scholarly journals Systematic Philosophy between the Empires: Some Determining Features

2006 ◽  
pp. 287-313
Author(s):  
Johannes Bronkhorst
Author(s):  
Huaping Lu-Adler

This chapter discusses certain exegetical challenges posed by Kant’s logic corpus, which comprises the Logic compiled by Jäsche, Kant’s notes on logic, transcripts of his logic lectures, and remarks about logic in his own publications. It argues for a “history of philosophical problems” method by which to reconstruct a Kantian theory of logic that is maximally coherent, philosophically interesting, and historically significant. To ensure a principled application of this method, the chapter considers Kant’s conception of history against the background of the controversy between eclecticism and systematic philosophy that shaped the German philosophical discourse during the early eighteenth century. It thereby looks for an angle to make educated decisions about how to select materials from each of the periods considered in the book and builds a historical narrative that can best inform our understanding of Kant’s theory of logic.


1971 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-465
Author(s):  
Jan C. Robbins

The libertarian side and the darker side of Thomas Jefferson are profiles of the same man. Both suppression and freedom arise from one systematic philosophy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 115-139
Author(s):  
Sthaneshwar Timalsina ◽  

This paper explores the philosophy of emotion in classical India. Although some scholars have endeavored to develop a systematic philosophy of emotion based on rasa theory, no serious effort has been made to read the relationship between emotion and the self in light of rasa theory. This exclusion, I argue, is an outcome of a broader presupposition that the 'self' in classical Indian philosophies is outside the scope of emotion. A fresh reading of classical Sanskrit texts finds this premise baseless. With an underlying assumption that emotion and self are inherently linked, this paper explores similarities between the Indian and Chinese approaches.


2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (126) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Lorenz B. Puntel

Este artigo responde pormenorizadamente às críticas feitas por G. Imaguire em sua resenha do livro indicado no título (= ES). Trata-se principalmente de nove temas respectivamente teses de caráter central para a concepção exposta no livro. O presente artigo analisa cada um destes temas, em parte corrigindo erros de apresentação e de interpretação e em todos os casos respondendo às objeções de Imaguire. Trata-se dos seguintes temas/teses: (1) Para esclarecer o estatuto das sentenças filosóficas, ES propõe uma teoria dos três operadores que explicitam o caráter de sentenças: são estes o operador teórico, o operador prático e o operador estético. O artigo esclarece o sentido exato desta teoria. (2) ES apresenta uma nova definição de saber/conhecimento em oposição direta à já famosa definição “knowledge is true justified belief” articulada por E. Gettier. (3) ES defende uma concepção de orientação ontológica das estruturas formais fundamentais (lógicas e matemáticas); estas são esclarecidas. (4) Em ES é exposta e defendida uma nova concepção de ontologia em perfeita conformidade com a semântica de uma linguagem filosófica transparente; esta ontologia exclui o conceito de “substância” e critica o uso do conceito de “objeto”. (5) ES expõe uma nova teoria semântico-ontológica da verdade que tem como consequência um relativismo moderado da verdade. (6) ES formula um argumento muito especial contra o fisicalismo; o artigo explica pormenorizadamente este argumento. (7) A concepção exposta em ES afirma que o cristianismo, em virtude do caráter racional e teórico da teologia que o explicita, constitui, em oposição a outras religiões, uma temática com prioridade de importância e atenção para o filósofo sistemático. Neste artigo esta tese é explicada e defendida contra interpretações erradas. (8) O oitavo tema é a grande questão posta pelo conceito de mundo no contexto das relações entre teorias filosóficas e teorias científicas. O artigo esclarece uma série de mal-entendidos a respeito deste grande tema. (9) Finalmente, com relação a um argumento-chave que ES apresenta para fundamentar a tese que, por razões sistemáticas, se deve admitir uma dimensão absolutamente necessária do Ser, o artigo demonstra que a resenha comete um muito grave erro de interpretação, baseando neste erro uma crítica infundada ao argumento. O artigo esclarece extensamente o argumento, suas pressuposições e suas consequências.Abstract: This article is a detailed answer to G. Imaguire’s criticisms of the book Structure and Being: A Theoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy (hence referred as ES). Imaguire focuses on nine topics that are central to the book. The present article analyses each one of these theses, sometimes correcting errors made and misrepresentations introduced by Imaguire, and in all cases, responding to Imaguire’s objections. The theses are the following: (1) In order to clarify the status of theoretical sentences occurring in philosophical works, ES presents a theory about the three operators that make explicit the statuses of three mutually irreducible kinds of sentence: the theoretical operator, the practical operator, and the aesthetic operator. (2) ES offers a new definition of knowledge in significant opposition to the now-famous definition formulated by E. Gettier, “knowledge is true justified belief.” (3) ES defends an ontologically oriented conception of the fundamental formal (logical and mathematical) structures. (4) In ES, a new ontology is propounded in strong conformity with the semantics of a transparent philosophical language. This ontology rejects the category of substance and criticizes the widely used concept of object. (5) ES presents a completely new semantico-ontological theory of truth. One of its consequences is a moderate relativism with respect to truth. (6) ES presents a unique argument against physicalism; this article elaborates on it. (7) ES considers the phenomenon of religion and states that, due to its rational and theoretical theology, Christian religion, in opposition to other religions, provides a uniquely promising resource for philosophical considerations. (8) ES extensively thematizes the concept of world in connection with the problem of the relationship between philosophy and science. (9) Finally, ES develops the main features of a theory of Being as such and as a whole. ES offers especially an important argument on behalf of the thesis that the universal dimension of Being must be conceived of as two-dimensional: as the dimension of absolutely necessary Being and the dimension of contingent beings. This article reconstructs the exact meaning of the argument and explains its presuppositions and consequences.


1910 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 440
Author(s):  
E. L. Hinman ◽  
George Trumbull Ladd

Philosophy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Simpson

The identity of Albert Camus (b. 1913–d. 1960) as a philosopher is ambiguous, and his own relation to philosophy was ambivalent. He hesitated to identify as a philosopher, and following his publication of The Rebel, and his confrontation with Jean-Paul Sartre, his standing and ability as a philosopher was often dismissed. In the popular imagination, he became an existentialist, the “philosopher of the absurd,” and the “conscience of postwar France.” There seem to be two explanations for the ambiguity and ambivalence. First, Camus clearly wasn’t, and didn’t see himself as or desire to be, a discursive theoretical philosopher. He was skeptical of the efficacy of systematic philosophy and metaphysical thinking, and none of his mature writing fits this mold. He is instead what Alexander Nehamas has called a “philosopher of the art of living,” like Socrates, Nietzsche, or Foucault. Or, as Matthew Sharpe (see Sharpe 2015, cited under Intellectual Biographies of Camus) and others have claimed, Camus was a “philosophe,” an expression evoking 18th-century, mainly French, thinkers such as Rousseau, de Condorcet, and Voltaire: public intellectuals focused on worldly, political problems, rather than abstract concerns of theoretical philosophy. Second, much of Camus’s writing, both the clearly fictional and the more clearly philosophical, can be understood as a response to contingent historical circumstance, and his work might therefore be seen, from a philosophical perspective, as anachronistic and of little philosophical relevance. However, while this is partly true, it is perverse to deny the continuing relevance of a writer who addresses issues such as the challenge for an individual finding himself or herself in a meaningless life or an impossible situation, the difference between enlightened rebellion and reactionary irrationalism, the ethics of violence, and the complexity of anti- and postcolonialism. The approach taken in this bibliography is that Camus is not a theoretical philosopher, but a philosopher in Nehamas’s or Sharpe’s sense. After his death, and perhaps in the period leading up to his death, Camus lost prominence. His novels remained in print, and L’Étranger became a standard high school text around the world, but Camus the thinker and activist was relegated to a historical niche. Outside France he retained popularity among the New Left, offering a progressive alternative to Stalinism, but that movement had waned by the 1970s. Since the last decade of the 20th century, however, there has been a significant revival of interest, and the majority of the works in this bibliography have been drawn from this “revival.”


Paleobiology ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 410-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Wagner

Paleobiologists have used taxonomic data for several types of diversity studies. Some systematists have charged that this practice obfuscates actual historical patterns of clades because many traditionally defined higher taxa are not monophyletic. Some have questioned whether ranked taxa ever represent comparable units, even when monophyletic. This study contrasts diversity patterns implied by phylogenetic estimates with those implied by ranked taxa. Early Paleozoic gastropods are useful as a test case because their generic taxonomy does not reflect the phylogenetic systematic philosophy, and fewer than one third of the genera represent monophyletic clades. Phylogenetic diversity is described in two ways: (1) numbers of lineages (i.e., observed plus phylogenetically implied “ghost lineages”), and (2) numbers of monophyla (i.e., clades whose sister taxa are other clades rather than species). “Monophyla” as tallied here are monophyletic relative to their contemporaries and older clades; however, they can be paraphyletic relative to “future” monophyla. Phylogenetic diversity is tallied with both maximum and minimum “ghost lineage” interpolations in order to reflect different possible speciation patterns and timings of speciation. Phylogenetic diversity as implied by a stricter cladistic criterion (i.e., taxa that are monophyletic relative to their contemporaries, older taxa and younger taxa) is discussed also.First differences between substage-to-substage standing diversities reveal significant congruence between generic data and both types of phylogenetic data. Taxonomic and phylogenetic data imply a major extinction event at the end of the Ordovician, although the phylogenetic data suggest greater extinction levels than do the taxonomic data. Both data sets also suggest diversity-dependent diversification reminiscent of logistic growth, which is the pattern predicted if one or a few major ecologic factors were constraining the diversification of gastropods. However, diversity described by strict Hennigian taxa is not highly congruent with diversity as described by either lineages or monophyla. Comparing subclade dynamics requires extensive redefinition of traditional orders, but lineages, monophyla and genera all suggest that the two major subclades had different logistic diversification patterns, with one (“murchisonioids”) having a higher K than the other (“euomphaloids”). The concern that phylogenetic and taxonomic data might imply very different evolutionary histories is not borne out by gastropods, despite the nonphylogenetic nature of their traditional taxonomy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document