Rationality and Decision Making: From Normative Rules to Heuristics offers a broad overview of both classic and very recent discussions concerning rationality and strategies of individual and group decision making. They are considered from a methodological, ethical, sociological, historical, cultural as well as an evolutionary perspective. Decision making, both rational and irrational, is treated in its complexity as an algorithmic, heuristic and intuitive process. The volume analyzes the theoretical and practical aspects of decision making in individual intentional endeavors and group or institutionalized undertakings. The analyses are mostly theoretical but they also appeal to empirical studies, proposed by philosophers and cognitive scientists who have studied logical, cognitive, biological, social and evolutionary aspects of human rationality.
Contributors include María José Frápolli, Marek Hetmański, Jan F. Jacko, Artur Koterski, Agnieszka Lekka-Kowalik, Sofia Miguens, Ángeles J. Perona, Manueal de Pinedo, João Alberto Pinto, Krzysztof Polit, Marcin Rządeczka, Rui Sampaio da Silva, Joanna Sokołowska, Barbara Trybulec, Marcin Trybulec, Neftalí Villanueva, Monika Walczak, Jan Winkowski, Anna Wójtowicz, Jesús Zamora-Bonilla, and António Zilhão.
This book evaluates competing theories on speculative topics, such as nature, technology, space, time, and the relation of mind and matter. The general thesis is the actuality of principles in the form of laws, norms and other general principles in a plastic world, tying together the actualization of “oughts” and other principles. The result is a pluralistic universe, endorsing the pragmatic view of the world. The book examines nature, being, reality and other traditional issues in this light, critically evaluating many historical approaches.
This special issue documents the results of a workshop on and with Alvin Goldman at the University of Düsseldorf in May, 2008. The topic was Reliable Knowledge and Social Epistemology. The volume contains the written versions of all papers given at the workshop, divided into five chapters and followed by Alvin Goldman’s replies in the sixth and final chapter.
The contributions of the first chapter (E. Brendel, C. Jäger, and G. Schurz) address general questions of social epistemology, veritism and externalism, including critical reflections on Goldman's notion of 'weak knowledge'. The subsequent chapter (T. Grundmann and P. Baumann) examines problems which are involved in the search for an adequate explication of reliabilism. In the third chapter, E. Olsson, J. Horvath, C. Piller and M. Werning discuss Goldman and Olsson's account of the problem of the value of knowledge. In the fourth chapter (M. Baurmann & G. Brennan, and O. Scholz) two specific aspects of the social dimension of knowledge are investigated: the relation between knowledge and democracy as well as the definition and recognition of expertise. The fifth chapter (A. Newen & T. Schicht) discusses another part of Goldman’s cognitive epistemology, namely his simulation theory of mindreading.
Goldman gives detailed replies to all parts of the papers in the final chapter. He thereby clarifies the many aspects of his philosophy and proposes amendments of earlier positions of his.
Heidegger and the Question of Psychology: Zollikon and Beyond, Mark Letteri acquaints a broad readership (such as psychotherapists and counselors, not just professional philosophers) with Martin Heidegger’s connections to psychology and related concerns, and offers specialists one of the few monographic treatments of the topic. He provides an accessible and relatively non-technical treatment. Keenly aware of the standard difficulties with Heidegger (whether real or perceived), Letteri endeavors to render the most relevant points in a clear and succinct way. The book serves as a companion to Heidegger’s
Zollikon Seminars and
Being and Time as it concerns psychological and associated matters.
This special volume of
Grazer Philosophische Studien features twelve original essays on the relationship between knowledge and questions, a topic of utmost importance to epistemology, philosophical logic, and the philosophy of language. It raises a great deal of issues in each of these fields and at their intersection, bearing, inter alia, on the theory of rational deliberation and inquiry, pragmatism and virtue epistemology, the problems of scepticism and epistemic justification, the theory of assertion, the possibility of deductive knowledge, the semantics and pragmatics of knowledge ascriptions, the factivity of knowledge, the analysis of concealed questions and embedded interrogative clauses, propositional attitudes and two-dimensional semantics, contextualism and contrastivism, the distinction between knowledge-that and knowledge-how, the nature of philosophical knowledge, and the problem of epistemic value. Addressing these as well as many other importantly related issues, the papers in the volume jointly contribute to giving an overview of the current state of the debates on the topic, and a sense of the directions in which philosophical research on knowledge and questions is currently heading.
Epistemology had to come to terms with “the social” on two different occasions. The first was represented by the dispute about the epistemological status of the “social” sciences, and in this case the already well established epistemology of the natural sciences seemed to have the right to dictate the conditions for a discipline to be a science. But the social sciences could successfully vindicate the legitimacy of their specific criteria for scientificity. More recently, the impact of social factors on the construction of our knowledge (including scientific knowledge) has reversed, in a certain sense, the old position and promoted social inquiry to the role of a criterion for evaluating the purport of cognitive (including scientific) statements. But this has undermined the traditional characteristics of objectivity and rigor that seem constitutive of science. Moreover, in order to establish the real extent to which social conditionings have an impact on scientific knowledge one must credit sociology with a sound ground of reliability, and this is not possible without a preliminary “epistemological” assessment. These are some of the topics discussed in this book, both theoretically and with reference to concrete cases.
This book illustrates the profound implications of Gabriel Marcel’s unique existentialist approach to epistemology not only for traditional themes in his work concerning ethics and the transcendent, but also for epistemological issues, concerning the objectivity of knowledge, the problem of skepticism, and the nature of non-conceptual knowledge, among others. There are also chapters of dialogue with philosophers, Jacques Maritain and Martin Buber. In focusing on these themes, the book makes a distinctive contribution to the literature on Marcel.
The former Queen of Science seems to be lacking both a specific subject and a particular method. Thus the need arises for intra- and metaphilosophical orientation – especially since the way philosophy sees itself stems from various influential schools and traditions whose mutual exchange is not as lively as one might have hoped.
This volume of original essays brings together some of the protagonists of different metaphilosophical debates that have so far been led fairly independently of each other. The authors discuss the question of both the possibility and the scope of philosophical knowledge under a variety of aspects, particularly: (1) a priori knowledge and the role of intuitions, (2) transcendental arguments, (3) analytic philosophy and its methods as well as (4) phenomenology and analytic philosophy.
Dieses Werk stellt das Denken zweier Geistesgrößen, Leibnizens und Fichtes sich gegenüber und vergleicht es. Fichte sieht in Leibniz einen Vorläufer und erwähnt ihn mit liebevoller Bewunderung. Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre von 1801/02 wird Leibnizens „Monadologie“ aufgreifen und Leibnizens Gedanken einer prästabilierten Harmonie. Beide Philosophen verstehen sich als Freiheitsapostel, wobei bei Leibniz Gott eine genaue Notion jedes Individuums hat, die Freiheit ein mentaler Akt ist, bei Fichte jedes Individuum ein je bestimmtes Soll hat, das es, Freiheit verwirklichend, im Leben zu erfüllen gilt. Fichte erkennt in Leibniz einen Vorläufer der eigenen Transzendentalphilosophie. Ein Unterschied zwischen den beiden Denkern besteht darin, dass Leibniz stets die Individualität im Auge hat, wo Fichte vom reinen Vernunftwesen ausgeht, dessen individuelle Pathologien ihn nicht interessieren. Beide Philosophen supponieren, dass die Welt ein Ende habe, Leibniz, auf dass das Weltgericht stattfinden könne, Fichte, auf dass in einer neuen Welt nur noch die sittlichen Individuen wiedergeboren werden. Der vorliegende Text versucht auch, den Bogen zu schlagen von der philosophischen Tradition des Abendlandes, und insbesondere von Leibniz, Kant und Fichte zu einer Gotteslehre auf Grund der modernen Physik. Die hochenergetische Urmaße wird gefasst als psychophysische Energeia, die sich – im Leibnizschen Sinne Wissen, Macht und Wollen – aus dem Nichts kontrahiert hat und nun ins All explodiert. In der Kontraktion aus dem ursprünglich Verwobenen hat das Absolute sich vom Nichts, das Gute sich vom Bösen geschieden, entsteht das Übel als privatio boni.