Abstract:
Rediscovered in the middle of the nineteenth century, for a long time it was only because of his relation with other more conspicuous philosophers, such as Spinoza, Leibniz and Kant, that interest in Geulincx arose. It has since become clear that he was an original thinker in his own right, who proposed an intriguing metaphysics and made interesting contributions to logic.Cite
Citations (1)
[1] “What is metaphysics?” The question awakens expectations of a discussion about metaphysics. This we will forgo. Instead we will take up a particular metaphysical question. In this way it seems we will let ourselves be transposed directly into metaphysics. Only in this way will we provide metaphysics the proper occasion to introduce itself.
Cite
Citations (20)
The understanding of the interaction between metaphysics and natural science in the modern philosophy of science is determined by empiricist tradition. The expression of the most negative point of view is presented by the empiricist criterion of meaning, proposed by logical empiricists. The criterion of demarcation between science and metaphysics, suggested by K. R. Popper, rehabilitates metaphysics in part, but it is purely factual. This is why it is not acceptable. For the more successful investigation of the interaction between metaphysics and science, the definition of metaphysics and the determination of its content is necessary. The Thomist solution to this problem in the theory of Double Truth is a paradigmatic example for the investigation of the interaction between science and metaphysics. Besides this, such investigation must be equally historical as logical.
Empiricism
Natural science
Cite
Citations (0)
Unification
Argument (complex analysis)
Philosophy of language
Cite
Citations (27)
Abstract This chapter lays down principles for a relation of metaphysical grounding — the ‘in virtue of’ relation — understood as a relation among facts. The discussion makes it plausible that the relation is well understood and potentially useful for philosophical purposes. The chapter then explores the connections between the grounding relation and other metaphysical notions, including real definition, essential truth, and metaphysical reduction understood as a relation among facts.
Cite
Citations (1,151)
Arguments from explanation, i.e. arguments in which the explanatory value of a hypothesis or premise is appealed to, are common in science, and explanatory considerations are becoming more popular in metaphysics. The paper begins by arguing that explanatory arguments in science—even when these are metaphysical explanations—may fail to be explanatory in metaphysics; there is a distinction to be drawn between metaphysical explanation and explanation in metaphysics. This makes it potentially problematic to deploy arguments from explanation in, for instance, metaphysics of science. Part of this problem has its source in that the explanatory concept differs between contexts. The paper discusses a few explanatory concepts and their corresponding arguments from explanation. Towards the end of the paper, I identify two allegedly explanatory arguments in metaphysical discourse by the concluding decisions they give rise to: the rejection of X as a metaphysical fact if X does not explain anything (the argument from explanatory inability) and the rejection of X as a metaphysical fact if X can be non-metaphysically explained (the argument from the non-metaphysically explained). I ask: What kind of concept of explanation do these arguments rely upon, and is that concept suited to the metaphysical task? Two recent examples of these arguments are used as illustration. The preliminary conclusion is that several of the strengths of arguments from explanation in science seem not to be present in metaphysical contexts.
Argument (complex analysis)
Cite
Citations (3)
Metaphysics of knowledge is u unique name for Hartmanns epistemology. According to it, there is a basic difference between ontological and epistemological considerations. Using knowledge at the epistemic level only, epistemology generates problems that cannot be solved by means of its own methodology. The ones that rest on ontological considerations are irreducible, they belong to the very nature of things, or to the structure of mind. Hartmann calls them »metaphysical problems«. To solve the difference between ontological and epistemological judgements, describing existence of phenomena, we have to take a certain standpoint. He calls it »metaphysics of standpoint«. That is precisely what he would like to avoid. For when we do so, we take metaphysical (metaphenomenological) assumptions, illegitnimate from the phenomenological point of view. According to him, minimum of assumptions makes a maximum of metaphysics, valid for a narrow field of phenomena only, and the other way around. The prior emphasis of his »metaphysics of knowledge« is an approval of maximum of phenomena, no matter whether they can be explained or not. That is why he names his epistemology an »outline« for a broader ontological concern. The question is to be raised, nevertheless, whether the paradoxies we delt with, on the epistemological grounds, can be solved simply by taking an ontological standpoint, or does this switch of attitude at the same time produce a »maximum of methaphysics«.
Philosophy of language
Cite
Citations (0)
The nationally-recognized Susquehanna
Chorale will delight audiences of all
ages with a diverse mix of classic and
contemporary pieces. The ChoraleAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂA¢AÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂs
performances have been described
as AÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂA¢AÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂemotionally unfiltered, honest
music making, successful in their
aim to make the audience feel,
to be moved, to be part of the
performance - and all this while
working at an extremely high
musical level.AÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂA¢AÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂAÂA Experience choral
singing that will take you to new
heights!
Cite
Citations (0)
Skepticism
Philosophy of language
Philosophy of technology
Cite
Citations (49)
In the middle of last century metaphysics was widely criticized, ridiculed, and committed to the flames. During this period a handful of philosophers, against several anti-metaphysical trends, defended metaphysics and articulated novel metaphysical doctrines. Donald C. Williams was one of these philosophers. But while his contributions to metaphysics are well known his defence of metaphysics is not and yet it played a key part in the development and revival of metaphysics. In this paper I present his defence of metaphysics in its historical context. I also show how his defence is relevant in response to recent attacks on metaphysics.
Cite
Citations (7)