According to a traditional interpretation of Kierkegaard, he endorses a strong form of direct doxastic voluntarism on which we can, by brute force of will, make a “leap of faith” to believe propositions that we ourselves take to be improbable and absurd. Yet most leading Kierkegaard scholars now wholly reject this reading, instead interpreting Kierkegaard as holding that the will can affect what we believe only indirectly. This paper argues that Kierkegaard does in fact endorse a restricted, sophisticated, and plausible (...) version of direct doxastic voluntarism. On Kierkegaard’s view, when we take ourselves to be in an epistemically permissive situation, we have the ability to form outright beliefs (but not credences) at will in virtue of our ability to voluntarily 1) open or close inquiry and 2) determine our attitude towards epistemic risk. (shrink)

On the dominant contemporary accounts of how practical considerations affect what we ought to believe, practical considerations either encroach on epistemic rationality by affecting whether a belief is epistemically justified, or constitute distinctively practical reasons for belief which can only affect what we ought to believe by conflicting with epistemic rationality. This paper argues that Søren Kierkegaard offers a promising alternative view on which practical considerations can affect what we ought to believe without either encroaching on or (necessarily) conflicting with (...) epistemic rationality by determining which among the epistemically permitted outright doxastic attitudes one should all‐things‐considered adopt. (shrink)

What do we know about Hegel? What do we know about Marx? What do we know about democracy and totalitarianism? Communism and psychoanalysis? What do we know that isn't a platitude that we've heard a thousand times - or a self-satisfied certainty? Through his brilliant reading of Hegel, Slavoj Zizek - one of the most provocative and widely-read thinkers of our time - upends our traditional understanding, dynamites every cliché and undermines every conviction in order to clear the ground for (...) new ways of answering these questions. When Lacan described Hegel as the ‘most sublime hysteric’, he was referring to the way that the hysteric asks questions because he experiences his own desire as if it were the Other's desire. In the dialectical process, the question asked of the Other is resolved through a reflexive turn in which the question begins to function as its own answer. We had made Hegel into the theorist of abstraction and reaction, but by reading Hegel with Lacan, Zizek unveils a Hegel of the concrete and of revolution - his own, and the one to come. This early and dazzlingly original work by Zizek offers a unique insight into the ideas which have since become hallmarks of his mature thought. It will be of great interest to anyone interested in critical theory, philosophy and contemporary social thought. (shrink)

Donald Davidson has made enormous contributions to the philosophy of action, epistemology, semantics and philosophy of mind and today is recognized as one of the most important analytical philosophers of the late twentieth century. _Donald Davidson: Truth, Meaning and Knowledge_ addresses * Davidson's writings on epistemology and theory of language with their implications of ontology and philosophy of mind * the central issue of whether truth is the ultimate goal of enquiry, challenged by contributions from Richard Rorty and Paul Horwich (...) * Davidson's approach to semantics and applied linguistics as addressed by Kirk Ludwig, Gabriel Segal, Peter Pagin, Stephen Neale, Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore and Reinaldo Elugardo * Davidson's advances in the philosophy of mind in relation to the views of Williard V. Quine, John McDowell and Peter F. Strawson, in essays by Roger Gibson and Anita Avramides. (shrink)

Most recent work on the nature of experiment in physics has focused on "big science"--the large-scale research addressed in Andrew Pickering's Constructing Quarks and Peter Galison's How Experiments End. This book examines small-scale experiment in physics, in particular the relation between theory and practice. The contributors focus on interactions among the people, materials, and ideas involved in experiments--factors that have been relatively neglected in science studies. The first half of the book is primarily philosophical, with contributions from Andrew Pickering, Peter (...) Galison, Hans Radder, Brian Baigrie, and Yves Gingras. Among the issues they address are the resources deployed by theoreticians and experimenters, the boundaries that constrain theory and practice, the limits of objectivity, the reproducibility of results, and the intentions of researchers. The second half is devoted to historical case studies in the practice of physics from the early nineteenth to the early twentieth century. These chapters address failed as well as successful experimental work ranging from Victorian astronomy through Hertz's investigation of cathode rays to Trouton's attempt to harness the ether. Contributors to this section are Jed Z. Buchwald, Giora Hon, Margaret Morrison, Simon Schaffer, and Andrew Warwick. With a lucid introduction by Ian Hacking, and original articles by noted scholars in the history and philosophy of science, this book is poised to become a significant source on the nature of small-scale experiment in physics. (shrink)

Donald Davidson has made enormous contributions to the philosophy of action, epistemology, semantics and philosophy of mind and today is recognized as one of the most important analytical philosophers of the late twentieth century. _Donald Davidson: Truth, Meaning and Knowledge_ addresses * Davidson's writings on epistemology and theory of language with their implications of ontology and philosophy of mind * the central issue of whether truth is the ultimate goal of enquiry, challenged by contributions from Richard Rorty and Paul Horwich (...) * Davidson's approach to semantics and applied linguistics as addressed by Kirk Ludwig, Gabriel Segal, Peter Pagin, Stephen Neale, Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore and Reinaldo Elugardo * Davidson's advances in the philosophy of mind in relation to the views of Williard V. Quine, John McDowell and Peter F. Strawson, in essays by Roger Gibson and Anita Avramides. (shrink)

I distinguish between two conceptually different kinds of physical space: a space of ordinary material bodies, which is the space of points at which I could imaginably place the tip of my finger, or the center of a billiard-ball, and a space of elementary physical determinables, which is the smallest space of points such that stipulating what is happening at each one of those points, at every time, amounts to an exhaustive physical history of the universe. In all classical physical (...) theories, these two spaces happen to coincide – and what we mean by calling a theory “classical”, and all we mean by calling a theory “classical”, is precisely that these two spaces coincide. But once the distinction between these two spaces in on the table, it becomes clear that there is no logical or conceptual reason why they must coincide – and it turns out that a very simple way of pulling them apart from one another gives us quantum mechanics. (shrink)

The necessity of the study of mistakes of bilingual students in the use of nominal parts of speech is grounded in the article, it provides valuable material for scientific and methodological conclusions, as these mistakes reflect linguistic, psychological and pedagogical aspects that affect the ability of schoolchildren to learn peculiarities of using nominal parts of speech of Russian language. In this regard, ascertaining experiment with pupils of schools with native teaching language was held. Students were offered the tasks based on (...) formation of the four types of competence: language, linguistic, communicative and cultural. The results of the experiment made possible to reveal numerous mistakes in using nominal parts of speech in oral speech and in writing of students. These mistakes are a consequence of the complexity of semantic and grammatical nature of the names in the Russian language, of interfering influence of the native language and as well are explained by the imperfection of the content and methods of teaching nominal parts of speech at school. (shrink)

“Let me begin with the standard stupid question: if I were allowed to take only one piece of music to a lone island, which one this would be? [...]”.

“Today, the first notes of a popular baroque piece like Pachelbel's Canon are automatically perceived as the accompaniment, so that we wait for the moment when the melody proper will emerge; since we get no melody but only a more and more intricate polyphonic variation of the melodic accompaniment, we somehow feel "deceived". Where does this horizon of expectation, which sustains our feeling that the melody proper is missing, come from?” An extract on music from Slavoj Žižek’s new book on (...) Hegel to be published in autumn 2017. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This paper is an analysis of the manner Nishida Kitarô, in the process of construction of his own philosophy of religion, enters into dialogue with Leibniz's thought concerning Pre-established Harmony. Although the philosophy of religion is an important theme and Nishida goes back to Leibniz at some points in his textual career, there are relatively few studies that touch on the relationship between these two thinkers. I study Nishida's approach under three headings. The first section concerns ten main aspects (...) of the world of pre-established harmony. The second tries to show the manner in which such a world becomes a guide towards a philosophy of religion, placing the emphasis on three characteristically Christian aspects: a created, fallen, and Trinitarian world. The third section includes some elements such as the entrance into religion, metanoia, satori and a comparison between Christian agape and Buddhist maha-kruna. These are themes on which Nishida elaborates in his 1945 masterpiece, The Logic of Basho and a Religious Worldview. RESUMO Este trabalho é uma análise da forma pela qual Nishida Kitarô, no processo de construção de sua própria filosofia da religião, entra em diálogo com o pensamento de Leibniz relativo à Harmonia Pré-Estabelecida. Embora a filosofia da religião seja um tema importante, e Nishida retome Leibniz em alguns pontos em sua carreira textual, existem relativamente poucos estudos que abordem a relação entre esses dois pensadores. Estudo a abordagem de Nishida sob três categorias. A primeira seção refere-se a dez principais aspectos do mundo de harmonia preestabelecida. A segunda busca demonstrar o modo pelo qual esse mundo se torna um guia para uma filosofia da religião, colocando a ênfase em três aspectos caracteristicamente cristãos: um mundo criado, caído e trinitário. A terceira seção inclui alguns elementos, tais como a entrada na religião, a metanoia, o satori e uma comparação entre o Ágape cristão e o Maha-Kruna budista. Estes são temas sobre os quais Nishida elabora em sua obra-prima de 1945, A Lógica de Basho e uma Visão Religiosa do Mundo. (shrink)

Oświecenia nie byłoby bez zwrotu w stronę rozumu, a ten nie jest żadną ideą, lecz własnością nader pospolitą – już sto lat wcześniej René Descartes powiadał, że nikt nie uskarża się na jego brak. Osiemnastowieczni filozofowie bodajże po raz pierwszy problematyzują owo nikt, pytając o rozum dzieci, „dzikich”, sawantów, geniuszy, wynalazców, szaleńców, ba – kobiet (dziewczynek, dziewcząt), aktualnych i przyszłych matek „rodu ludzkiego”, a nie tylko o „rozum ludzki”. Ma on zresztą wiele postaci – common sense, zdrowy rozum (rozsądek), „chłopski (...) rozum”, rozum praktyczny, czysty, spekulatywny itd., a także granicę, którą jest utrata rozumu lub zmysłów. Zawsze jednak objawia się wśród ludzi, pośród ludzkich spraw, bez względu na to, czy aktualnie należymy do jakiejś wspólnoty, czy – jak w pewnym momencie Robinson Crusoe albo Denis Diderot – zostaliśmy z niej czasowo wyłączeni. Epoka rozumu, jak zwykło się w skrócie charakteryzować „optymistyczne” Oświecenie, dostrzegała i eksponowała jego faktyczność i jednostkowość – rozum jest zawsze i tylko czyjąśdyspozycją – nie tracąc przy tym z oczu innej jego niezbywalnej cechy: powszechności. Wszystko może nas dzielić – pochodzenie, język, religia, płeć, zamożność, zdrowie, wykształcenie czy upodobania, lecz taki sam i ten sam jest mój i twój rozum. Tom prezentuje wyniki badań nad filozofią Oświecenia prowadzonych w wielu ośrodkach naukowych w kraju. Tym, co łączy wszystkie pomieszczone w nim teksty, jest zwrócenie uwagi na oświeceniowe rozumienie społecznej natury człowieka. Autorzy przedstawiają jej różne aspekty: od funkcjonowania instytucji służących prowadzeniu i upowszechnianiu badań naukowych, przez osiemnastowieczne projekty edukacyjne, kształtowanie się ówczesnych gustów estetycznych i znaczenie przykładane do języków narodowych, aż po społeczny wymiar medycyny. Prace te nie tylko ukazują, jak bardzo złożony jest obraz Oświecenia, ale też przypominają, że depozytariuszami opiewanego w tej epoce rozumu jesteśmy my – poszczególni ludzie, a jego funkcjonowanie wymaga istnienia rozmaitych łączących nas więzi. (shrink)