'The infinite! No other question has ever moved so profoundly the spirit of man; no other idea has so fruitfully stimulated his intellect; yet no other concept stands in greater need of clarification than that of the infinite.' David Hilbert (1862-1943). This interdisciplinary study of infinity explores the concept through the prism of mathematics and then offers more expansive investigations in areas beyond mathematical boundaries to reflect the broader, deeper implications of infinity for human intellectual thought. More than a dozen (...) world-renowned researchers in the fields of mathematics, physics, cosmology, philosophy, and theology offer a rich intellectual exchange among various current viewpoints, rather than a static picture of accepted views on infinity. The book starts with a historical examination of the transformation of infinity from a philosophical and theological study to one dominated by mathematics. It then offers technical discussions on the understanding of mathematical infinity. Following this, the book considers the perspectives of physics and cosmology: Can infinity be found in the real universe? Finally, the book returns to questions of philosophical and theological aspects of infinity"--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

Geiger, M. Alexander Pfänders methodische Stellung.--Schwarz, P. Über die Oberste ontologische Kategorie.--Stavenhagen, K. Charismatische Persönlichkeitseinungen.--Celms, T. Lebensumgebung und Lebensprojektion.--Beck, M. Problem der Analogie zwischen seelischen und Dinglichen Qualitäten.--Spiegelberg, H. Sinn und recht der Begründung in der axiologischen und praktischen Philosophie.--Voigtländer, E. Bemerkungen zur Psychologie der Gesinnungen.--Löwenstein, K. Wunsch und wünschen.--Löw, F. Über die Definition.-- Specht, W. Die Grenzen der biologischen Erfassung der Persönlichkeit.--Heller, E. Über die Willenshandlung.

In 1962 Hilary Putnam forced us to face the possibility of robot cats. More than twenty years later Daniel Dennett found himself doing battle with mad scientists and other “bogeymen.” Though these two examples are employed in different philosophical arena, there is an important connection between them that has not been emphasized. Separating the concept associated with a kind term from the extension of that term, as Putnam and others have urged, raises the possibility of accepting counterexamples to compatibilistic analyses (...) without rejecting compatibilism. Even if no compatibilist analysis of our concept of free action is acceptable, a compatibilist account of the essential nature of free action may be. (shrink)

Naive mereology studies ordinary conceptions of part and whole. Parts, unlike portions, have objective boundaries and many things, such as dances and sermons have temporal parts. In order to deal with Mark Heller's claim that temporal parts "are ontologically no more or less basic than the wholes that they compose," we retell the story of Laplace's Genius, here named "Swifty." Although Swifty processes lots of information very quickly, his conceptual repertoire need not extend beyond fundamental physics. So we attempt (...) to follow Swifty's progress in the acquisition of ordinary concepts such as 'table'. (Puzzles of precision and intrusion appear along the way.) Swifty has to understand what tables are before understanding what temporal portions of tables are. This is one reason for regarding tables as ontologically prior to table portions. intrusion appear along the way.). (shrink)

As a whole these essays take their cue from the later Wittgenstein in an effort to get beyond the verifiability/falsifiability cul-de-sac and to "get clear" on some religious concepts by exploring religious language at work. The opening two essays, by E. Heller and P. Holmer, are the only two that deal directly with Wittgenstein. Heller shows some interesting parallels between Wittgenstein and Nietzsche, but largely these essays are for introductory purposes. Although Wittgenstein's presence is felt in the remaining (...) essays, his name is seldom mentioned. Ian Ramsey has two contributions, one on paradox and one on religion and science. He is up to his usual method of making plausible suggestions by means of careful distinctions, always with a careful eye on the phenomenology of the religious universe of discourse. F. Ferré explores the notion of "models" as it works in science and sees how this concept can work in the examination of religious language. T. McPherson uses a distinction between literal, semiotic, and symbolic meaning to explore religious assertions and analogy. R. C. Coburn suggests that a neglected use of theological statements is to answer the limiting questions of religion in a manner that is logically complete. B. Mitchell talks about justifying religious belief in answer to MacIntyre's charge that such a project reveals a basic misunderstanding of religious discourse. There are two intriguing essays by Wm. Poteat, one of which draws an analogy between birth and suicide to build a doctrine of creation. C. B. Daly writes on metaphysics and the limits of language. Although there is same familiar wrangling over tired issues, the book does manage to collect some refreshing although not strikingly original essays.--S. O. H. (shrink)

Leading philosophical accounts presume that Thomas H. Morgan’s transmission theory can be understood independently of experimental practices. Experimentation is taken to be relevant to confirming, rather than interpreting, the transmission theory. But the construction of Morgan’s theory went hand in hand with the reconstruction of the chief experimental object, the model organism Drosophila melanogaster . This raises an important question: when a theory is constructed to account for phenomena in carefully controlled laboratory settings, what knowledge, if any, indicates the theory’s (...) relevance to phenomena outside highly controlled settings? The answer, I argue, is found within the procedural knowledge embedded within laboratory practice. †To contact the author, please write to: Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota, Department of Philosophy, 831 Heller Hall, 271 19th Ave., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455‐0310; e‐mail: [email protected]. (shrink)

Originating as a proponent of U.S. exceptionalism during the Cold War, American Studies has now reinvented itself, vigorously critiquing various kinds of critical hegemony and launching innovative interdisciplinary endeavors. _The Futures of American Studies_ considers the field today and provides important deliberations on what it might yet become. Essays by both prominent and emerging scholars provide theoretically engaging analyses of the postnational impulse of current scholarship, the field's historical relationship to social movements, the status of theory, the state of higher (...) education in the United States, and the impact of ethnic and gender studies on area studies. They also investigate the influence of poststructuralism, postcolonial studies, sexuality studies, and cultural studies on U.S. nationalist—and antinationalist—discourses. No single overriding paradigm dominates the anthology. Instead, the articles enter into a lively and challenging dialogue with one another. A major assessment of the state of the field, _The Futures of American Studies_ is necessary reading for American Studies scholars. _Contributors._ Lindon Barrett, Nancy Bentley, Gillian Brown, Russ Castronovo, Eric Cheyfitz, Michael Denning, Winfried Fluck, Carl Gutierrez-Jones, Dana Heller, Amy Kaplan, Paul Lauter, Günter H. Lenz, George Lipsitz, Lisa Lowe, Walter Benn Michaels, José Estaban Muñoz, Dana D. Nelson, Ricardo L. Ortiz, Janice Radway, John Carlos Rowe, William V. Spanos. (shrink)

Beschäftigung mit der Philosophie, selbst wenn keine positiven Ergebnisse herauskommen (sondern ich ratlos bleibe), ist auf jeden Fall wohltätig. Es hat die Wirkung (dass „die Farbe heller“), d.h., dass die Realität deutlicher als solche erscheint. – Kurt Gödel..

I november 2020 stod statsminister Mette Frederiksen på en gård i Jylland og kneb en tåre foran den forsamlede presse. Hun havde netop besøgt to generationer af minkfarmere, far og søn, hvis levebrød hun selv lige havde besluttet at slå ned. Var det kynisme eller reelle følelser, der var på spil? Tog statsministeren personligt ansvar for sin egen, svære beslutning, eller var hun en hykler? I denne videnskabeligt funderede debatbog sætter Silas F. Harrebye vores allesammens hykleri under lup. Han skelner (...) mellem forskellige former for hykleri og undersøger, hvad det gør ved demokratiet, at vi ofte er mere optagede af at anklage end at forstå hinanden. Bogen viser, hvorfor vi har brug for flere nuancer i debatten, hvis der skal være plads til politiske visioner og personlig udvikling. Bogen indeholder dybdegående interviews med 8 kendte politikere og meningsdannere som selv har været igennem deciderede shitstorms og anklager om hykleri: Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Pelle Dragsted, Carolina Magdalene Maier, Morten Messerschmidt, Tim Whyte, Rasmus Willig, Anders Gadegaard og Lea Korsgaard. De bliver alle udfordret til at reflektere over både eget og andres hykleri. Derudover præsenterer bogen resultaterne fra en omfattende befolkningsundersøgelse lavet i forbindelse med bogen. Ved hjælp af overraskende teoretiske vinkler og fortolkninger formulerer Silas F. Harrebye et forsvar for hykleriet, som han mener er uundgåeligt og ligefrem kan være politisk produktivt. Som han skriver:?hellere hyklerisk idealist end konsekvent kyniker.? Bogen er skrevet til borgere og fagfolk, der interesserer sig for demokrati, politik og samfund. Den rummer en masse inspiration til at reflektere over de svære valg i livet og blive det, forfatteren kalder?den gode hykler?. Bogen kan oplagt bruges som supplerende litteratur på universiteter og højskoler inden for fx samfundsfag, filosofi og medievidenskab. (shrink)