In “The logic of deep disagreements” (Informal Logic, 1985), Robert Fogelin claimed that there is a kind of disagreement – deep disagreement – which is, by its very nature, impervious to rational resolution. He further claimed that these two views are attributable to Wittgenstein. Following an exposition and discussion of that claim, we review and draw some lessons from existing responses in the literature to Fogelin’s claims. In the final two sections (6 and 7) we explore the role reason can, (...) and sometimes does, play in the resolution of deep disagreements. In doing this we discuss a series of cases, mainly drawn from Wittgenstein, which we take to illustrate the resolution of deep disagreements through the use of what we call “rational persuasion.” We conclude that, while the role of argumentation in “normal” versus “deep” disagreements is characteristically different, it plays a crucial role in the resolution of both. (shrink)

An imaginative and exciting exposition of major themes from Wittgenstein's mature philosophy.

In the Western philosophical tradition logical investigation and philosophical advance have been inextricably linked, each having stimulated and shaped the other. In Logic and Philosophy William H. Brenner examines a broad range of logical concepts and methods as they relate to the larger context of philosophical investigation and thus bring to light the philosophical depth of logic and its relevance to philosophy in general.

Books reviewed: Wittgenstein and Scepticism, Denis McManus (ed.). London & New York: Routledge, 2004. xi, 305 pp. $50 hb. Wittgenstein at Work: Method in the PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS, Erich Ammereller and Eugen Fischer (eds.). London & New York: Routledge, 2004. xxix, 263 pp. $50 hb. Reviewed by William H. Brenner, Old Dominion University Philosophy Department Old Dominion University Norfolk, VA 23529‐0083, USA [email protected].

This paper presents the main lines of reasoning in the Wittgenstein notes entitled ‘Cause and Effect: Intuitive Awareness,’ in the form of a series of dialogues between Wittgenstein, Russell, and a few other philosophical voices. Two of the dialogues relate to what, in Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, Wittgenstein called ‘the similarity of my treatment with relativity theory.’.

This is terribly hard, Thouless, I'm sorry. I have thought over all this for years. … It is now as if we had ploughed furrows in different parts of a field. There is a lot left to do. Judging from their writings, most contemporary analytic philosophers have not been persuaded that “the inverted spectrum problem” is – as Wittgenstein maintained – really a conceptual puzzle calling for dissolution, rather than a straight problem calling for a solution. In this paper, I (...) present Wittgenstein's view as clearly and persuasively as I can, contrasting it with the views of Sidney Shoemaker and Ned Block, two of his more prominent critics. I conclude with a look at Frank Jackson's well-known Knowledge Argument, which, if successful, would demonstrate the futility of looking for a physicalist solution to the inverted spectrum and related philosophical problems. My goal is to combat what I take to be the common and unfortunate failure – among both physicalistically inclined philosophers, including Shoemaker and Block, and anti-physicalists, such as Jackson – to appreciate the force of Wittgenstein's arguments. (shrink)

Many of the important figures of modern philosophy, including Descartes, Spinoza, Liebniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant, are introduced with an emphasis on criticism of their work.

In this paper I piece together a Wittegnsteinian view of the topics indicated in my title, contrasting it with the views of Bertrand Russell and Donald Davidson ‐ two philosophers who, in words from the Blue Book, seem “constantly to see the method of science before their eyes.” I conclude that Wittegnstein helps us understand something those philosphers tend to overlook: that “freedom of the will” gets its meaning not in a belief to be assessed by evidence but, on the (...) contrary, in the expression of a way of living and assessing life that limits the role of “assessing beliefs by evidence.”. (shrink)

Philosophical Investigations, EarlyView.

In Philosophical Review, October 1974, Professor Jones argues that Aristotle's concept of matter is that of any individual item, such as a piece of bronze or a seed, with which a process of coming into existence begins, and which is prior (in a purely temporal sense) to the product which comes to exist. Aristotle does not try to prove the existence of some sort of "super-stuff" called "prime matter."I argue that Jones' account does not do full justice to Aristotle's analysis (...) of change, or to the traditional notion of prime matter based on it. I criticize Jones' arguments and draw attention to a passage in which Aristotle says that matter comes to be and ceases to be in one sense, while in another it does not. "Matter" in the first sense refers to the determinate individual, the first term of a change; in the second sense it is the "stuff" which remains after a substantial change, the "prime matter.". (shrink)

Speculation. A tribe that we have brought into subjection, which we want to make into a slave race…. The government and the scientists give it out that the people of this tribe have no souls; so they can be used without scruple for any purpose whatever. When the slaves say something happens in them, … does this confirm that they have souls? … If they say now “something happens in my head—my soul—” that only shows that they use a certain (...) picture. (shrink)

Joachim Schulte’s introduction provides a distinctive and masterful account of the full range of Wittgenstein’s thought. It is concise but not compressed, substantive but not overloaded with developmental or technical detail, informed by the latest scholarship but not pedantic. Beginners will find it accessible and seasoned students of Wittgenstein will appreciate it for the illuminating overview it provides.

Joachim Schulte’s introduction provides a distinctive and masterful account of the full range of Wittgenstein’s thought. It is concise but not compressed, substantive but not overloaded with developmental or technical detail, informed by the latest scholarship but not pedantic. Beginners will find it accessible and seasoned students of Wittgenstein will appreciate it for the illuminating overview it provides.

This anthology is the first devoted exclusively to On Certainty. The essays are grouped under four headings: the Framework, Transcendental, Epistemic and Therapeutic readings, and an introduction helps explain why these readings need not be seen as antagonistic. Contributions from W.H. Brenner, Alice Crary, Michael Kober, Edward Minar, Howard Mounce, Daniele Moyal-Sharrock, Thomas Morawetz, D.Z. Phillips, Duncan Pritchard, Rupert Read, Anthony Rudd, Joachim Schulte, Avrum Stroll, Michael Williams.

Die Bezeichnung „alt“ hat sich zu einem Wertbegriff negativer Konnotation gewandelt, so dass er synonym für alle möglichen Defizienzen bzw. als Chiffre für Defizienz schlechthin steht. Alt zu sein ist nun nicht länger eine Sache der Jahre, sondern von (verloren gegangenen) Qualitäten. Positiv ist daran, dass (fast wieder alles) möglich ist, negativ ist, dass gerade deshalb auch (fast) wieder alles ermöglicht werden muss. Denn der Alte ist selber schuld und will er es nicht bleiben, muss er etwas daran ändern. Die (...) Krankschreibung des Alters ruft seine Behandlung hervor, was nichts anders bedeutet als dass das Alter, das als Krankheit begriffen wird, kuriert werden muss, wobei die Kur nicht in seiner Heilung, sondern in seiner Überwindung, d.h. seiner Abschaffung besteht. Das Anti-Aging verfolgt eine radikale Abkehr vom Menschen, wie wir ihn kennen. Gerade am Alter lässt sich aber zeigen, dass der Mensch mit Mängeln leben kann, häufig trotz seiner Mängel glücklich wird und mit ihnen sogar seinen Frieden macht. (shrink)

Brenner labels his book a “companion”. It provides a workbook or roadmap that can used to guide one’s reading of Philosophical Investigations. Its first half follows the progression of Wittgenstein’s text. Rather than providing a traditional commentary, Brenner proceeds by testing paraphrases of key sections, juxtaposing well-traveled with less familiar passages, and constructing ongoing dialogues with various Wittgensteinian interlocutors. The book’s second half presents interpretative essays on Wittgenstein’s treatment of the mental, the grammar of color and number talk, (...) and the idea of “theology as grammar.” Brenner skillfully navigates the difficult paths of Wittgenstein’s criticisms of traditional philosophy. While emphasizing that Wittgenstein’s philosophical activity systematically opposes itself to reductionism and to attempts to think beyond the limits of thought and language, he avoids the pitfalls of ascribing to Wittgenstein a dogmatic standard by which to deem traditional metaphysical theorizing nonsensical. He appreciates that to understand how Wittgenstein puts the nature of philosophy in question, we must work through the ways his methods force our attention onto particulars and dampen our “craving for generality.” Wittgenstein tries to impress on us the need to reexamine the details of our lives as language users, and to lead us to the “real discovery” that affords a “complete clarity” on which “the philosophical problems should completely disappear”. In this call for attentiveness, Brenner finds the essential spirit of Wittgenstein’s thinking. Here “the true value of philosophy lies in this clarificatory activity”, and “life ceases to seem essentially problematic”. (shrink)

Brenner labels his book a “companion”. It provides a workbook or roadmap that can used to guide one’s reading of Philosophical Investigations. Its first half follows the progression of Wittgenstein’s text. Rather than providing a traditional commentary, Brenner proceeds by testing paraphrases of key sections, juxtaposing well-traveled with less familiar passages, and constructing ongoing dialogues with various Wittgensteinian interlocutors. The book’s second half presents interpretative essays on Wittgenstein’s treatment of the mental, the grammar of color and number talk, (...) and the idea of “theology as grammar.” Brenner skillfully navigates the difficult paths of Wittgenstein’s criticisms of traditional philosophy. While emphasizing that Wittgenstein’s philosophical activity systematically opposes itself to reductionism and to attempts to think beyond the limits of thought and language, he avoids the pitfalls of ascribing to Wittgenstein a dogmatic standard by which to deem traditional metaphysical theorizing nonsensical. He appreciates that to understand how Wittgenstein puts the nature of philosophy in question, we must work through the ways his methods force our attention onto particulars and dampen our “craving for generality.” Wittgenstein tries to impress on us the need to reexamine the details of our lives as language users, and to lead us to the “real discovery” that affords a “complete clarity” on which “the philosophical problems should completely disappear”. In this call for attentiveness, Brenner finds the essential spirit of Wittgenstein’s thinking. Here “the true value of philosophy lies in this clarificatory activity”, and “life ceases to seem essentially problematic”. (shrink)

Ecology and sustainability are current narratives about the behavior of humans toward themselves and the environment. Ecology is defined as a science, and a philosophy of ecology has become a recognized domain of the philosophy of science. For some, sustainability is an accepted, important moral goal. In 2013, a Special Issue of the journal Sustainability dealt with many of the relevant issues. Unfortunately, the economic, ideological, and psychological barriers to ethical behavior and corresponding social action remain great as well as (...) obvious. In this paper, I propose that a new, non-standard and non-propositional logic of real processes, Logic in Reality grounded in physics applies to the science and philosophy of these narratives and helps to explicate them. Given the ecological role of organizations and institutions, reference is often made to organizational or institutional logics as guides to ecological practice. This paper suggests that these logics are either too abstract or too informal to have an impact in a conflictual world. Recognition of the suggested new, transdisciplinary logical dimension of ecological processes may provide credibility and support to new initiatives in ecology and its philosophy. (shrink)

What are we? Are we, for example, souls, organisms, brains, or something else? In this book, Andrew Brenner argues that there are principled obstacles to our discovering the answer to this fundamental metaphysical question. The main competing accounts of personal ontology hold that we are either souls (or composites of soul and body), or we are composite physical objects of some sort, but, as Brenner shows, arguments for either of these options can be parodied and transformed into their (...) opposites. Brenner also examines arguments for and against the existence of the self, offers a detailed discussion of the metaphysics of several afterlife scenarios - resurrection, reincarnation, and mind uploading -- and considers whether agnosticism with respect to personal ontology should lead us to agnosticism with respect to the possibility of life after death. (shrink)

The question raised in this book is why Spinoza s work which comes so close to the modern view of natural science is not prominent in the social sciences. The answer suggested is that this is due to the lingering influence of the Cartesian differentiation between the domain of science, dealing with material bodies in space and time, and the realm of thought to which the mind belongs. Spinoza s rejection of this mind/body dualism was based on his conviction that (...) the human mind was an essential part of the forces which maintain human existence. Since this view fits so well the evolutionary view of life, the book suggests that after Darwin, when this dualism became untenable, it was replaced by a nature versus culture dichotomy. The book examines whether the history of the philosophy of science supports this explanation. The author believes that answering this question is important because of the rising influence of cultural relativism which endangers the very survival of modern science and political stability.". (shrink)

A new demarcation is proposed between Natural Philosophy and non-Natural Philosophy—philosophy tout court—based on whether or not they follow a non-standard logic of real processes. This non-propositional logic, Logic in Reality, is based on the original work of the Franco-Romanian thinker Stéphane Lupasco. Many Natural Philosophies remain bounded by dependence on binary linguistic concepts of logic. I claim that LIR can naturalize—bring into science—part of such philosophies. Against the potential objection that my approach blurs the distinction between science and philosophy, (...) I reply that there is no problem in differentiating experimental physical science and philosophy; any complete distinction between philosophy, including the philosophy of science and the other sciences is invidious. It was historically unnecessary and is unnecessary today. The convergence of science and philosophy, proposed by Wu Kun based on implications of the philosophy of information, supports this position. LIR provides a rigorous basis for giving equivalent ontological value to diversity and identity, what is contradictory, inconsistent, absent, missing or past, unconscious, incomplete, and fuzzy as to their positive counterparts. The naturalized Natural Philosophy resulting from the application of these principles is a candidate for the ‘new synthesis’ called for by the editors. (shrink)