Redefining Work and Education in the Technological Revolution

Studies in Philosophy and Education - Just as Dewey argued during the industrial revolution, from the 1890s–1930s, and Martin argued in the 1960s–1990s with our “second...     

The Fourth Revolution: Philosophical Foundations and Technological Implications

This article introduces this special issue of Knowledge, Technology and Policy. It also explains why Luciano Floridi’s Philosophy of Technology is chosen as the topic of the special issue.     

Living in a Digital Culture

Today our lives are filled with technology through which we communicate, work, play, and even engage with for making meaning. This implies the pervasive presence of digital media as an integral part of our everyday life. Although studies on media are mostly done by sociology and communication students, living in a digital age has significant implications for theological reflections. Despite this being the case, there is a gap in terms of a religious response to technology. In response to this, the aim of this article is to stimulate theological reflections with regard to living in a digital culture. This is achieved by raising theological questions in the hope that theology could take a proactive role in these discussions. The implications of living in a digital culture are quite vast; therefore, the focus will be limited to how a community is formed and sustained, and the possible implications for the church as community.     

Living on a Slippery Slope

Our actions, individually and collectively, inevitably affect others, ourselves, and our institutions. They shape the people we become and the kind of world we inhabit. Sometimes those consequences are positive, a giant leap for moral humankind. Other times they are morally regressive. This propensity of current actions to shape the future is morally important. But slippery slope arguments are a poor way to capture it. That is not to say we can never develop cogent slippery slope arguments. Nonetheless, given their most common usage, it would be prudent to avoid them in moral and political debate. They are often fallacious and have often been used for ill. They are normally used to defend the moral status quo. Even when they are cogent, we can always find an alternate way to capture their insights. Finally, by accepting that the moral roads on which we travel are slippery, we become better able to successfully navigate them.     

Perspectivism Versus a Completed Copernican Revolution

I discuss changes of perspective of four kinds in science and about science. Section 2 defends a perspectival nonrealism—something akin to Giere’s perspectival realism but not a realism—against the idea of complete, “Copernican” objectivity. Section 3 contends that there is an inverse relationship between epistemological conservatism and scientific progress. Section 4 casts doubt on strong forms of scientific realism by taking a long-term historical perspective that includes future history. Section 5 defends a partial reversal in the status of so-called context of discovery and context of justification. Section 6 addresses the question of how we can have scientific progress without scientific realism—how progress is possible without the accumulation of representational truth. The overall result (Sect. 7) is a pragmatic instrumentalist perspective on the sciences and how to study them philosophically, one that contains a kernel of realism—instrumental realism.     

土地革命时期江西苏区的反迷信运动

在我国,迷信是自给自足的封建社会长期延续的产物,生活在社会最底层的人民不但深受来自地主阶级政治上和经济上的残酷剥削,在精神上也处于被压迫的境地。这种状况一直到近代也没有发生本质上的改变,而农村是封建迷信最为盛行的所在。在江西,一份关于革命前兴国社会的情况调查说: “兴国的迷信鬼神,可说应有尽有,一年三百六十五天,没有一天不是在迷信鬼神中”。调查者举正月的例子说, “有一种长光神,城乡都有,日夜的香烛不断,一般人藉敬神的地方,做他们的赌博场。城江背的地方,还有一种海神,这是兴国特有的神,一共三十六种神壳,奇形怪状,无奇不有     

尼采的革命

弗里德里希·尼采是当今西方非马克思主义世界中最有影响的哲学家。他的影响范围冲破了那种通常把知识分子和政治活动家分开的、理论与实践的传统界限。而且 ,他的学说已经在公众中广为传播 ,即使在那些从未听说过他的名字或从未读过他的著作的人中也是如此 ,从表面上看 ,这似乎与尼采本人的不为群氓写作的主张相矛盾。值得注意的是 ,尼采是一位自诩的颓废者、虚无主义者、无神论者、反基督教者、经院哲学的反对者 ,社会主义、平均主义和“人民”的严厉批评者。他拥护贵族的政治观念 ,坚决主张将人类划分为不同的等级 ,他甚至劝说男人到女人…     

Knowledge to Wisdom: We Need a Revolution

Introduction The following document is a very brief summary of a thesis and argument that I have devoted the last 30 years of my life to trying to get across to my fellow human beings. It was first spelled out in What’s Wrong With Science? (Bran’s Head Books, 1976) and subsequently in From Knowledge to Wisdom (Blackwell, 1984), Is Science Neurotic? (Imperial College Press, 2004) and numerous articles, references to which can be found on . Three years ago an international group was formed, called Friends of Wisdom, which seeks to get across to academics and the public the compelling arguments and urgent need to transform academic inquiry so that its basic aim becomes to seek and promote wisdom. The document below is taken from the website of Friends of Wisdom, the URL of which is . It is the mission statement of Friends of Wisdom. You are invited to join.