Search

Machine metaphors abound in life sciences: animals as automata, mitochondria as engines, brains as computers. Philosophers have criticized machine metaphors for implying that life functions mechanically, misleading research. This approach misses a crucial point in applying machine metaphors to biological phenomena: their reciprocity. Analogical modeling of machines and biological entities is not a one-way street where our understanding of biology must obey a mechanical conception of machines. While our understanding of biological phenomena undoubtedly has been shaped by machine metaphors, the resulting insights have likewise altered our understanding of what machines are and what they can do. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article articulates and defends an "interdisciplinary" approach to Confucian political theory and presents Confucianism as a living, dynamic entity rather than merely a reservoir of ideas contained within a set of texts. It argues for a methodology that transcends traditional textual analysis, advocating for an intersectional approach that melds normative, emancipatory, and practical dimensions. This approach seeks to capture the evolving essence of Confucianism as influenced by cultural, institutional, and individual interactions. It also promotes a "distant reading" to examine not only texts and historical debates but also institutional changes, power dynamics, and guiding principles within Confucianized societies. The study highlights the need to recognize how Confucian ideals are manifested in real history and politics and emphasizes the importance of studying the social embodiment of the political ideas in comparative political theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Challenge from Cognitive Diversity (CCD) states that demography-specific intuitions are unsuited to play evidential roles in philosophy. The CCD attracted much attention in recent years, in great part due to the launch of an international research effort to test for demographic variation in philosophical intuitions. In the wake of these international studies the CCD may prove revolutionary. For, if these studies uncover demographic differences in intuitions, then in line with the CCD there would be a good reason to challenge philosophical views that rely on those intuitions for evidential support. I argue that philosophical views that rely on demography-specific intuitions for evidential support need not be threatened by such findings. I first provide a detailed analysis of the epistemological principles driving the CCD and distinguish three formulations of this challenge. I then show that there are good reasons to reject all such formulations of the CCD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This commentary on Philip Kitcher's book What's the Use of Philosophy? addresses two questions. First, must philosophers be methodologically self-conscious to do good work? Second, is there value in the questions pursued in the traditional areas of analytic philosophy? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Jennifer Nado has recently argued that conceptual engineers should focus on (re-)designing representations and may safely ignore issues of implementation. I make a general case for the methodological importance of implementation to conceptual engineering. Using the Social Norms Account as a foil, I argue for three claims. (1) Inquiring into methods of implementation is a theoretically challenging and philosophically worthwhile project in and of itself. (2) A sound theoretical understanding of implementation is imperative for theorists of conceptual engineering. It proves vital for their assessment of the prospects for engineering interventions and the political risks inherent in them. (3) A sound theoretical understanding of implementation is imperative for practitioners of conceptual engineering. The usefulness of their representational (re-)designs depends on respecting broadly cognitive and social constraints on the part of the target population. I conclude that conceptual engineers have very good reasons to seriously engage with issues of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent authors hold that the role of historical scholarship within contemporary philosophical practice is to question current assumptions, to expose vestiges or to calibrate intuitions. On these views, historical scholarship is dispensable, since these roles can be achieved by nonhistorical methods. And the value of historical scholarship is contingent, since the need for the role depends on the presence of questionable assumptions, vestiges or comparable intuitions. In this paper I draw an analogy between scientific and philosophical practice, in order to float one role for historical scholarship that is nonreplicable and noncontingent. It has long been acknowledged that cognitive values – features of theories that facilitate understanding, such as ontological parsimony, ideological simplicity, computational ease and fecundity – play a key role within science. The role of some of these values within philosophy also has received attention but left understudied are the values of novelty and conservativeness. These values influence theory choice, the selection of methodology, the setting of research agenda, and the presentation of results; and are best assessed with a historically informed evaluation. This role for historical scholarship is not replicable by nonhistorical methods, and is not contingent on the presence of questionable assumptions, vestiges or comparable intuitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction. At present, the artificial intelligence (AI) technologies develop rapidly, and spread widely in diverse spheres of human activity. One of the spheres where AI is actively involved, is art in all the variety of its manifestations. The AI usage in art spawns not only new creative and technological opportunities, but also new social and cultural challenges, that require timely reflection from the point of view of social philosophy. The article aims to identify the foundations of the aforementioned reflection for the studies of AI in musical art.Methodology and sources. The article uses general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, methodology of interdisciplinary approach, and philosophical methodology in the domain of research of social practices, that define the usage of AI in musical art. Foreign (A.-M. Gioti, N. Hageback, D. Hedblom et al.) and domestic (M.C. Burtsev, R.I. Mamina,E.V. Piraynen, A.V. Popova et al.) scientific research literature, and electronic resources dedicated to the AI and to the AI in musical art in particular, are used as sources.Results and discussion. The author has considered the theoretical foundations of studies of AI at the present stage of its development. Philosophical foundations of research of AI in art were analyzed. The peculiarities of using the AI in musical art were discussed. Strategies for studying the specificity of using the AI in musical art were matched to the foundations of research of the AI in the domain of social philosophy.Conclusion. When studying the usage of the AI in arts, the research strategies can be rooted in several key foundations in the domain of social philosophy. The relative importance of the aforementioned foundations can vary depending on details of specific theme. In case of musical art, at least three of these foundations can be identified. More specifically, they are defined by choosing a point of view on the social subjectness of AI, on the capability of AI to create objects of culture, on the importance of social and cultural context for the evaluation of perspectives and limits of AI usage scenarios. Criteria for the decision between the aforementioned strategies include answers to the following questions. Firstly, the question about the nature of motivation that guides subjects of creative activity. Secondly, the question about the paradigm in the domain of social philosophy that constitutes the basis of the research. Finally, the question about the worldview and values of social groups that are in the focus of research attention.

In modern science, research aimed at studying the functioning of the human brain under the influence of various factors of the social and natural environment, including religious practices, both personal and social, is relevant. The purpose of the research is to consider the current state of neurotheology as a new field of knowledge and to analyze the possibilities of its interaction with already existing social and humanitarian disciplines; review, analytical and critical publications of Russian and foreign scientists are used as material for the study. Attention is drawn to the philosophical and methodological problems that neurotheology needs to be resolved in order to determine its place in the modern cognitive space as its organic component. First of all, according to the authors of the article, representatives of this science need to enrich the formed empirical basis with theoretical generalizations, for which it is necessary to implement the principle of interdisciplinarity declared by them and involve specialists from various fields of humanities in the common work. In the hypotheses put forward by neurotheologists, the question of the ontological existence of objects of religious experience is recognized as epistemologically insoluble, however, when constructing a philosophical and worldview concept, it is impossible to limit oneself to such statements; It is noted that the idea developed in neurotheology about the genetic translation of the qualities of the “brain/consciousness” in the process of “cognitive evolution” of mankind returns us to the social deterministic and mechanistic views overcome by modern science. The hope is expressed that neurotheology, having overcome the emerging philosophical and methodological difficulties, will play an important role in the development of Russian science.

Philosophers ponder on how to do philosophy and how to do it well. This pondering has divided metaphilosophers' concern about philosophical methodology into two groups, which we could label "pro‐history" and "pro‐intuition." The claim (and belief) of philosophers who are in the "pro‐history" group can be found in this sentence by Robert Pasnau (2011): "The discipline of philosophy benefits from a serious, sustained engagement with its history." Those in the "pro‐intuition" group believe that for philosophy not to slide into the realm of irrelevance it must rely on intuitions to make sense of our present ontologies, rather than study history of philosophy. This paper argues that both proponents of the pro‐history and those of the pro‐intuition approach are wrongheaded. It argues for what it calls protohistory. Protohistory here refers to the method of doing philosophy in which the intuitions of philosophers are informed by the history of philosophy (though not directly influenced by it but indirectly informed by it). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Specialization and turning away from macro systematizations in philosophy can be commonly seen as relatively common practices of analytic philosophers. However, the contemporary philosopher Nicholas Rescher, as one of the exceptions to this tradition, is not only alien to this pattern but even considers it a methodological flaw. This article deals with the philosophical foundations of this point of view, the philosophical methodology derived from it, and its strategic methods by researching Rescher’s works. Relying on his epistemological foundations (especially coherentism), Rescher believes that we should solve philosophical problems with a holistic approach and by considering the entire field of philosophy. Although Rescher’s type of systemization is safe from some criticisms due to not neglecting the details of the system components, it still needs to be corrected or completed from a methodological perspective. One of the most important gaps in this point of view is the lack of a regulated model in managing the balance between comprehensiveness and specialization, as well as in determining the boundaries of maximality of the system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Kate Manne claims that her account of gaslighting rectifies regrettable deficiencies in existing theories. However, Manne hasn't done enough to demonstrate the novelty of her view given that she fails to seriously engage with a significant portion of the gaslighting literature. This is an issue in the politics of methodology. Many theorists working on gaslighting exist within the margins, attempting to centre their perspectives over dominant points of view. We must listen to marginalised folk when aiming to understand a phenomenon that disproportionately affects them. If Manne had listened, she would have come to see difficulties with some of her suggestions, such as the possibility of unintentional gaslighting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A central distinction for Jonathan Floyd is that between the traditional method of pursuing political theory conducted by mainstream theorists, which he calls 'mentalism', and his suggested method, so-called 'normative behaviourism'. While the former relies on patterns of thought (e.g. intuitions, value commitments, principles or considered judgements) to justify normative theories, the latter instead relies on patterns of behaviour. Floyd argues that normative behaviourism offers an alternative methodology to mainstream mentalism, a new – and better – way of doing political philosophy. Our aim in this article is to reject this claim: normative behaviourism does not offer an alternative methodology in political theory. First, we show that normative behaviourism, contrary to Floyd's claim, is as dependent on value premises as mainstream, 'mentalist' political theory. Second, we illustrate the structural similarities between normative behaviourism and mainstream political theory from a methodological standpoint by comparing the former with an influential normative theory, namely, utilitarianism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this response to Edouard Machery's comments on On Folk Epistemology, I address his methodological challenges, the first of which concerns cross-cultural and interpersonal instability of case judgments. Whereas I agree with Machery about the importance of not going too quickly from folk epistemological judgments to epistemological theory, I argue against skepticism about such judgments. Machery's second challenge concerns my bias account of patterns of knowledge ascriptions. Whereas I agree with Machery that bias accounts should not be overgeneralized, I argue that the evidence he cites is consistent with the restricted applications of the book's bias accounts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this response to Michael Blome-Tillmann's comments on On Folk Epistemology, I defend the book's epistemic focal bias account of the salient alternatives effect that Blome-Tillmann takes to motivate epistemic contextualism. First, I defend the epistemic focal bias account against Blome-Tillmann's criticism that it is insufficiently general insofar as it fails to account for a range of cases. Second, I defend the epistemic focal bias account from Blome-Tillmann's charge that it overgeneralizes insofar as it can ‘explain away the context-sensitivity of gradable adjectives.’ Along the way, I discuss the metaphilosophical principles that guide the epistemic focal bias account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this response to Kate Nolfi's comments on On Folk Epistemology, I defend the book's arguments in favor of strict purist invariantism and against pragmatic encroachment. I first defend the negative Argument Argument against pragmatic encroachment by arguing that Nolfi's ingenious cases do not compromise it or my heuristic proxy/directive force account of practical factor effects. Second, I consider Nolfi's suggestion to amend the book's three methodological principles with a fourth Principle of Vindication and argue that while there is a grain of truth to it, it grants too much epistemic force to intuitive judgments about complex cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I present an understanding of the nature of philosophical praxis and of the problem of method in philosophical counselling, based on a reading of new English translations of Achenbach. Cautious of presupposing too narrow a notion of method, I refract an array of its meanings or uses in relation to the "free conversation" of philosophical praxis, so different answers are sometimes appropriate. But for any of the more robust and determinative meanings, insisting on the application of a method in philosophy is about as inane as imposing methods on friendships. After such indirect analogical support for Achenbach's notorious rejection of method, I turn to a presentation of Achenbach's views based on quotations (appearing here for the first time) from authorized English translations of Achenbach that I am preparing for forthcoming publication with Lexington Books. It is hoped in this way to give readers an advance glimpse beyond the paradoxical soundbytes ('beyond-method' method'; anti-therapy therapy; etc.) that Achenbach has been saddled with in the absence of good translations of many of his works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Marx's scientific labour theory of value is fundamentally inseparable from his philosophical method of advancing from the thinking abstract to the thinking concrete. He employs the power of abstraction to reveal the essential determination of value, and then to accomplish a generalisation of the commonness of all commodity-money relations. Through the intermediate links, Marx advances from the abstract to the concrete, grasping the historical individuality and form of manifestation of value in the specific capitalist phase. Heinrich is acutely aware of the methodological revolution achieved by Marx in his treatment of value theory, and, therefore, advocates examining the value theory from the philosophical methodological perspective. However, in his view, it is the emphasis on the form of value that is Marx's fundamental critique to the political economy, with money as a necessity in the capitalist society. Consequently, he proposes the term 'monetary theory of value' to replace Marx's labour theory of value. Heinrich, who lacks the scientific power of abstraction, directly focuses on the concrete phase of capitalism and, thus, merely attaches great importance to the external form of manifestation of value. The underlying cause of his deficiency is the philosophical methodology he adheres to, i.e. the formal dialectics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One can often hear that intuitions are standardly “appealed to”, “relied on”, “accounted for”, or “used as evidence” in ethics. How should we interpret these claims? I argue that the typical understanding is what Bernard Molyneux calls “descriptive evidentialism”: the idea that intuition-states are treated as evidence of their propositional contents in the context of justification. I then argue that descriptive evidentialism is false- on any account of what intuitions are. That said, I admit that ethicists frequently rely on intuitions to clarify, persuade, discover, or to support things other than the intuitions’ contents. The contents of intuitions are also commonly used as starting premises of philosophical arguments. However claims about these practices need to be sharply distinguished from the prevalent dogma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a 1978 lecture in Tokyo, Foucault drew a comparison between his own philosophical methodology and that of ‘Anglo-Saxon analytic philosophy’, claiming the label ‘analytic philosophy of politics’ for his own approach. This may seem like a somewhat surprising comparison given the gulf between contemporary analytic and continental philosophy, but I argue that it is a very productive one which indeed might help us reconsider this gulf. I proceed through a comparison between Foucault and the speech act theory of J. L. Austin, one of the analytic philosophers Foucault had in mind in his Tokyo lecture. By focusing on the methodological commonalities between Foucault and Austin, this article identifies the core of a philosophical methodology that cuts across the analytic/continental divide in philosophy in general while constituting a powerful alternative to the methods applied by analytic political philosophers specifically. This approach, which I term ‘analytic critique’, is one that starts from a critical analysis of what happens in ordinary lived experience and theorises ‘bottom-up’ in an avowedly politically engaged way – thereby challenging the conceptual and political aloofness of contemporary political philosophy in the liberal-Rawlsian tradition. Foucault’s appropriation of the label ‘analytic philosophy’, it is argued, ought to function as a call to more imaginative methodological-theoretical engagement across the traditional division between continental and analytic approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a 1978 lecture in Tokyo, Foucault drew a comparison between his own philosophical methodology and that of ‘Anglo-Saxon analytic philosophy’, claiming the label ‘analytic philosophy of politics’ for his own approach. This may seem like a somewhat surprising comparison given the gulf between contemporary analytic and continental philosophy, but I argue that it is a very productive one which indeed might help us reconsider this gulf. I proceed through a comparison between Foucault and the speech act theory of J. L. Austin, one of the analytic philosophers Foucault had in mind in his Tokyo lecture. By focusing on the methodological commonalities between Foucault and Austin, this article identifies the core of a philosophical methodology that cuts across the analytic/continental divide in philosophy in general while constituting a powerful alternative to the methods applied by analytic political philosophers specifically. This approach, which I term ‘analytic critique’, is one that starts from a critical analysis of what happens in ordinary lived experience and ‘bottom-up’ in an avowedly politically engaged way – thereby challenging the conceptual and political aloofness of contemporary political philosophy in the liberal-Rawlsian tradition. Foucault’s appropriation of the label ‘analytic philosophy’, it is argued, ought to function as a call to more imaginative methodological-theoretical engagement across the traditional division between continental and analytic approaches.

What credence should we assign to philosophical claims that were formed without any knowledge of the current state of the art of the philosophical debate and little or no knowledge of the relevant empirical or scientific data? Very little or none. Yet when we engage with the history of philosophy, this is often exactly what we do. In this paper, I argue that studying the history of philosophy is philosophically unhelpful. The epistemic aims of philosophy, if there are any, are frustrated by engaging with the history of philosophy, because we have little reason to think that the claims made by history’s great philosophers would survive closer scrutiny today. First, I review the case for philosophical historiography and show how it falls short. I then present several arguments for skepticism about the philosophical value of engaging with the history of philosophy and offer an explanation for why philosophical historiography would seem to make sense even if it didn’t. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Associate Professor Emilia Mineva was an established university teacher and historian of philosophy. Her rich body of work encompasses a study of the heritage of philosophical ideas in the 19th century with an emphasis, but not exclusively, on studies of Marxist philosophy, intellectual history of anarchism, philosophical ethics, etc. The field of her scientific interest included topics from all areas of philosophical knowledge, which she summarized as an author, editor, translator, and compiler. The article traces the professional path of prof. E. Mineva, focusing on the important moments in the content of her philosophical works, and is dedicated to the 80th anniversary of her birth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of XVIIe Siècle is the property of Presses Universitaires de France and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Artefactos: Revista de Estudios Sobre La Ciencia Y La Tecnologia is the property of Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper argues for theoretical modeling and model-construction as central (but not necessarily the only) types of activities that philosophers of social ontology (in the analytic tradition) engage in. This claim is defended through a detailed case study and revisionary interpretation of Raimo Tuomela's account of the we-perspective. My interpretation is grounded in Ronald Giere's account of scientific models, and argued to be compatible with, but less demanding than Tuomela's own description of his account as a philosophical theory of the social world. My approach is also suggested to be applicable to many (but not necessarily all) other methodologically naturalist accounts of collective intentionality and social ontology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philosophers disagree. A lot. Pervasive disagreement is part of the territory; consensus is hard to find. Some think this should lead us to embrace philosophical skepticism: skepticism about the extent to which we can know, or justifiably believe, the philosophical views we defend and advance. Most philosophers in the literature fall into one camp or the other: philosophical skepticism or philosophical anti-skepticism. Drawing on the insights of hinge epistemology, this paper proposes another way forward, an intermediate position that appeals both to skeptical and anti-skeptical intuitions concerning the possibility and scope of philosophical knowledge. The main advantage of our account is that it’s able to recover some philosophical knowledge while also being compatible with philosophical skepticism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently there has been an increasing interest in metaphilosphy. The aim of philosophy has been examined, and the development of philosophy has been scrutinised. With the development of new approaches and methods, new problems arise. This paper introduces a collection that revisits some of the metaphilosophical issues, including philosophical progress and the aim of philosophy. The collection sheds new light on some old approaches, such as naturalism and ordinary language philosophy. It also explores new philosophical methods (such as digital philosophy of science, conceptual engineering, and the practice‐based approach to logic) and their prospects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What role does ordinary language play in philosophical theorizing today? One might think: little. After all, analytic philosophy has moved past its "ordinary language" phase; in metaphysics, for example, few would think that attending to "time" and related words has anything to teach us about the nature of, and how we persist through, time. The aim of this paper, however, is to argue that contemporary analytic philosophy pays more attention to ordinary language use than the implicit historiography mentioned above suggests. Moreover, and moving from description to evaluation, the paper argues that this is philosophically defensible. In many areas of philosophy, to learn about a phenomenon we ought to pay at least some attention to how ordinary language users speak about it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a long‐standing debate about whether poetry can make a substantive contribution to philosophy with compelling arguments to show that poetry and philosophy involve distinct modes of thought and aims, albeit with similar concerns. This paper argues that reading lyric poetry can play a substantive role in philosophy by helping the philosopher understand how to forge connections with the perspectives of others. The paper takes the view that poetry is not directly philosophical but can play an important role in developing the philosopher's awareness of how perspective shapes beliefs and thought processes. Following Robert Nozick, David Lewis, and Helen Beebee, it argues for the need to broaden our conception of the aims of philosophy beyond aiming for conclusive proof, at the least where philosophical inquiry is focused on questions of value. It then shows how poetry cultivates an intellectual virtue essential to philosophy aimed at uncovering equilibria and collective understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many theorists of conceptual engineering appeal to the functions, roles, purposes or aims of concepts to articulate how conceptual engineering ought to be done. The functional approach to conceptual engineering is well-motivated: It promises a good account of the limits of revision, and of what makes some concept good. In this paper, I raise a problem for the functional approach which concerns the existence of harmful and methodologically insignificant concept functions. I examine whether we can deal with these problematic functions by adopting a technical notion of function. I thus review the prospects for using the notions of a contextually stable function, of a designed function, of a proper function, and of a system function as our operative notion of function. None of them help us resolve the problem. On this basis, I argue that advocates of the functional approach should be committed to a comparatively weak claim, according to which functions must be assessed case-by-case, and that we are best served by employing an unsophisticated notion of function, according to which the function of a concept just is something the concept is used for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the empirical evidence pointing to a gender gap in professional, academic philosophy in the English-speaking world is widely accepted, explanations of this gap are less so. In this paper, we aim to make a modest contribution to the literature on the gender gap in academic philosophy by taking a quantitative, corpus-based empirical approach. Since some philosophers have suggested that it may be the argumentative, “logic-chopping,” and “paradox-mongering” nature of academic philosophy that explains the underrepresentation of women in the discipline, our research questions are the following: Do men and women philosophers make different types of arguments in their published works? If so, which ones and with what frequency? Using data mining and text analysis methods, we study a large corpus of philosophical texts mined from the JSTOR database in order to answer these questions empirically. Using indicator words to classify arguments by type (namely, deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments), we search through our corpus to find patterns of argumentation. Overall, the results of our empirical study suggest that women philosophers make deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments in their published works just as much as male philosophers do, with no statistically significant differences in the proportions of those arguments relative to each philosopher’s body of work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the scientific literature, there are accents that emphasize certain changes in the functioning of philosophy, which took place in connection with the establishment of the postulates of postmodernism as a new period in the development of culture, as a style of post nonclassical scientific thinking, in fact, the content and hierarchy of values positions itself with a sophisticated departure from the classical and non-classical philosophical reflection. Philosophical and educational understanding of the methodology of research of dialogue and tolerance testified to the relevance of their research in the development of the potential of today's multicultural education and its growth in the cultural and educational space. Dialogue, dialogics and tolerance are represented by the mechanisms of meaning-making, axiology and praxeology: dialogical cognition of the interpersonal, social-group, societal, planetary world provides a certain "breakthrough" in the worldview-value coordinate system, in external-internal control of growth efficiency and its spiritual dimension. The axiological, ontological, educational-epistemological aspects of "fitting" a person into a new world context are precisely in the plane of philosophy, enriching the cultural fields of today's education through integration in goal-setting, content, organizational and managerial conditions for teaching and upbringing value ideals, principles, methods of holistic study of a person and those that are relevant today and provide Homo educandus with a meaning-making knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we will make the case for an intercultural philosophy of religion with a special focus on interculturality between Chinese and African philosophies. We will provide an overview of the kind of intercultural philosophy that has already been undertaken between the East and the South and point out that a philosophy of religion has been left out. We will then make the case for a global philosophy of religion approach and why Chinese and African philosophies of religion should engage in philosophical interchanges. We will then highlight some directions for carrying out such a philosophy and explain why the problem of evil may be better addressed from an intercultural perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I address a number of issues raised by Colin Koopman, Alex Livingston, and Michael Slater to my reading of James's ethics as defended in my 2015 book having to do with, in turn, the relationship between ethics and politics, ethics and psychological types, and ethics and religion. In accounting for these charges, I vindicate and further qualify my interpretation of James as a moral therapist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes three contrasting strategies for modeling intentional agency in contemporary analytic philosophy of mind and action, and draws parallels between them and similar strategies of scientific model-construction. Gricean modeling involves identifying primitive building blocks of intentional agency, and building up from such building blocks to prototypically agential behaviors. Analogical modeling is based on picking out an exemplary type of intentional agency, which is used as a model for other agential types. Theoretical modeling involves reasoning about intentional agency in terms of some domain-general framework of lawlike regularities, which involves no detailed reference to particular building blocks or exemplars of intentional agency (although it may involve coarse-grained or heuristic reference to some of them). Given the contrasting procedural approaches that they employ and the different types of knowledge that they embody, the three strategies are argued to provide mutually complementary perspectives on intentional agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modeling and computer simulations, we claim, should be considered core philosophical methods. More precisely, we will defend two theses. First, philosophers should use simulations for many of the same reasons we currently use thought experiments. In fact, simulations are superior to thought experiments in achieving some philosophical goals. Second, devising and coding computational models instill good philosophical habits of mind. Throughout the paper, we respond to the often implicit objection that computer modeling is "not philosophical." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emphasizing the importance of language is a key characteristic of philosophical reflection in general and of bioethics in particular. Rather than trying to eliminate the historicity and ambiguity of language, a continental approach to bioethics will make conscious use of it, for instance by closely studying the history of the key terms we employ in bioethical debates. Continental bioethics entails a focus on the historical vicissitudes of the key signifiers of the bioethical vocabulary, urging us to study the history of terms such as "bioethics," "autonomy," "privacy," and "consensus." Instead of trying to define such terms as clearly and unequivocally as possible, a continental approach rather requires us to take a step backwards, tracing the historical backdrop of the words currently in vogue. By comparing the original meanings of terms with their current meanings, and by considering important moments of transition in their history, obfuscated dimensions of meaning can be retrieved. Thus, notwithstanding a number of methodological challenges involved in etymological exercises, they may foster moral articulacy and enhance our ability to come to terms with moral dilemmas we are facing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The later Wittgenstein famously holds that an understanding which tries to run up against the limits of language bumps itself and results in nothing but plain nonsense. Therefore, the task of philosophy cannot be to create an 'ideal' language so as to produce a 'real' understanding for the first time; its aim must be to remove particular misunderstandings by clarifying the use of our ordinary language. Accordingly, Wittgenstein opposes both the sublime terms of traditional philosophy and the formal frameworks of modern logics--and adheres to a pointedly casual, colloquial style in his own philosophizing. However, there seems to lurk a certain inconsistency in Wittgenstein's ordinary language approach: his philosophical remarks frequently remain enigmatic, and many of the terms Wittgenstein coins seem to be highly technical. Thus, one might wonder whether his verdicts on the limits of language and on philosophical jargons might not be turned against his own practice. The present essay probes the extent to which the contravening tendencies in Wittgenstein's mature philosophy might be reconciled. Section 2 sketches Wittgenstein's general approach to philosophy and tracks the special rôle that the language of everyday life occupies therein. Section 3 reconstructs Wittgenstein's preferred method for philosophy, which he calls perspicuous representation, and argues that this method implements an aesthetic conception of philosophy and a poetic approach to philosophical language, in which philosophical insights are not explicitly stated, but mediated through well-worded and creatively composed descriptions. Section 4 discusses how Wittgenstein's philosophical poetics relates to artificial terminologies and grammars in philosophy and science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]