Search

The thus far little noticed element in Aristotle's definition of the soul – namely, its nexus to the particularities of a complex physical body (σῶμα φυσικόν / sôma physikon) – is the key to resolve three apparent inconsistencies of Aristotelian hylomorphism: First, the incompatible modalities of the assumed binding relation between physical body as a simultaneously functional matter and the soul as its form; second, the homonymy problem, i.e., that, according to Aristotle's own statement, a body's remnant that was abandoned by its soul can only homonymously be called that which it was when it was alive; third, the problem that form in hylomorphism seems to be nothing but a configuration of material parts, which, though conceptualised in abstraction and independent from matter, would nevertheless add nothing new to the material composition in which it is instantiated. If that were so, how, then, can a hylomorphic theory conceive of form as ontologically separate from matter? Without a comprehensive and comprehensible resolution of those three major aporias – that is in line with today's scientific conception of the world – Aristotle's definition of the soul as form-without-matter would, in Ackrill's words, 'resist interpretation'. This paper shows that such a resolution can in fact be achieved and that Aristotle's hylomorphism allows for a plausible and consistent interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The planned experiments at FAIR enable the study of medium modifications of D and B mesons in (dense) nuclear matter. Evaluating QCD sum rules as a theoretical prerequisite for such investigations encounters heavy-light four-quark condensates. We utilize an extended heavy-quark expansion to cope with the condensation of heavy quarks.

The concept of human freedom developed by Schelling in the Freiheitsschrift (1809) prompted him to explore a new concept of time in his Weltalter project. Schelling proposes the 'generic subjectivity of time': Time must be understood not as a precondition of dynamism, but rather as an effect of dynamic agency. The articulation of time into its moments, 'presence', 'past', and 'future', is realized through the dynamic contributions (motion, causality, and action) of every single causally involved being. Schelling's concept thus fundamentally differs from Kant's concept of time. For Kant, change and dynamism are located in the sensible world, whereas time (as well as space) is the subjective form of our sensible intuition. As such, time must be seen as a precondition of change and dynamism for Kant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuroscience is a multidisciplinary effort to understand the structures and functions of the brain and brain-mind relations. This effort results in an increasing amount of data, generated by sophisticated technologies. However, these data enhance our descriptive knowledge, rather than improve our understanding of brain functions. This is caused by methodological gaps both within and between subdisciplines constituting neuroscience, and the atomistic approach that limits the study of macroand mesoscopic issues. Whole-brain measurement technologies do not resolve these issues, but rather aggravate them by the complexity problem. The present article is devoted to methodological and epistemic problems that obstruct the development of human neuroscience. We neither discuss ontological questions (e.g., the nature of the mind) nor review data, except when it is necessary to demonstrate a methodological issue. As regards intradisciplinary methodological problems, we concentrate on those within neurobiology (e.g., the gap between electrical and chemical approaches to neurophysiological processes) and psychology (missing theoretical concepts). As regards interdisciplinary problems, we suggest that core disciplines of neuroscience can be integrated using systemic concepts that also entail human-environment relations.We emphasize the necessity of a meta-discussion that should entail a closer cooperation with philosophy as a discipline of systematic reflection. The atomistic reduction should be complemented by the explicit consideration of the embodiedness of the brain and the embeddedness of humans. The discussion is aimed at the development of an explicit methodology of integrative human neuroscience, which will not only link different fields and levels, but also help in understanding clinical phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Schelling's Presentation of the Natural Process (1843/44), which traces back to a Berlin lecture manuscript, constitutes the only example of an elaborated natural philosophy of Schelling's latest creative period. Thereby, certain ontological main features of subject-independently existing things and beings, such as the feature of being based on an ontology of spatially existing bodies, and being descended from an evolving overall context of causally connected processes, are speculatively derived from the initial idea of existence that is to be presupposed to all sciences. For, according to that, bodies are to be conceived of as ontologically fundamental, Schelling needs to critically incorporate Kant's transcendental argumentation for space as a merely subjective form of intuition that does not permit any inference to the nature of things-in-themselves, and to invalidate it at the same time, in order to transform it into a novel theory of space, according to which space and spatiality of the therein occurring objects need to be considered as real conditions of actually existing beings that are a priori and even prior to the subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is only through hearsay, ramified and lasting over thousands of years, that we have knowledge of God, neither through a clue of reason nor through a form of intuition or feeling. Therefore, separateness from the finite subject belongs to the one who or which is called God. Especially because of that, the question whether God exists is the paradigm of a truth that is not verified by coherence of opinions but only by actual correspondence. This, from the beginning, connects philosophy, insofar as it is concerned with the guiding star of truth, with the question of God. Particularly, there are three rational guidelines that have always drawn the philosophical attention to the question of God: (1) the comparision and putting into contrast of the mortal with the immortal; (2) the attempt to sufficiently reason what is in need of reason; (3) God as a kind of speculative subjunctive of philosophical reflection. With regard to all these three guidelines, both positive examples from the history of philosophy and possible sceptical reserves shall be exercised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his Freiheitsschrift, Schelling discusses some of the main arguments of the Leibnizian conception of theodicy. These are considered even today as an argumentative summit of rational elucidation of the existence of evil in a world which supposedly could be only created by a God with good intentions. However, Schelling criticizes Leibniz legitimately on three points and develops a revised solution that is based on the idea of a God that freely co-acts within human history: (1) Schelling demands against Leibniz that evil, should it exist at all, be a positive reality and not an expression of mere defect. This turns the possibility of evil into one of the defining characteristics of the highest good that a creation might bring into being: human freedom. (2) In order to be complete, the concept of possibility in general requires not only the absence of contradiction in its content, but also that this content be compatible with some already existent bearer which at least in principle would be capable of its realization. But God as creator of every being except of himself is necessarily incompatible with ‘evil possibility’. So it is impossible that some evil in whatever possible world would be real by a divine election. Therefore, in any case of a creation of some world, the created human being must first exist in freedom before the possible world that includes him can be determined regarding the realization of evil possibilities or, in contrast, of those that avoid evil. (3) As a consequence, Schelling rejects Leibniz's idea of a divine choice between many possible worlds as justification of God's freedom and election of the best one which would unavoidably include, as a conditio sine qua non, the realization of some evil. Instead, there is with respect to his own moral excellence only one possible and at the same time wholly perfect world open to God's creativity: the “system of freedom”. Conscious of his own goodness and omnipotence, God creates this single possible world out of freedom if and only if he recognizes himself as willing and able to turn around, by his own co-action in history, all foreseen consequences of a free human choice of evil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three conditions for human freedom are to be distinguished: (1) The reality of the activity of living individuals, (2) the causal relevance of mental states and (3) an irreducibly subjective aspect in living things. These conditions provide a way of describing the relation between body and soul, such that the conditions are fulfilled: firstly, the reality of activity implicitly assumes the substantial identity of body and soul in every active individual that exists as a body. Secondly, there are however fundamental formal differences between the mental and physical states of such bodies, so that a duality of the states possessed by a living individual has to be recognised along with the substantial identity of its body and soul. Hence the causal relevance of mental states for the occurrence of certain actions may act as the peculiar mark of freedom. Finally, the distinction between the objectively recognised existence of states and the subjective possession of them is the reason that certain actions cannot be deduced from objective knowledge of reality, however complete the latter may be. This argument shows that actions cannot be seen as the logical consequence of preceding states of the world, even if the actions in question were causally completely determined. Such a view of actions is, however, the standard justification that freedom is incompatible with determinism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]