Zusammenfassung Der dargelegte Befund deutet darauf hin, daß es in Konstantinopel wie in Rom und anderen Provinzmetropolen zahlreiche Statuen hoher Beamter und Würdenträger gab. Allerdings fehlt ein entsprechender Befund für die Regierungszeit Konstantins d. Gr.; erst unter der Regierung Konstantius' II. lassen sich die ersten Beamtenstatuen feststellen. Das mag am Zufall der Überlieferung liegen, deckt sich aber immerhin damit, daß erst unter diesem Kaiser der Rahmen für eine breite magistratische Repräsentation gegeben war. Unter Konstantius II. wurde der Konstantinopler Senat zahlenmäßig (...) beträchtlich erweitert, zudem gleichberechtigt neben den römischen Senat gestellt, wurde das Amt des Stadtpräfekten eingeführt und, wie Paul Speck gezeigt hat, zugleich die Allpräsenz des Gründerkaisers Konstantin im Stadtbild relativiert, so daß überhaupt erst die Grundlagen für die öffentliche Repräsentation der Senatsaristokratie gegeben waren. Hatte Konstantin die nach ihm benannte Stadt zunächst als Residenzstadt errichtet, deren Bauten und Ausstattung ganz auf seine Person ausgerichtet waren, so schuf sein Sohn Konstantius die Voraussetzungen für die Entwicklung einer selbstbewußten Senatsaristokratie und einer entsprechenden Präsenz im Stadtbild. Die wenigen Indizien deuten darauf hin, daß sich die Statuen dieser Würdenträger, sofern es sich um senatorische Beamte handelte, beim Senat am Augusteion befanden. Stets dürfte es sich dabei um ‚einfache’ Statuen gehandelt haben, die allenfalls vergoldet waren, um bronzene Statuen oder um solche aus Marmor, die den Beamten in der Toga mit seinen Insignien zeigten. Seit dem fünften Jahrhundert läßt sich beobachten, daß eine kleine Gruppe einflußreicher Beamter und Heerführer entweder durch eine Vielzahl verschiedener Bildnisse an verschiedenen Orten oder aber durch die wesentlich aufwendigere Denkmalform eines Reiterstandbilds an prominenten Orten geehrt wird. Nie jedoch fand sich die Statue eines Nichtkaisers auf einem Ehrenbogen oder einer Säule, von denen es in Konstantinopel so viele gab. Diese blieben dem Kaiser und seiner Familie vorbehalten, der so im Denkmal den Abstand zu den aufwendigen Monumenten einflußreicher Personen wahren und auch erhöhen konnte. Doch beschränkte sich das kaiserliche Denkmal nicht nur auf einfache Ehrensäulen. Mehrfach sind Gruppen von Ehrensäulen überliefert, die städtebaulich an zentralen Stellen plaziert wurden. Zudem begegnet in der Spätantike zum erstenmal die Reiterstatue auf einem Säulenmonument, werden also zwei zunächst verschiedene Monumentformen miteinander verbunden (Abb. 7). Diese für die Spätantike typische Potenzierung der Wirkungsstrukturen und die Kombination bislang verschiedener Repräsentationsformen des imperialen Monuments ist wohl auch Folge des Konkurrenzdrucks durch allmächtige Militärs, die ihrerseits solche Selbstdarstellungsmodi aufgriffen. Die Kaiserdenkmäler bestimmen bis heute unser Bild von der Stadt Konstantinopel und lassen bisweilen vergessen, daß sie vor dem Hintergrund zahlreicher kleinerer Denkmäler hochrangiger Beamter errichtet wurden, unter denen einige so aufwendig waren, daß sie den Kaiser zum Aufgriff neuer, bislang noch nicht dagewesener Monumentformen zwangen. (shrink)

Des Herrn Doct. und Prof. Joachim Langens, oder, Der Theologischen Facultaet zu Halle Anmerckungen über des Herrn Hoff-Raths und Professor Christian Wolffens Metaphysicam ... nebst beygefügter Hr. Hoff-R. und Prof. Christian Wolffens gründlicher Antwort -- Herrn D. Joh. Francisci Buddei S.S. Theol. P.P.O. zu Jena Bedencken über die Wolffianische Philosophie, mit Anmerckungen erläutert von Christian Wolffen.

Ludwig Alsdorf, Kleine Schriften. Ed. Albrecht Wezler., Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2001. xxiii, 750 pp. €86.00. ISBN 3-515-07737-5. Ernst Windisch: Kleine Schriften. Ed. Karin Steiner, Jörg Gengnagel., Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2001. xxvii, 717 pp. €116.00. ISBN 3-515-07120-2.

Hegels Denken ist keineswegs von bloß historischem Interesse, sondern erweist sich stets von neuem als gegenwartsrelativ systematisch faszinierend. Dies gilt in besonderem Maße für jenes Werk, das für gründlichstes und systematisch anspruchsvollstes Denken unserer Tradition steht: die "Wissenschaft der Logik". Diese Logik ist keine weltlose, sondern schlechthin überall, wo wir auch leben und hinblicken, ist sie ausgebreitet wirklich und gegenständlich - in organischen Bildungen, Gefühlen, Meinungen, Institutionen, Kunstwerken, religiösen Formen, bis hin zu Konstrukten und Zahlen. Alles Natürliche und Geistige ist (...) eine realphilosophisch zu fassende Wirklichkeitsweise von Logischem. Dieser nachzuspüren wird in den Beiträgen dieses Bandes unternommen. Beiträge von Johannes Berchtold, Leo Dorner, Max Gottschlich, Friedrich Grimmlinger, Leo Hemetsberger, Thomas Sören Hoffmann, Heimo Hofmeister, Michael Höfler, Hans-Dieter Klein, Wilhelm Lütterfelds, Wolfgang Pesendorfer, Urs Richli, Josef Simon, Michael Wladika, Kurt Walter Zeidler. (shrink)

Unlike the first English translation in 1974, this edition contains the text corresponding to Brentano's original 1874 edition.

I present a formal theory of the logic and aboutness of imagination. Aboutness is understood as the relation between meaningful items and what they concern, as per Yablo and Fine’s works on the notion. Imagination is understood as per Chalmers’ positive conceivability: the intentional state of a subject who conceives that p by imagining a situation—a configuration of objects and properties—verifying p. So far aboutness theory has been developed mainly for linguistic representation, but it is natural to extend it to (...) intentional states. The proposed framework combines a modal semantics with a mereology of contents: imagination operators are understood as variably strict quantifiers over worlds with a content-preservation constraint. (shrink)

Recent work on signaling has mostly focused on communication between organisms. The Lewis–Skyrms framework should be equally applicable to intra-organismic signaling. We present a Lewis–Skyrms signaling-game model of painful signaling, and use it to argue that the content of pain is predominantly imperative. We address several objections to the account, concluding that our model gives a productive framework within which to consider internal signaling.

First published in 1969. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Behaviourism is the view that preferences, beliefs, and other mental states in social-scientific theories are nothing but constructs re-describing people's behaviour. Mentalism is the view that they capture real phenomena, on a par with the unobservables in science, such as electrons and electromagnetic fields. While behaviourism has gone out of fashion in psychology, it remains influential in economics, especially in ‘revealed preference’ theory. We defend mentalism in economics, construed as a positive science, and show that it fits best scientific practice. (...) We distinguish mentalism from, and reject, the radical neuroeconomic view that behaviour should be explained in terms of brain processes, as distinct from mental states. (shrink)

Im Zentrum der 1874 erschienenen bewußtseinspsychologischen Abhandlungen Brentanos steht die Beschreibung und Analyse des Psychischen. Damit bahnte sich jene Abwendung von der sensualistischen Tradition der philosophischen Bewußtseinslehre an, die in der Phänomenologie Edmund Husserls vollendet wurde.

We introduce a “reason-based” framework for explaining and predicting individual choices. It captures the idea that a decision-maker focuses on some but not all properties of the options and chooses an option whose motivationally salient properties he/she most prefers. Reason-based explanations allow us to distinguish between two kinds of context-dependent choice: the motivationally salient properties may (i) vary across choice contexts, and (ii) include not only “intrinsic” properties of the options, but also “context-related” properties. Our framework can accommodate boundedly rational (...) and sophisticatedly rational choice. Since properties can be recombined in new ways, it also offers resources for predicting choices in unobserved contexts. (shrink)

Brentanos Reflexionen über das Verhältnis von Wahrheit und Evidenz wurden erst 1930 herausgegeben. Ihre Kenntnis ist unentbehrlich für das Verständnis seines Verhältnisses zu den an ihn anknüpfenden Denkern, insbesondere zu Husserl.

Which rules for aggregating judgments on logically connected propositions are manipulable and which not? In this paper, we introduce a preference-free concept of non-manipulability and contrast it with a preference-theoretic concept of strategy-proofness. We characterize all non-manipulable and all strategy-proof judgment aggregation rules and prove an impossibility theorem similar to the Gibbard--Satterthwaite theorem. We also discuss weaker forms of non-manipulability and strategy-proofness. Comparing two frequently discussed aggregation rules, we show that “conclusion-based voting” is less vulnerable to manipulation than “premise-based voting”, (...) which is strategy-proof only for “reason-oriented” individuals. Surprisingly, for “outcome-oriented” individuals, the two rules are strategically equivalent, generating identical judgments in equilibrium. Our results introduce game-theoretic considerations into judgment aggregation and have implications for debates on deliberative democracy. (shrink)

Die in diesem Band vereinten Aufsätze spiegeln Brentanos späte Ansichten wieder; die Einleitung wurde für den allgemein philosophisch interessierten Leser konzipiert und behandelt Brentanos Theorie des Kontinuums, des Ursprungs des ...

Dieser Band präsentiert den Text der Originalausgabe von 1907, drei weitere Arbeiten über ein optisches Paradoxon sowie sieben bisher unveröffentlichte Basisuntersuchungen zum Problem Sinneswahrnehmungen, die Brentano in eine zweite ...

Various theories try to give accounts of how measures of this confidence do or ought to behave, both as far as the internal mental consistency of the agent as ...

Degrees of belief are familiar to all of us. Our confidence in the truth of some propositions is higher than our confidence in the truth of other propositions. We are pretty confident that our computers will boot when we push their power button, but we are much more confident that the sun will rise tomorrow. Degrees of belief formally represent the strength with which we believe the truth of various propositions. The higher an agent’s degree of belief for a particular (...) proposition, the higher her confidence in the truth of that proposition. For instance, Sophia’s degree of belief that it will be sunny in Vienna tomorrow might be .52, whereas her degree of belief that the train will leave on time might be .23. The precise meaning of these statements depends, of course, on the underlying theory of degrees of belief. These theories offer a formal tool to measure degrees of belief, to investigate the relations between various degrees of belief in different propositions, and to normatively evaluate degrees of belief. (shrink)

The widely discussed "discursive dilemma" shows that majority voting in a group of individuals on logically connected propositions may produce irrational collective judgments. We generalize majority voting by considering quota rules, which accept each proposition if and only if the number of individuals accepting it exceeds a given threshold, where different thresholds may be used for different propositions. After characterizing quota rules, we prove necessary and sufficient conditions on the required thresholds for various collective rationality requirements. We also consider sequential (...) quota rules, which ensure collective rationality by adjudicating propositions sequentially and letting earlier judgments constrain later ones. Sequential rules may be path-dependent and strategically manipulable. We characterize path-independence and prove its essential equivalence to strategy-proofness. Our results shed light on the rationality of simple-, super-, and sub-majoritarian decision-making. (shrink)

What is the relationship between degrees of belief and binary beliefs? Can the latter be expressed as a function of the former—a so-called “belief-binarization rule”—without running into difficulties such as the lottery paradox? We show that this problem can be usefully analyzed from the perspective of judgment-aggregation theory. Although some formal similarities between belief binarization and judgment aggregation have been noted before, the connection between the two problems has not yet been studied in full generality. In this paper, we seek (...) to fill this gap. The paper is organized around a baseline impossibility theorem, which we use to map out the space of possible solutions to the belief-binarization problem. Our theorem shows that, except in limiting cases, there exists no belief-binarization rule satisfying four initially plausible desiderata. Surprisingly, this result is a direct corollary of the judgment-aggregation variant of Arrow’s classic impossibility theorem in social choice theory. (shrink)

The problem addressed in this paper is “the main epistemic problem concerning science”, viz. “the explication of how we compare and evaluate theories [...] in the light of the available evidence” (van Fraassen, BC, 1983, Theory comparison and relevant Evidence. In J. Earman (Ed.), Testing scientific theories (pp. 27–42). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Sections 1– 3 contain the general plausibility-informativeness theory of theory assessment. In a nutshell, the message is (1) that there are two values a theory should exhibit: (...) truth and informativeness—measured respectively by a truth indicator and a strength indicator; (2) that these two values are conflicting in the sense that the former is a decreasing and the latter an increasing function of the logical strength of the theory to be assessed; and (3) that in assessing a given theory by the available data one should weigh between these two conflicting aspects in such a way that any surplus in informativeness succeeds, if the shortfall in plausibility is small enough. Particular accounts of this general theory arise by inserting particular strength indicators and truth indicators. In Section 4 the theory is spelt out for the Bayesian paradigm of subjective probabilities. It is then compared to incremental Bayesian confirmation theory. Section 4 closes by asking whether it is likely to be lovely. Section 5 discusses a few problems of confirmation theory in the light of the present approach. In particular, it is briefly indicated how the present account gives rise to a new analysis of Hempel’s conditions of adequacy for any relation of confirmation (Hempel, CG, 1945, Studies in the logic of comfirmation. Mind, 54, 1–26, 97–121.), differing from the one Carnap gave in § 87 of his Logical foundations of probability (1962, Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Section 6 adresses the question of justification any theory of theory assessment has to face: why should one stick to theories given high assessment values rather than to any other theories? The answer given by the Bayesian version of the account presented in section 4 is that one should accept theories given high assessment values, because, in the medium run, theory assessment almost surely takes one to the most informative among all true theories when presented separating data. The concluding section 7 continues the comparison between the present account and incremental Bayesian confirmation theory. (shrink)

Recent accounts of actual causation are stated in terms of extended causal models. These extended causal models contain two elements representing two seemingly distinct modalities. The first element are structural equations which represent the or mechanisms of the model, just as ordinary causal models do. The second element are ranking functions which represent normality or typicality. The aim of this paper is to show that these two modalities can be unified. I do so by formulating two constraints under which extended (...) causal models with their two modalities can be subsumed under so called which contain just one modality. These two constraints will be formally precise versions of Lewissystem of weights or priorities” governing overall similarity between possible worlds. (shrink)

The paper provides an argument for the thesis that an agent’s degrees of disbelief should obey the ranking calculus. This Consistency Argument is based on the Consistency Theorem. The latter says that an agent’s belief set is and will always be consistent and deductively closed iff her degrees of entrenchment satisfy the ranking axioms and are updated according to the ranktheoretic update rules.

In the theory of judgment aggregation, it is known for which agendas of propositions it is possible to aggregate individual judgments into collective ones in accordance with the Arrow-inspired requirements of universal domain, collective rationality, unanimity preservation, non-dictatorship and propositionwise independence. But it is only partially known (e.g., only in the monotonic case) for which agendas it is possible to respect additional requirements, notably non-oligarchy, anonymity, no individual veto power, or implication preservation. We fully characterize the agendas for which there (...) are such possibilities, thereby answering the most salient open questions about propositionwise judgment aggregation. Our results build on earlier results by Nehring and Puppe (2002), Nehring (2006), Dietrich and List (2007a) and Dokow and Holzman (2010a). (shrink)

Several recent interpretations see Hegel's theory of the Concept as a form of conceptual realism, according to which finite reality is articulated by objectively existing concepts. More precisely, this theory has been interpreted as a version of natural kind essentialism, and it has been proposed that its function is to account for the possibility of genuine explanations. This suggests a promising way to reconstruct the argument that Hegel's theory of objective concepts is based on—an argument that shows that the possibility (...) of explanation rests on metaphysical preconditions and that natural kind essentialism gives the only adequate account of those preconditions. But in order for such a reconstruction to be successful, one needs to spell out the metaphysical features in virtue of which Hegelian natural kinds can account for the possibility of explanation. The article takes up this challenge. It offers the first detailed analysis of the modal fine-structure of Hegel's natural kind essentialism and shows how Hegel's position, thus understood, provides the details needed to complete the explanation-based argument. (shrink)

Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. Belief is thus central to epistemology. It comes in a qualitative form, as when Sophia believes that Vienna is the capital of Austria, and a quantitative form, as when Sophia's degree of belief that Vienna is the capital of Austria is at least twice her degree of belief that tomorrow it will be sunny in Vienna. Formal epistemology, as opposed to mainstream epistemology (Hendricks 2006), is epistemology done in a formal way, (...) that is, by employing tools from logic and mathematics. The goal of this entry is to give the reader an overview of the formal tools available to epistemologists for the representation of belief. A particular focus will be the relation between formal representations of qualitative belief and formal representations of quantitative degrees of belief. (shrink)

Philosophically, one of the most important questions in the enterprise termed confirmation theory is this: Why should one stick to well confirmed theories rather than to any other theories? This paper discusses the answers to this question one gets from absolute and incremental Bayesian confirmation theory. According to absolute confirmation, one should accept ''absolutely well confirmed'' theories, because absolute confirmation takes one to true theories. An examination of two popular measures of incremental confirmation suggests the view that one should stick (...) to incrementally well confirmed theories, because incremental confirmation takes one to (the most) informative (among all) true theories. However, incremental confirmation does not further this goal in general. I close by presenting a necessary and sufficient condition for revealing the confirmational structure in almost every world when presented separating data. (shrink)

Expanding on the theory of ethics first posited by Brentano in The Origin of our Knowledge of Right and Wrong this re-issued work, first published posthumously in 1952, is based on series of lectures on practical philosophy, given at the university of Vienna from 1876 to 1894. The English-speaking reader will find it interesting to examine the step-by-step development of Brentano’s ethical theory, his extensive critique of British moral philosophers, and his unusually detailed section on casuistry.

The Spohnian paradigm of ranking functions is in many respects like an order-of-magnitude reverse of subjective probability theory. Unlike probabilities, however, ranking functions are only indirectly—via a pointwise ranking function on the underlying set of possibilities W —defined on a field of propositions A over W. This research note shows under which conditions ranking functions on a field of propositions A over W and rankings on a language L are induced by pointwise ranking functions on W and the set of (...) models for L, ModL, respectively. (shrink)

Brentanos 1904 vollendete Theorie, nur Reales sei vorstellbar und könne existieren, führte auch unter seinen Schülern zu Kontroversen. Dieser Band enthält eine umfangreiche Studie, die Einleitung der Herausgeber zu diesem Problemkreis, Auszüge aus dem Briefwechsel mit A. Marty und O. Kraus sowie die einschlägigen Abhandlungen Brentanos.