Search

In "Truth by Analysis: Games, Names, and Philosophy," Colin McGinn seeks to revitalize the traditional approach to conceptual analysis. He asserts that the definition of a concept involves specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for its application, a task he deems achievable. In pursuit of this goal, McGinn critiques opposing perspectives, including that of Wittgenstein. He explores various ways to define the concept of game, and at his best, he relies on Bernard Suits' definition. This paper argues that McGinn's attempts fall short and affirms the significance of Wittgenstein's insight. It critiques all definitions put forth by McGinn, particularly that of Suits, presenting counterexamples to challenge them. Furthermore, the paper uncovers deeper misconceptions underlying these criticisms: McGinn expects family resemblance to serve as both the necessary and sufficient conditions for applying a concept and perceives it as a theory explaining how concepts refer to their extensions, contrasting with Wittgenstein, who does not aim to develop a theory and does not propose family resemblance as a sufficient condition for a concept's application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the distinguished Persian Sufi mystic Shaykh Maḥmūd Shabestarī's Golshan-e Rāz, or The Rose Garden of Mystery. Adopting a hermeneutic approach, it scrutinizes the intricate spiritual journey towards divine realization delineated in Shabestarī's poetry, utilizing qualitative content analysis of original texts and interpretations by scholars such as Lāhījī and Ibn Turka Iṣfahānī. The main question the paper addresses is this: "How can the spiritual journeyer overcome obstacles--particularly 'otherness'--and achieve unity with the divine Essence within the framework of Islamic mysticism, as interpreted through Shabestarī's teachings in Golshan-e Rāz?" To answer this inquiry, the paper addresses pivotal questions concerning Shabestarī's depiction of the spiritual journeyer's path, its stages and challenges, and the critical role of the human form in divine manifestation. The study underscores the necessity of overcoming duality and distinction, alluding to the transformative nature of the journey that necessitates self-purification and the cessation of otherness. Findings from this study provide an enriched understanding of Shabestarī's thought, contributing to the discourse on Islamic metaphysics. It presents valuable insights into the spiritual journeyer's path, offering a comprehensive interpretation of the challenges, practices, and transformative experiences leading to divine realization and unity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific scepticism, fundamentally, questions the veracity and epistemic value of claims not supported by scientific evidence. Motivated by the assumption that only the empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, the scientific sceptics often maintain that only scientific method is best suited for this purpose. Claims found to be wanting in scientific evidence are considered untrue, and of little or no epistemic consequence. Using the analytical and critical methods, this paper interrogates this epistemic criterion of justification of scientific scepticism. It shows the inherent epistemic deficits in this criterion of the scientific sceptics, and how absolutizing its demands in such a manner as to undermine the veracity and epistemic significance of claims outside the mainstream discipline of science is not only to entrap themselves in many epistemic burdens, but also to sink under the unsavoury weight of criteriological egocentrism, detrimental to cognitive progress. As a credible alternative, this paper explores the epistemic fecundity of contextualistic pluralism - the pluralism of contextually underwritten cognitive positions - in truth and knowledge justification. It concludes with the relevance of this approach in epistemic justification as evident in its inclusive nature as well as its shift of the focus of philosophical thinking from identity to diversity in an interculturality society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea that science is objective, or able to achieve objectivity, is in large part responsible for the role that science plays within society. But what is objectivity? The idea of objectivity is ambiguous. This paper distinguishes between three basic forms of objectivity. The first form of objectivity is ontological objectivity: the world as it is in itself does not depend upon what we think about it; it is independent of human thought, language, conceptual activity or experience. The second form of objectivity is the objectivity of truth: truth does not depend upon what we believe or justifiably believe; truth depends upon the way reality itself is. The third form of objectivity is epistemic objectivity: this form of objectivity resides in the scientific method which ensures that subjective factors are excluded, and only epistemically relevant factors play a role in scientific inquiry. The paper considers two problems that arise for the notion of epistemic objectivity: the theorydependence of observation and the variability of the methods of science. It is argued that the use of shared standard procedures ensures the objectivity of observation despite theory-dependence. It is argued that the variability of methods need not lead to an epistemic relativism about science. The paper concludes with the realist suggestion that the best explanation of the success of the sciences is that the methods employed in the sciences are highly reliable truth-conducive tools of inquiry. The objectivity of the methods of the sciences leads to the objective truth about the objective world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine Putnam's views on the application of quantum logic is the aim of this paper. Hilary Putnam defends quantum logic in his works. According to him, classical logic cannot answer the problems arising in quantum mechanics. Therefore, we need to present a non-classical logic, namely quantum logic. Putnam argues three main reasons for the transition from classical logic to quantum: I. to be false some of the necessary truths of logic, II. have to change of logic, III. the pattern of three-valued logic. Putnam's views about this transition to quantum logic can be considered from several points: First, despite Putnam's criticism of classical logic, he defends quantum logic through the rules of classical logic. Second, it is a bulky claim to know of quantum logic as "true" logic. Third, the conclusions of the Cartesian product have changed in Putnam's analysis. Fourth, in his logic system, Putnam pays attention to "intuition" instead of relying on "axioms." Fifth, the middle value of truth is ineffective and erroneous in quantum logic. Despite these criticisms, many of them can be answered analytically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can atheistic explanations scientifically explain the world and humans? Can theistic deductive arguments provide a rational explanation of the world? Many philosophers of contemporary religion believe that deductive arguments for the existence of God are invalid because they are either deductively invalid or based on one or more false or uncertain premises. Hence, they turned to non-analogical arguments about the existence of God. The purpose of this paper is to examine and evaluate one of these interesting new arguments, the Swinburne inductive argument. This research paper is a library-based theoretical analysis that is done through the concepts, propositions, and arguments. Swinburne claims that humanistic and materialistic explanations cannot explain the world and humans. In contrast, he has three arguments for the existence of the universe, the existence of scientific laws, and the laws of the process of evolution; He uses the existence of God as three affirmative inductive arguments and concludes the accumulation of theism as the best explanation. The result of such arguments is that theism can be the ultimate explanation of the world. It will also be shown that such arguments are less challenging and can greatly increase the likelihood of God's existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Abrahamic religions include the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All of these religions consider Abraham as their ancestor, and they consider science to be the knowledge of the universe and humanity, which are divine revelations. The framework of science in the Abrahamic religions uses three basic concepts: 1) monotheism (as a fundamental principle, a single and allencompassing Divine vision) 2) the universe (as a divine creation) 3) science (as an all-encompassing knowledge about the world as the sign of God). The purpose of writing this paper is to find the common principles governing science among Abrahamic religions, using a descriptive-analytical method based on library sources. The results of this research is an intellectual attempt to draw on the commonalities between various Abrahamic religions in the areas of constructive dialogue in the field of globalization, based on revelatory and spiritual teachings, to achieve the unification of the world, which is one of the divine promises and is rooted in the natural foundations of humanity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regarding the way of facing the West and modernity, Ahmed Fardid is among the thinkers who, by adopting a philosophical and judgmental approach, rejects modernity, philosophy, and western civilization in its entirety. Fardid considers modernity and the West to have an inherent crisis and considers any attempt to patch up modernity with Eastern religions or cultures futile. Fardid, who is the creator of the word "Gharbzadegi (Westoxification)", considers human sciences and Western civilization to be nothing more than the inciting soul vanities and blasphemy. By adopting an essentialist and negative approach towards the modern world, he calls for a complete break from the subjectivism and humanism associated with the modern world and a return to Islamic-oriented philosophy (Hekmat-e Onsi). Seyyed Hossein Nasr, as a traditionalist thinker, rejects Western civilization and modernity as a unified whole. He wants to incorporate modern science and reason and take perennial philosophy. In this paper, via a comparative analysis method, this hypothesis is examined that although Fardid and Nasr are sympathizers in the complete negation and rejection of the modern world, Fardid confronts modernity and its consequent subjectivism using Heidegger's western thought. This is when Nasr confronts modernity from the perspective of a traditionalist thinker who believes in the foundations of tradition. Nasr considers the return to the perennial philosophy to solve confronting the Western world and modernity, but Fardid faced with the modern world, emphasizes that although modernity is the exposure of self-fulfillment, one must strive to overcome it. It is difficult to return to the past. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Postmodernism represents skepticism toward metanarratives and universal ideologies that dominated the modernist era. The study focuses on three key postmodernist concepts - alternative assessment, process syllabi, and self-directed learning. Alternative assessment emphasizes evaluating the learning process over summative testing. Process syllabi focus on the learning experience rather than rigid outcomes. Self-directed learning enables student responsibility in setting learning goals and processes. This paper examined the effects of postmodernist educational concepts on improving Iranian EFL learners' autonomy. A quasiexperimental pre-test/post-test design was utilized with 60 intermediate level Iranian EFL students divided into an experimental and control group (n=30 each). The experimental group received instruction utilizing the three postmodernist concepts over 14 weeks, while the control group received traditional modernist instruction. Autonomy was measured using a validated questionnaire before and after the intervention. The results showed the experimental group demonstrated significant increases in autonomy compared to the control group. Paired sample ttests revealed significant differences between pre-test and post-test autonomy for the experimental group across all three postmodern concepts - alternative assessment, process syllabi, and self-directed learning. This suggests postmodernist concepts that decentralize instruction and emphasize student process over outcomes can enhance Iranian EFL learners' self-direction and responsibility for language acquisition. The study implies EFL syllabus designers and instruction should transition to postmodern models centered on individualized assessment, flexible syllabi, and student-guided learning to boost autonomy. Further research can expand sample sizes and explore additional postmodernist concepts across diverse demographics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the work of Immanuel Kant in the light of a new theory on the nature of truth, knowledge and falsehood (the Inversion Theory of Truth). Kant's idea that knowledge could be absolutely certain, and that its truth must correspond with reality, is discredited by a dissection of the Correspondence Theory of Truth. This examination of the nature of truth, as well as knowledge and falsehood, is conducted with reference to Sir Karl Popper's writings on regulative ideas, the criterion of demarcation and the principle of falsifiability. It is argued that if truth is to be regarded as certain, it should be used to describe objects and events in the objective (noumenal) state, and that subjective knowledge must contain (and is improved by) falsehood. Perceptions and knowledge are obtained by the biological and evolutionary process of Active Subjectivism. Ideas we have knowledge of can be metaphysical or scientific, according to Popper's Criterion of Demarcation. Kant's "Copernican revolution" claim that our intellect imposes absolutely true laws on nature could not allow for the possibility that ideas might be constructed from fallible perceptions, and hence that all knowledge is uncertain. Instead, he developed a Critique of Practical Reason in which religion, though not provable through logical reasoning, could be proved by our innate moral sense, giving us a Categorical Imperative that could lead to perverse results. By rejecting the absolute certainty of a priori knowledge, and admitting a degree of essential falsehood, we arrive at a more reasonable grounding for moral behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I return to the familiar territory of the Lord-Bondsman "dialectic" in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit in order to raise the question of the relation of Hegel's use of the theme of recognition there to Fichte's. Fichte had introduced the notion of recognition in his Foundations of Natural Right, to "deduce" the social existence of humans within relations of mutual recognition as a necessary condition of their very self-consciousness. However, there it also functioned as part of a solution to a problem within the work on which the theory of rights was meant to be based, the earlier Foundation of the Complete Wissenschaftslehre of 1794-5. In Hegel's classic account in chapter 4 of the Phenomenology we find recognition offered as a solution to a problem within an account of "self-consciousness" that has a number of clearly Fichtean features. But I suggest that to the degree that the lord-bondsman episode there expresses any "theory of recognition", it is not Hegel's own theory but rather his interpretation of Fichte's, a theory of which he is critical. Freed from this misleading assumption that the "lord-bondsman dialectic" represents something deep about Hegel's own philosophy, we might then be more able to get clearer about Hegel's actual views about recognition and the role it plays in his own philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In modern times many militant atheist thinkers and activists have tried to promote the idea that religions, as well as religious ways of life, are one of the main, if not the main source of evil in the social arena. Some other nonbeliever scholars, while taking a respectful approach towards religions and religious people, maintaining that it is more rational for people and communities to adopt a non-religious outlook on life and become members of the community of non-believers. In this paper, I do not take issue with the militant non-believers. The reason is that their approach to religion is so ideologically driven that it leaves not much room for proper rational discussions; it only invites some polemical replies. My aim here is, instead, to enter into a dialogue with those non-believer scholars who view religion in a measured and rational way. My intention is to critically assess the claims of this latter group of scholars and explain why, contrary to what they suggest, certain interpretations of religion, and in particular, the Islamic faith, can provide them with better alternatives than their atheist outlooks. The arguments of this paper are mostly in reply to the views expressed by Professor Shearmur in his paper on critical rationalism and religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that it is not reasonable for a critical rationalist to be a religious believer in the Abrahamic tradition. The argument is distinctive, in that it takes seriously the critical rationalist view that we should abandon ‘justificationist’ argument. What this means, is that the structure of argument then becomes a matter of offering theories as resolutions of problems, and then judging how they fare in the face of ongoing critical appraisal. The paper surveys issues in several areas, including God and what is good; homosexuality; mysticism; and messianic ideas. It argues that, unless the believer engages in intellectual retreat (something that is unacceptable for the critical rationalist), the problem-situation facing the believer appears to be so daunting that it would be unreasonable for them to hope that they can overcome it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artifacts are ubiquitous and influential in our world, but their nature and existence are controversial. Several theories have been proposed to explain the ontology of artifacts. Drawing on Popper's theory of three worlds, this paper suggests a metaphysics for artifacts along the line of a critical rationalist (CR) approach. This theory distinguishes between three realms of reality: the physical world (World 1), the mental world (World 2), and the world of objective knowledge (World 3). The paper argues that artifacts have different ontological components that correspond to these three realms, and that each component is real and causal. The paper shows how this perspective can account for the intentional and functional aspects of artifacts, as well as their dependence on plans that influence different realms of reality. The paper explains how this pluralistic ontology, compared to the rival theories, enables one to explain the relevant ontological problems of artifacts. The paper also explores how this proposal can lead to a research program encompassing a broader range of technologies, such as social artifacts. In sum, the paper suggests that Popper's three worlds theory provides a rich and comprehensive framework for understanding the metaphysics of artifacts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to consider whether critical rationalism has any ideas which could usefully be applied to the internet. Today we tend to take the internet for granted and it is easy to forget that it was only about two decades ago that it began to be used to any significant extent. Accordingly in section 1 of the paper, there is a brief consideration of the history of the internet. At first sight this makes it looks implausible that any of Popper’s ideas could be applicable to the internet, since Popper died before the internet came into general use. However, section 2 argues that Popper’s theory of World 3 does apply very well to the internet. This application is significant because, as shown in section 3, it leads to the problem of misinformation, which is one of the most significant problems generated by the internet. In section 4 there is an attempt to solve this problem using ideas taken from Popper’s epistemology. It is argued that there should be changes in education designed to prepare students for the internet age. Teaching in the internet age should focus on presenting to the students not just the accepted theories but also the evidence on which they are based. An illustration of how this might be done is given by considering an example from science teaching, namely the teaching of Newtonian mechanics in the last years of school or first years of university. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the liberal society that Popper lauds, that aims to be truly open, and discusses why another, more communitarian kind of society, particularly societies in Africa, may also reflect the quest for intellectual openness that is Popper’s ideal. Moreover, this paper avers reasons why Popper should be comfortable with such a liberal-communitarian mix. The inter-subjectivity in his critical rationalism is a balance of an explicit individualism, and an implicit social element (Afisi, 2016a). Popper is indeed an author of such a balance. For a society to be truly open requires the careful recognition and protection of individual freedom. However, the extent to which individuals are free to perform actions that they desire without external constraints, and the level of their individuality in relation to others when performing such actions, remain a contentious issue between liberals and more communitarian thinkers. Popper’s critical rationalism provides the necessary impetus to this contention through his view of freedom that I contend can best be viewed as carefully balanced, a view which combines individuality with a social element that upholds community values necessary for openness of society. With this combination, Popper’s politics of liberalism provides an effective model of how a truly open society can be achieved. The values inherent to Popper’s liberalism including those concerning intellectual openness, individual freedom, mutual respect, measured selfrespect, welfarism, humanitarianism, accountability, critical debates and feedback from the citizens, together concern the conditions for a society to be truly open. There are many competing thoughts as to what openness might be in Popper’s philosophy. The present study of Popper does not presume to address them all. The focus here is specifically on using Popper’s idea of critical rationalism to balance relations between liberal politics of individual rights and freedom, and communitarian politics of the common good, as it relates to situations about how socio-economic and political conditions in Africa societies should be structured. While I contend that Popper’s works in political philosophy focused centrally on Western political tradition, and not about Africa in its strict sense, significant lessons can be distilled from Popper that can offer suggestions on social reforms in Africa. This paper explores Popper’s project of the open society across the plurality and differences of societies, so that his liberal ideas of individual freedom are not undermined, and the progress of the communitarian idea of the common good, that Africa societies are built upon, is also well enhanced. Liberal individualism and community values inherent to communitarianism are both well accommodated within Popper’s critical rationalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The topic of this paper is the investigation and analysis of the fundamental peace that occurs in the light of the encounter with the "Other" in the imperialist subject. Levinas presents a subject who imposes his desires on the world in order to establish an earthly paradise and is busy devouring others and subduing them to himself. The imperialism subject, who formed his identity with violence and in relation to others, encounters the "Other" who resists his totalitarianism. Levinas' idea to end violence is rooted in subjectivity that cannot be reduced to consciousness and imposes an infinite responsibility on the subject. From the beginning, encountering the face of the "Other" is peaceful. By reminding the subject for peace and solidarity, the face motivates him to fulfill his duty and before any question and choice, he makes the subject personally responsible for peace with the "Other"; a responsibility that has already been placed in it and cannot withdraw from it. The peace considered by Levinas is the fundamental peace, original and beyond conventional war and peace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kant argues that an action is morally worthy only if it is done not from inclination or self-interest but from duty. In the Groundwork, he provides examples to illustrate that the presence of motives aligned with duty undermines the moral value of an action. These viewpoints have sparked significant controversy, particularly in light of the resurgence of virtue-ethics in recent years. Notably, the work of two famous Kantian philosophers, Richard Hanson and Barbara Herman, are especially remarkable as they provide an enlightening interpretation of Kant's perspective and address the raised concerns. While Hanson outlines two innovative models for the conditions of action, he also identifies the relevant phenomenon of overdetermination and states that an action has moral worth when the motive of duty is sufficient by itself to generate the action. Furthermore, Herman complements these models by introducing a third one and arguing that an action maintains its moral value if it necessitates both duty and if its primary motive is the motive of duty, regardless of whether it reflects the agent's desires or not. In this paper, we assess the strength and effectiveness of these models by examining Kant's examples. Consequently, despite shedding light on Kant's intentions, these accounts do not significantly contribute to resolving the existing ambiguities. Critics can express concerns regarding the simplification of the overdetermination, the fallacy of circular and tautology. A thorough examination of Kant's philosophy reveals that fulfilling one's duty and disregarding other motivations are essential for the development of an individual's moral character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A significant issue among philosophical issues is to determine the relationship between ethics and religion. Traditionally it was believed that ethics is based on religion and there could not be any ethical system without religion. With the increasing critics against religion in the modern era the attempts for demonstrating an ethical system independent from religion has been increase as well. The proponents of ethical autonomy put forward considerable critics against ethics based on religion which is difficult to ignore. The aim in this paper is to deal with relationship between ethics and religion. The writer while approving the significant challenge offered against ethics based on religion defend a theory displaying two pillars for ethics. According to this theory epistemic and psychological aspect of ethics is distinguished. The writer will display that the epistemic aspect of ethics is independent from religion while the ontological aspect of ethics is depended on religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific realism has always faced continuous criticisms from scientific anti-realists. Kyle Stanford's "unconceived alternatives" argument can be seen as a late and troublesome version of these challenges. In this paper, we will first briefly mention scientific realism and its supporting arguments, including the "no-miracle" argument and the "slippery slope" argument. Then we will list the main challenges that scientific realism has faced. Arguments such as "pessimistic meta-induction" and "underdetermination of scientific theories" are raised against scientific realism. In the following, we will take a look at Stanford's argument and examine how it creates a challenge for realism by combining historical and philosophical arguments, and we will also describe the realist answers raised to the said challenge. We will also try to explain from Roy Bhaskar's critical realism point of view how the Stratified view of the world and scientific theories, makes it possible to achieve knowledge of reality through scientific activity and also can weaken the basis of Stanford's anti-realist argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mullā Ṣadrā offers two different views regarding the references of the philosophical secondary intelligibles. According to the first view, philosophical secondary intelligibles only have external foundations for abstraction (mansha al-intizāʿ) and no external counterparts (mā bi iza ͗). And according to the second view, also known as Mullā Ṣadrā's final view, these concepts have external counterparts which exist with the very existence of their subjects. This view faces some problems: First, Mullā Ṣadrā's reason for the existence of these concepts' external counterparts begs the question and is therefore invalid. The argument Ṭabāṭabāʾī offers in his commentary on Mullā Ṣadrā's argument is also flawed since it presupposes a point that is more difficult to accept than the conclusion and so would naturally be rejected by the other side. Second, the purported counterpart's mode of existence is not clear. Third, it is not clear by virtue of what difference between quidditative and philosophical concepts the former but not the latter have independent counterparts. The method employed in this paper is library research and rational analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I will argue against certain criticisms of Kripke's Wittgenstein's sceptical argument and sceptical solution, made especially by Baker and Hacker, McGinn, and McDowell. I will show that their interpretation of Kripke's Wittgenstein's view is misplaced. According to Kripke's Wittgenstein's sceptical argument, there is no fact as to what someone means by her words. For Kripke, this conclusion, combined with Classical Realist view of meaning, leads to the Wittgensteinian paradox, according to which there is no such thing as meaning anything by any word. Wittgenstein presents this paradox in paragraph 201 of the Philosophical Investigations. As Kripke reads Wittgenstein, Wittgenstein is in agreement with his sceptic on the sceptical conclusion of the sceptical argument, that is, that there is no fact about meaning, and builds his sceptical solution on an endorsement of that. McDowell, McGinn, and others have objected that Kripke has failed to properly understand Wittgenstein's main remarks in 201, that is, that the paradox is the result of a misunderstanding of the ordinary notion of meaning. Wittgenstein does not accept such a sceptical conclusion. I will use the distinction George Wilson draws between two different conclusions of the sceptical argument and show that Kripke has respected all of the remarks that Wittgenstein has put in section 201. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Ockham's razor, assumptions must not be unnecessarily multiplied. While this principle is widely accepted, its justification is controversial. More precisely, we don't know whether Ockham's razor is truth-conducive. The present paper aims to address this problem within Betz's theory of dialectical structures (2012). First of all, I give a brief explanation of this theory. Here, the essential elements of Betz's theory, which pertains to my discussion, are highlighted. Secondly, I explain why Betz's theory is favored over the Bayesian framework. In the next step, it will be argued that, at least in the minimal complex positions, potential rivals for Ockham's razor don't discharge their functions unless Ockham's razor is considered as a criterion. The fourth step amounts to the evaluation of Ockham's razor and its rivals in the minimal complex positions. It is shown that each rival only represents an increase in the degree of justification of the likelihood of evidence given the hypothesis whereas Ockham's razor increases the degree of justification of the likelihood of evidence given the hypothesis as well as the posterior degree of justification of the respective hypothesis. This justifies to some extent Ockham's. Moreover, while the ratio between prima facie plausibility of two competitive hypotheses in the case of Ockham's razor is greater than those of the potential rivals, the hypothesis with lower prima facie plausibility receives higher posterior degree of justification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most important and most discussed problems of traditional and contemporary metaphysics and philosophy of science is the problem of causality. The problem has generated a lot of controversies and debates from scholars. One clear point amidst these discussions on the causality problem is that the last has neither been written nor heard. It remains an open-ended issue for philosophical consideration. The causation problem itself is not just a problem but a cluster of problems with puzzling questions such as; how do causes bring about their effects? Our concern in this paper is not to examine all the problems that are embedded in the relationship between cause and effect, but to focus on the metaphysical problem of how cause, conceived as a separate event is related or connected to the effect. Several theories have been postulated by Western scholars like Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume, Hempel, Russell, Kant, Mill, among others to explain the kind of causal connection obtainable between causes and effects. Some of these theories of causation are traditional view or common sense view, Humean, and the host of others. It is a fact that some of these theories have failed in proffering a philosophical solution to the traditional causation problem. In an attempt to further reflect on the traditional causation problem, this paper undertakes an exposition of the nature of causality, determinism, freedom and predestination in traditional African thought with the aim of proffering better explanation towards resolving the traditional causation problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an examination of Bochenski's conception of an acceptable methodology for research in philosophy. Generally methodology refers to the building of scientific knowledge, methods are the how for building knowledge. it is the how, why method we have elected to reflect on the method of doing philosophy. This reflection proceeds from a preliminary discourse on the various methods that have been deployed in doing philosophy in the past to a discourse on the lessons from Josef Maria Bochenski's thought. The paper, found out that such methods as the phenomenological method, the analytical method, the dialectical method, the hermeneutical method amongst others have been used in doing philosophy, past and present. We have argued in this paper that while it is true that real progress in philosophy can only be guaranteed by an adequate method that is grounded in logic and semantics, there is no single universally accepted method of doing philosophy. However, the conclusion that is reached in this paper, drawing from a reflection on Bochenski's thought and insights from an intercultural perspective is that, an authentic philosophical method that rest on the phenomenological analysis and proceeds through analysis. Finally, whichever method one elects to use in doing philosophy, it must be guided by logic, and it must be complementary and not confrontational. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Blue Book (pp. 17-18) and in the Philosophical Investigation (§§ 66-67), Wittgenstein offers the idea of 'family resemblances' to explain the relation between some 'things'. This paper first explores two accounts of this idea, one by Renford Bambrough and the other by Ilham Dilman. This reveals that there are at least two different accounts of 'family resemblances'. Secondly, the paper sets out a critical assessment of both accounts so as to suggest that they both fail at what they claim to do. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work takes a critical and cursory look at the term 'education' as well as the challenges of higher education in Nigeria. The paper explicates these issues from Hegel's model of development. It argues that education is imperative for the development of any nation and underscores the relevance of man to his socialcultural milieu. It insists that the current problems or challenges bedeviling higher education in Nigeria is a systemic one, especially given the long, total neglect by the Nigerian political institution. The article concludes that Hegel's view of society as containing intrinsic or inner contradictions; exemplified by the dialectic of history--portrayed by the triadic movement could not be sustained when x-rayed vis-à-vis the enormous problems plaguing higher education in Nigeria. However, the view of the paper is that though the challenges are not insurmountable, determined and pragmatic efforts must be made by all stalk-holders to address the ills bedeviling Nigerian education sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In discussing Hume's view of causality, it has been generally focused on its negative aspects and skeptical results. Whereas, according to naturalistic interpretation, Hume's purpose is to illustrate the nature of human beings and to determine the limits of human understanding. Hume's aim is not to philosophically reject the belief in causally connected, but rather to criticize the sort of philosophical thinking that claim to rationalize them. In this paper, the author intends to provide first the naturalistic explanation of Hume's causality discussion, relying on Kemp Smith's unprecedented interpretation. In explanation kemp smith provided for the functioning of human mind, the origin of the necessary connection idea is an inner feeling that is generalized to reality, and the belief in causality cannot be proved by any argument. The emotional origin of belief in causality, which is not based on reason, is a serious challenge in its acceptance and justification. Therfore the second and main purpose of this article is to examine the mental origin of the necessary connection, then the concept of reason is evaluated from Hume's view to clarify in what sense belief in causality cannot be based on reason. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It seems that in Cartesian thought the possibility of sense experience cannot easily be put forward because of the theoretical foundations of his philosophy. He, in his masterpiece, i.e., Meditations on First Philosophy, from the very beginning tries to erase any sign of sensory world - the main subject-matter of sense experience and its pre-condition - through (ordinary or hyperbolical) doubts. His attack on senses is so giant that until Sixth Meditation they cannot be restored unless through theology by recourse to the non-deceiving God. The restoration upon which there are great differences among scholars. In our paper, we try to show that regarding to the end of Cartesian philosophy as the mastery over nature, to the extent that he explicitly calls his philosophy, "practical" as opposed to the "theoretical" philosophy of Scholastics, we cannot help but accept not only possibility of sense experience but also its necessity. This mastery over nature can only be attained, for human beings, within the realm of sense experience which is the final link among man as the thinking thing and nature as the extended one, through which the Cartesian science is to be established. Now, if sense experiences have remained unexplained in Cartesian thought, Descartes' claim that "our philosophy makes us the lords and masters of the nature" remains unexplained, too. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most of scientists of religion sometimes consider Chantepie de la Saussaye to be the founder of the phenomenology of religion. This study first explains Chantepie's view of the phenomenology of religion, and while analyzing the phenomenology of Chantepie's religion, which lies between the philosophy of religion and the history of religion, believes that the critique of the phenomenology of Chantepie's religion in general is self-critical. The most important critique of Chantepie's phenomenology of religion is that it did not deal with the essence of phenomena and the nature of religion. His phenomenology is the classification of phenomena with a non-historical perspective. By reflecting on Chantepie's ideas, this article proves that Chantepie pays attention to the special nature of religion. Contrary to the criticisms leveled at him that his phenomenology is merely descriptive, Chantepie has in fact studied two basic aspects of religion, namely its essence and manifestations. This paper explores and then evaluates this critique, and finally distinguishes that critics measure Chantepie's phenomenology of religion in terms of Husserl's philosophical phenomenology; while Chantepie, by emphasizing ritual phenomena, seeks to understand the nature of religion and the sacred as the essence of religions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of imagination has always had a significant role in the study of art and aesthetics. And imagination plays a central role in Ricoeur's philosophical system; a subject that has received less attention. It was Ricoeur's goal to bring the productive aspect of imagination back to the main text of philosophy, by presenting a critical reading of the history of philosophy. By using Emanuel Kant's imagination analysis, Ricoeur revived the various dimensions of imagination in the field of perception, to achieve a comprehensive theory of productive imagination. This paper attempts to address the importance of painting as a work of art and its relevance to reality, by studying the path taken by Ricoeur to present a theory of productive imagination. In this regard, explaining the role of Iconic Augmentation, which is one of the latent characteristics of the productive aspect of imagination, better defines the action present in the image and the dialectical position of language and image. Ultimately, painting, as a fictional work that its idea's reference is not merely a representation, becomes more real as its imaginativeness increases. The result is a new approach to describe the nature of painting as a work of art. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animal suffering and the problem of evil have recently received much attention as a challenge to theism, Keltz seeks to answer this problem with a Neo-Thomistic perspective. This paper examines and evaluates Keltz's defense. In explaining Keltz's view, it is important to note that he, like Aquinas, does not consider unpleasant emotions such as pain, sadness, fear, and despair as evil, but considers them as good physiological processes that are beneficial for animals. likewise, by examining rationality and signs of self-awareness such as metacognition, episodic memory, and theory of mind through scientific researches, Keltz seeks to show that rationality and animal self-awareness is questionable and since cognitive abilities have a direct relationship with the perception of pain and suffering, therefore, the perception of pain and suffering in animals is also a source of doubt. According to Keltz, animals have only the estimative power that causes them to resemble empirical induction. Even if some animal species have self-awareness, the resurrection of the dead and eternal life can be conceivable for them. Objectors might also emphasize the seemingly pointless nature of conditions like chronic pain syndrome in animals. Keltz responds to them based on God's purpose for the universe, the limitations of the universe, and the moral message that such pains bring about. In the following, Keltz's views are evaluated, and argued that episodic memory and the ability of simple conceptualization in some species have been proven in some experiments. Therefore, his approach toward denying animal pain and suffering will not achieve much success, it seems by relying on other parts of his theodicy, such as God's purpose for creating the world, the benefits of pain and suffering for earthly creatures, the resurrection of the dead and divine compensation, Keltz will achieve more success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alfred North Whitehead believes that in all philosophical systems there is an ultimate which is their foundation. In his philosophy of organism which becoming and process have primacy, "this ultimate is termed creativity". But when we search for this subject in his works, we see in spite of its important, he did not explain his intention clearly and in detail. By considering importance of this subject, present paper tries to first, describe and analyze creativity as an ultimate and clarify its characteristics. Second, criticize pluralistic and monistic interpretations of creativity and it was provided another interpretation which based on unity in plurality. Third, to consider relation between God and creativity in Whitehead's works, especially in Process and reality, to show that Whitehead's reading of God in framework of his Philosophy demands that although Creativity is distinct from God, they are interconnected. Fourth, it was revealed some implications and consequents of distinction between God and creativity and then on the basis of distinction between cosmological Creativity and ontological creativity was shown that Whiteheadian creativity is mainly cosmological which can only work as explanation of becoming and process of nature not of ontological origin of actual entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, theories of the philosophy of mind, are divided into illusionist and non-illusionist. In relation to the Mind Problem (MP), Illusionism of Soul (IS) considers soul and all of the unphysical-mental events (like immaterial personal identity, non-physical consciousness and freewill, nonmetaphysical morality, etc.) as an illusion and believes that science will completely explain them in the future. The authors have seen IS in neurophilosophy and Daniel Dennett's Center of Narrative Gravity (CNG). This essay is devoted to explaining IS and the two views on MP, and finally to comparatively comparing them. In this library research paper, we found that the two theories are common in physicalist-evolutionist basics that cause to consider mental events as an illusion and reject dualism; and they are different in eliminativism. we conclude that the mind-brain identity, which is the most important basic of illusionism, has many consequences; for example, the transformation of man into a machine, the unification of man with other animals, and certain ideas about a philosophical zombie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In ten of his works, Al-Fārābī discusses ousia/substance and its derivatives. Among these works, we frequently encounter quotations from Aristotle and Al-Fārābī's interpretation of them. He accepts the established meaning of ousia as substance and doesn't argue against its translation to maujūd, Eyn, maahiy[y]at and ẕāt. This article tries to show the similarities and differences between Al-Fārābī and Aristotle conceptions of substance and then to bridge between the two innovative theories of Al-Fārābī: one in his division of existence and another regarding his view on reality. In discussing the concept of substance, Farabi seeks to create a unity between Plato and Aristotle's views. In another way, this claim can be expressed that Farabi aims to create a unity between the book of metaphysics and Aristotle's treatise on categories. In this direction, his innovative theory of substance is born. Also, this paper shows some inconsistencies existing in his discussion, which makes his philosophical language even more ambiguous than Aristotle's in Metaphysics and subject to various interpretations. Finally, the relation between the concept of substance and the concepts of shai and tashakhkhos is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his theory of knowledge, Kant presents an exclusive method for obtaining science by applying categories to the data of sensory intuition. "A priori synthetic propositions" are those the only the product of the application of categories to the data of sensory intuition, Propositions that are Kant's exclusive criterion in diagnosing science. Kant claims that only the sciences that have a priori synthetic propositions, which necessarily have sensory intuition data are science, and propositions that do not have sensual intuition data are nothing more than fake science. With the same reasoning, he pushed metaphysics out of science. Accordingly, the attempt of this paper is to measure Kant's theory of knowledge with his own criterion of knowledge. We want to know whether it has a priori synthetic propositions or not. To be more precise, do the propositions through which Kant explained his theory of knowledge, contain sensory intuition data or not? If they have these data, they are science, otherwise, they are not. The investigations carried out in this article, which focuses on Kant's important and key propositions in transcendental aesthetic and Transcendental analytic, show that these propositions, which define and explain the basis of Kant's theory of knowledge, lack sensory intuition data and are not science. Eventually, Kant's "theory of knowledge" is not able to obtain the accreditation it wants and according to Kant's own theory of knowledge, it is not a valid science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to demonstrate, through a hypothetical dialogue between Hannah Arendt and Emmanuel Levinas, that the essence of politics must be sought beyond "real politics" and its agent, namely, the state. For this reason, politics requires a fundamental, radical and serious rethinking. This rethinking, however, must be carried out by first deconstructing politics to prepare it for emerging new possibilities; second deconstructing Ethics and extending it from the individual level to the level of "I in the We"; third reinterpreting the relationship between politics and ethics, which are already in the process of constructive judgment and are ready for a relationship that has no master or servant. As a result of such simultaneous reflections, the foundations of what this article views as Ethical politics could probably be clarified in general terms. This essay thus raises three long-standing questions: What is politics? What is ethics? What is ethical politics? The response to the first question is founded on Arendt's views. This paper draws attention to concepts such as plurality instead of unity, public realm instead of private realm, and peace instead of war. Relying on Levinas's philosophy of ethics, the second question is answered by emphasizing the primacy of understanding over cognition, the other over self, and the person over the land. Last but not least, the third question is addressed by establishing a link connection between the mentioned thinkers' views and their shared ideas such as responsibility for the other, the primacy of the interest of humans over national interests and a new concept of state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to examine and criticize recent approaches suggested by some virtue reliabilists. To this end, section 2 provides a sketch of Sosa's triple account of knowledge, on which knowledge is described as a cognitive achievement and an apt belief. Borrowing some lines from Lackey and Pritchard's criticisms, I try to show that Sosa's account is vulnerable to two distinct problems in section 3: the problem of cases of knowledge which are not cognitive achievements, and the problem of non-classic Gettier cases. Section 4 discusses four recent approaches pursued by some prominent virtue epistemologists, seeking to show how each of them responds to the above distinct problems. These four approaches are as follows: Pritchard's anti-luck virtue epistemology, Sosa and Turri's dispositional account, Greco and Littlejohn's safety-based account of ability, and knowledge-first virtue epistemology from Miracchi and kelp. In addition to addressing standard complaints to each of these accounts, I put forward new arguments against some of them, making clear that all of these approaches face severe difficulties in explaining knowledge and justification. Finally, in section 5, I sketch an alternative version of virtue epistemology which I call know-howfirst virtue epistemology. Inspired by know-how-first anti-intellectualism, I put forward an argument in favor of know-how-first virtue epistemology, trying to provide good answers to the mentioned challenges which every virtue reliabilism should face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, Functionalism has become a standard approach towards philosophy of mind and cognitive science, Functionalism is inspired by computer science and against prior theories about mind. Functionalism takes mind as a processor and body as a provider of raw data for this processor. Mind with the help of mental algorithms translates perceptional data to symbolic representations as concepts of objects and events. According to some philosophers, this leads to problems like the problem of meaning. In this paper, with an analytical approach, Embodiment is proposed as a solution to these problems. According to Embodied Mind, regarding the body as a mere machine is the root of all problems in Functionalism. Embodied mind is consisting of three pars: 1. Perception-Motor system which presents meaningful perception of objects and events to the mind. 2. Conceptualization system which unites information provided by perceptionmotor system. 3. Metaphors, processes in mind, which enable us to think and talk about everyday and mathematical concepts and meta-language. These are processes, mainly unconscious, in mind for understanding concepts. Embodied Mind rejects the idea of body as mere machine and mind as a brain processes. It also rejects symbolic representations as concepts. Concepts are simulators of objects and events, rooting in interaction between body and the world. Human as an Embodied Being exist in the world and interact with it and this is what makes sense of concepts in mind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There could be various comparative studies between Kant and Kierkegaard on fields like human knowledge, ethics, faith, art, etc. This paper aims to compare the two philosopher's epistemology through their writings. The main common ground of Kant's and Kierkegaard's epistemology is their belief in the idea of a "fissure" between theory and practice, which constitutes the core of their contemplations on human knowledge. This article shows that Kant's theory of knowledge paved the way for Kierkegaard to describe his notions of the "fissure" between being and thought. Thus, it will be shown that Kant and Kierkegaard have been led to believe in the finitude of human beings in knowledge by this split. Then, it will be demonstrated that Kierkegaard, following Kant, distinguishes "being" from "essence" and "actuality" from "ideality". Finally, we argue that Kant's critique of the traditional proofs of God's existence anticipates Kierkegaard's conflict with natural theology and his idea that traditional demonstrations are useless for a believer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite Wittgenstein's philosophical activities in Britain and his strong inclination towards analytic philosophy, there are also non-analytic elements in his thought which are rooted in classical German thought, especially in Kant's critical philosophy. We can, therefore, detect Kantian elements in Wittgenstein's thought. Concerning the main aim of this research, i.e., to show the Kantian veins of Wittgenstein's thought, the following elements can be enumerated: critique of Metaphysics, delimitation of expression of thought, transcendentality of logic and ethics, problem of Metaphysics and science, refutation of private language. Given the evolution of Wittgenstein's though, this paper aims to show that, first, these similarities and parallels can be drawn not only from the Tractatus but also from the Philosophical Investigations. Second, there are fundamental differences between Wittgenstein's commentators, for instance, P.M.S Hacker argues against the transcendental reading of both the Tractatus and the Philosophical Investigations, and claims that the two philosophers do not share the same concept of the term transcendental. Finally, the question arises as to whether these Kantian veins can be considered as a proof of the unity of Wittgenstein's thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Martin Heidegger, the work of art reveals the truth. But this is not in every work of art, but only in a real art! But which work has the possibility of accepting the title of a real art? Heidegger himself has mentioned some of these works. But how can a criterion be extracted from The Origin of the Work of Art? A criterion that can assess whether the work has the ability to approach what Heidegger calls a work of art? Can this criterion be applied to artistic mediums, other than what Heidegger himself discussed? Medium like cinema? In this research, we have tried to provide a criterion for evaluating the film; The terms of this criterion are: non-representation, nonabstraction from everydayness and non-belonging. In the continuation of the research, just to reveal the proposed criterion, the movie The Wind Will Carry Us directed by Abbas Kiarostami was discussed and the criterion terms were evaluated for that movie. This film satisfies the terms of criterion. Based on this, it can be said that based on Heidegger's thought, a criterion can be obtained regarding artistic medium such as cinema. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The influential physicist Richard Feynman became interested in the relationship between religion and science during a mid-career phase. He proposed that their interface was embroiled in unresolvable difficulties. He felt that science demanded an attitude of uncertainty for its claims, while religion contrarily required certain belief in its core doctrines. Though possessing several non-contradictory dimensions, Feynman felt that the nature of the truth claims of science and religion suffered from insurmountable elemental conflicts. This was by contrast to Karl Popper, the leading critical rationalist of the 20 century, who argued that there could be no tension between science and religion. This paper will argue that the ‘Feynman Problem’ is not as insoluble as it appears. Rather, several solutions exist within critical rationalism. Two will be presented-the first revolves around the conjectural basis of knowledge and is already a well characterised critical rationalist notion. The second is a novel solution based on the separate categorisation of psychological, pragmatic, and epistemological attitudes to religion and science. Karl Popper’s view of religion-science dissimilarity was a minimalist point of departure for critical rationalists, who have developed increasingly sophisticated frameworks for investigating the relationship between faith and reason. Critical rationalism represents an equally inspirational methodology for the pursuit of scientific and religious truth. Though both Feynman and Popper’s views on religion were underdeveloped, they foreshadowed the religion-science frameworks advocated by many late 20th century scientists, especially in the form of New Atheism and Gould’s NOMA theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern (theoretical) physics seems to be in deep crisis today as many of its core aspects are not empirically well-confirmed. Heated exchanges among physicists on the scientific status of physical theories with little or, at best, a tenuous connection to possible experimental tests is highly visible in the popular scientific literature. Some physicists (e.g., Carroll 2014, 2019; Ijjas et al., 2017) argue that science must discard empirical testability as one of its defining properties and the highly explanatory theories of present-day physics should be exempted from experimental testing, while others (e.g., Ellis & Silk 2014) spot in these arguments (for softening the testability or falsifiability requirement for modern physics) a dangerous tendency to undermine science. The philosopher of science who naturally draws most attention in these current debates is Karl Popper (1902-1994). His views, however, are often misrepresented in these debates. The prime objective of this paper is to explain how a more enlightened perspective on the ongoing debates can be obtained by a careful scrutiny of the Popperian criterion of falsifiability. As a first step in achieving this objective we will analyze the two major (conceptual) failures on which the current controversies rest. Our next step will be examining the controversial string theory to see whether the criteria of falsifiability is a ‘blunt instrument’ for determining its scientific status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The doctrine that the content of the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is included in the content of its premises, taken jointly, is a familiar one. It has important consequences for the question of what value valid arguments possess, since it indicates the poverty of three traditional answers: that arguments may and should be used as instruments of persuasion, that they may and should be used as instruments of justification; and that they may and should be used to advance knowledge. The truth is, however, that in each of these cases the argument has only a managerial role and, if there is any work done, it is the premises that do it. It will be maintained that this point has little force against the critical rationalist answer, which I shall defend, that the principal purpose of deductive reasoning from an assemblage of premises is the exploration of their content, facilitating their criticism and rejection. That said, the main aim of the present paper is not to promote critical rationalism but to consider some published objections to the doctrine that a statement asserts every statement that is validly deducible from it. The alleged counterexamples to be considered fall roughly into two groups: statements that emerge with time from a rich mathematical or empirical theory, but were originally unformulated and are deducible from the theory only in a non-trivial way (Frederick 2011, 2014; Williamson 2012); and statements, notably disjunctions, that are easily formulated and are deducible from a theory in a trivial way (Schurz & Weingartner 1987; Mura 1990, 2008; Gemes 1994; Yablo 2014). Each of these counterexamples will be evaluated and dismissed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the emergence of modernity, and in response to its myriad aspects and potentials, which are constantly unfolding, countless reactions have kept emerging in almost all quarters of the globe. A large variety of anti-modern reactions, the common core of which is perhaps the idea that modernity, in one way or another, is illegitimate, stand out among these responses. According to some of these anti-modern responses, modernity has usurped the characteristics and features of religion, which has been the soul as well as the main shaping force of the pre-modern era and has reproduced it in a corrupted form. Two German-speaking philosophers, Karl Popper and Hans Blumenberg, are among the intellectuals who have defended modernity against the onslaught of anti-modern tendencies. In this paper, I briefly, though critically, compare and contrast the approaches as well as some of the arguments of these two thinkers in defence of modernity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I address the issue of the possible applicability of the ideas of Karl R. Popper’s social and political philosophy in contemporary postcolonial countries. Referring to the reception of Popper’s philosophy in Central and Eastern Europe, I argue that Popper’s writings were effective in catalysing the political wholesale transformation by undermining Marxists’ pretensions to scientific status rather than through his anti-utopian and antirevolutionary political recommendations. In the context of attempts to apply Popper’s ideas in postcolonial countries, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, I claim that the influence of Popper’s social thought on the politics of those countries may not be as effective as expected or desired. A consideration of the above issue throws new light on the controversy between conservative and progressive interpretations of Popper’s political and social thought. Without denying serious limitations to the applicability of Popper’s political philosophy as a guide in coping with the problems of postcolonial countries of the Global South, I argue that a conservative reading of Popper’s political ideas, which focuses only on his concept of piecemeal engineering as an instrument of social change, underestimates the transformative potential of his ideas and is contradicted by their inspirational role in the transformation of Central and Eastern Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After offering an overview of some of the main themes of Popper’s political thought, the paper argues that his account faces two problems relating to institutions. The first is that while Popper stresses the ‘rational unity of mankind’, and the potential for any of us to furnish criticisms of public policy, it is not clear what institutional means currently exist for this to enable this to take place. Second, Popper has stressed the conjectural character of even our best theories. However, at any point, some theories will have fared better in the face of criticism than others, and they may give us important information about constraints on our actions. At the same time, as ordinary citizens we may not be in a good position to understand the theories in question, let alone appraise the state of the specialised discussion of them. There is, it is suggested, a case for thinking of ways to institutionally entrench such fallible theories, especially in the current setting in which social media play an important role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper offers a distinctive reading of Popper’s work, suggesting that his Logic of Scientific Discovery (LScD) might be re-interpreted in the light of his Open Society. Indeed, Popper can be interpreted as criticising certain aspects of his first book, and as a result improving upon them, in his second. It suggests translating what Popper says about ‘conventions’ into his later vocabulary of ‘social institutions’. Looking back, I believe that Popper never intended the language of conventions and decisions to be read individualistically. I remain unsure whether Popper was himself quite as clear about this as he could have been. My reading makes Popper a pioneer in the sociology of science. Scientific institutions are arenas of political power; but Popper did not discuss the structure and inter-relations of the social institutions of science, or offer a politics of science in the context of his methodology. What is missing from the skeletal sociology of LScD is the politics. We could put it in Popperian terms this way: scientific institutions are both open and closed. They are closed, firmly, to the inexpert, to the nonmembers; supposedly they are open to the qualified, provided the prerogatives of seniority and leadership are acknowledged. Despite these shortcomings, Popper’s critical and rational approach and his insistence on openness and intellectual honesty are still important today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reception of Popper in Japan has not been a glorious history up to the present day. There have been numerous misunderstandings and distortions. It is important to record and discuss them in order to learn from them and to make use of his ideas in the Japanese intellectual climate. This is the purpose of the present paper. From the perspective of the reception history, we searched the reasons why Popper has been misunderstood in Japan (especially in four areas: philosophy, economics, history, and political philosophy), and tried to identify some of the factors responsible for this misunderstanding. To this end, we applied the method of “situational analysis” to the Japanese peculiar intellectual situation after the so-called après guerres, rather than by using a chronological order. If the causes of misunderstandings and distortions in Japan can be clarified by means of a situational analysis, we can learn a great deal from this history and can use this knowledge to throw new light on the status of critical rationalism in Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]