nor was this thought of as an offence against the gods; (3) 96–7 do not refer to the offence that causes the fool's death but are a description of his success, the destruction of the hated enemy population. That success stands in ironic contrast with his subsequent death. (shrink)

U članku se promatraju osnovne karakteristike razvojne dinamike hrvatskoga logičkoga nazivlja od izlazka Pacelove Logike za gimnazije, prve sustavne logike na hrvatskome jeziku, 1868. godine, pa sve do Petrovićeve Logike, također za srednja učilišta, iz 1964., koja je još uviek u uporabi. Nazivlje je u tu svrhu razvrstano u nekoliko tipičih skupina. Općenito, uočava se porast zastupljenosti latinizama (i grecizama) na štetu hrvatskih naziva. U analizi nazivlja autor se ograničuje na knjige namienjene nastavi logike bilo na srednjim učilištima, bilo na (...) sveučilištu, i to na nazivlje tradicionalne logike. Mjestimice su pridodane i napomene o nazivlju moderne (matematičke) logike. (shrink)

Today, bioethics experts have an increasing role in public life. However, the question arises: what does bioethics expertise really mean? Can there be such a thing in our globalised world characterised by ethical pluralism? I will argue that bioethics as a discipline represents the transformation of ethics expertise from a hard to a soft form of it. Bioethics was born as a reaction to the growing awareness of ethical pluralism, and it denied the hard form of normative–prescriptive ethics expertise, particularly (...) in its medical ethics form. In contrast, the traditional medical ethics model, and pre-modern societies in general, believed in hard normative ethics expertise. From this followed the characteristic paternalism of traditional medical practice: if physicians were experts in moral matters as well, if they knew what the right course of action to choose was, then they had a right to benevolently force this course of action on their patients. The remnants of this doctrine, although rarely stated explicitly, still can often be seen in clinical practice. The whole bioethics movement can be seen as a radical denial of the doctrine of physician's hard expertise in moral matters. Bioethics, however, represents a type of soft ethics expertise. Hence follows the seeming paradox of bioethics expertise: bioethics is both a denial of ethics expertise as well as a type of ethics expertise. (shrink)

The article focuses on Kant's formal logic (formal theory of concepts, judgments, and inference, general methodology) in the systematic order of logical forms and presents the main characteristics of his transcendental logic (theory of categories and transcendental ideas). Kant's problem of the foundations of logic and its completeness is addressed. The relevance and influence of Kant's account of logic in the development of modern logic is outlined. The article gives a selection of primary and secondary sources.

A first-order logic of belief with identity is proposed, primarily to give an account of possible de re contradictory beliefs, which sometimes occur as consequences of de dicto non-contradictory beliefs. A model has two separate, though interconnected domains: the domain of objects and the domain of appearances. The satisfaction of atomic formulas is defined by a particular S-accessibility relation between worlds. Identity is non-classical, and is conceived as an equivalence relation having the classical identity relation as a subset. A tableau (...) system with labels, signs, and suffixes is defined, extending the basic language $\mathscr{L}_{\mathbf{QB}}$ by quasiformulas (to express the denotations of predicates). The proposed logical system is paraconsistent since $\phi \wedge \neg\phi$ does not ``explode'' with arbitrary syntactic consequences. (shrink)

Since its founding in 1950, the Metaphysical Society of America has remained a pluralistic community dedicated to rigorous philosophical inquiry into the most basic metaphysical questions. At each year’s conference, the presidential address offers original insights into metaphysical questions. Both the insights and the questions are as perennial as they are relevant to contemporary philosophers. This volume collects eighteen of the finest representatives from those presidential addresses, including contributions from George Allan, Richard Bernstein, Norris Clarke, Vincent Colapietro, Frederick Ferré, Jorge (...) J. E. Gracia, Joseph Grange, Marjorie Grene, George Klubertanz, Ivor Leclerc, Ralph McInerny, Ernan McMullin, Joseph Owens, John Herman Randall, Jr., Nicholas Rescher, Stanley Rosen, John E. Smith, and Robert Sokolowski. Also included are Paul Weiss’s inaugural address to the Society, an introduction chronicling the history of the Society, and an original Foreword by William Desmond and Epilogue by Robert Neville. (shrink)

Experimental induction of sad mood states is a mainstay of laboratory research on affect and cognition, mood regulation, and mood disorders. Typically, the success of such mood manipulations is reported as a statistically significant pre- to post-induction change in the self-rated intensity of the target affect. The present commentary was motivated by an unexpected finding in one of our studies concerning the response rate to a well-validated sad mood induction. Using the customary statistical approach, we found a significant mean increase (...) in self-rated sadness intensity with a moderate effect size, verifying the “success” of the mood induction. However, that “success” masked that, between one-fifth and about one-third of our samples reported absolutely no sadness in response to the mood induction procedure. We consider implications of our experience for emotion research by commenting upon the typically overlooked phenomenon of nonresponse, suggesting changes in reporting practices regarding mood induction success, and outlining future directions to help scientists determine why some subjects do not respond to experimental mood induction. (shrink)

A civic science curriculum is advocated. We discuss practical mechanisms for (and highlight the possible benefits of) addressing the relationship between scientific knowledge and civic responsibility coextensively with rigorous scientific content. As a strategy, we suggest an in-course treatment of well known (and relevant) historical and contemporary controversies among scientists over science policy or the use of sciences. The scientific content of the course is used to understand the controversy and to inform the debate while allowing students to see the (...) role of scientists in shaping public perceptions of science and the value of scientific inquiry, discoveries and technology in society. The examples of the activism of Linus Pauling, Alfred Nobel and Joseph Rotblat as scientists and engaged citizens are cited. We discuss the role of science professors in informing the social conscience of students and consider ways in which a treatment of the function of science in society may find, coherently, a meaningful space in a science curriculum at the college level. Strategies for helping students to recognize early the crucial contributions that science can make in informing public policy and global governance are discussed. (shrink)

This paper develops and motivates a unification theory of metaphysical explanation, or as I will call it, Metaphysical Unificationism. The theory’s main inspiration is the unification account of scientific explanation, according to which explanatoriness is a holistic feature of theories that derive a large number of explananda from a meager set of explanantia, using a small number of argument patterns. In developing Metaphysical Unificationism, I will point out that it has a number of interesting consequences. The view offers a novel (...) conception of metaphysical explanation that doesn’t rely on the notion of a “determinative” or “explanatory” relation; it allows us to draw a principled distinction between metaphysical and scientific explanations; it implies that naturalness and fundamentality are distinct but intimately related notions; and perhaps most importantly, it re-establishes the unduly neglected link between explanation and understanding in the metaphysical realm. A number of objections can be raised against the view, but I will argue that none of these is conclusive. The upshot is that Metaphysical Unificationism provides a powerful and hitherto overlooked alternative to extant theories of metaphysical explanation. (shrink)

The Question of Iterated Grounding (QIG) asks what grounds the grounding facts. Although the question received a lot of attention in the past few years, it is usually discussed independently of another important issue: the connection between metaphysical explanation and the relation or relations that supposedly “back” it. I will show that once we get clear on the distinction between metaphysical explanation and the relation(s) backing it, we can distinguish no fewer than four questions lumped under QIG. I will also (...) argue that given some plausible assumptions about what it would take for a relation to back metaphysical explanation, many salient views about grounding allow us to give “easy” answers to these questions—easy in the sense that we can straightforwardly derive them from the respective conception of grounding without getting into the sorts of complexities that typically inform answers to QIG. The paper's main upshot is that we cannot expect to make much progress on QIG without first addressing the difficult issue of how exactly grounding is related to metaphysical explanation. (shrink)

This paper develops the Diachronic Self-Making View, the view that we are the non-accidentally best candidate referents of our ‘I’-beliefs. A formulation and defence of DSV is followed by an overview of its treatment of familiar puzzle cases about personal identity. The rest of the paper focuses on a challenge to DSV, the Puzzle of Inconstant ‘I’-beliefs: the view appears to force on us inconsistent verdicts about personal identity in cases that we would naturally describe as changes in one’s de (...) se beliefs. To solve this problem, the paper defends the possibility of overlapping people, and addresses a number of objections to this idea. (shrink)

Case, agreement, and A-movement dependencies across finite clause boundaries, such as Hyperraising or Long-Distance Case or Agreement [LDA], are available in many typologically diverse languages. The research on such dependencies typically distinguishes between cross-linguistically restricted true A-dependencies across finite clauses, and generally available binding-like A′-dependencies as found in Prolepsis. In this paper, we investigate both types of configurations in parallel and refer to this as the A-domain. Since the diagnostics to distinguish A-configurations vary across languages and often cannot be compared (...) directly, we define four characteristic properties: whether the construction is restricted by matrix predicate selection, whether movement in the embedded clause is involved, whether the dependency shows locality restrictions, and whether there are semantic restrictions on the relevant DP. By combining different values of the characteristic properties, we show, differently from previous approaches, that the A-domain does not simply consist of two types of configurations, but that the empirical landscape represents a continuum of five A-constructions. We suggest a theoretical implementation of our empirical findings, which is built on a predicational relator phrase above the embedded CP and propose that, in some of the constructions, these two projections fuse into one. We employ a minimalist probing approach which relies on differences in the base-generated position of the relevant DP, differences in the feature composition of the embedded C, a composite probe hierarchy yielding three types of feature-dependencies of composite probes, and, resulting from that, different probing mechanisms. Lastly, this paper also contributes methodological tools for disentangling constructions of the A-domain. (shrink)

In recent years, metaphysics has undergone what some describe as a revolution: it has become standard to understand a vast array of questions as questions about grounding, a metaphysical notion of determination. Why should we believe in grounding, though? Supporters of the revolution often gesture at what I call the Argument from Explanatoriness: the notion of grounding is somehow indispensable to a metaphysical type of explanation. I challenge this argument and along the way develop a “reactionary” view, according to which (...) there is no interesting sense in which the notion of grounding is explanatorily indispensable. I begin with a distinction between two conceptions of grounding, a distinction which extant critiques of the revolution have usually failed to take into consideration: grounding qua that which underlies metaphysical explanation and grounding qua metaphysical explanation itself. Accordingly, I distinguish between two versions of the Argument from Explanatoriness: the Unexplained Explanations Version for the first conception of grounding, and the Expressive Power Version for the second. The paper’s conclusion is that no version of the Argument from Explanatoriness is successful. (shrink)