Idealism and the Ontological Argument

The ontological proof became something of a signature argument for the British Idealist movement and this paper examines how and why that was so. Beginning with an account of Hegel's understanding of the argument, it looks at how the thesis was picked up, developed and criticized by the Cairds, Bradley, Pringle-Pattison and others. The importance of Bradley's reading in particular is stressed. Lastly, consideration is given to Collingwood's lifelong interest in the proof and it is argued that his attention is best understood as a direct continuation of theirs. In view of the fact that recent commentators have tried to draw a sharp line between Collingwood's approach to metaphysics and ontology and that of his predecessors, the establishment of this connection calls for a measure of reassessment on both sides.     

Kant and the Problem of Recognition: Freedom,Transcendental Idealism,and the Third-Person

Kant wants to show that freedom is possible in the face of natural necessity. Transcendental idealism is his solution, which locates freedom outside of nature. I accept that this makes freedom possible, but object that it precludes the recognition of other rational agents. In making this case, I trace some of the history of Kant’s thoughts on freedom. In several of his earlier works, he argues that we are aware of our own activity. He later abandons this approach, as he worries that any awareness of our activity involves access to the noumenal, and thereby conflicts with the epistemic limits of transcendental idealism. In its place, from the second Critique onwards, Kant argues that we are conscious of the moral law, which tells me that I ought to do something, thus revealing that I can. This is the only proof of freedom consistent with transcendental idealism, but I argue that such an exclusively first-personal approach precludes the (third-personal) recognition of other rational agents. I conclude that transcendental idealism thus fails to provide an adequate account of freedom. In its place, I sketch an alternative picture of how freedom is possible, one that locates freedom within, rather than outside of nature.     

On the Issues of Transcendental Argument

The transcendental approach initiated by Immanuel Kant and Peter Strawson has been the most representative contemporary exponent of this line of thinking. Barry Stroud understands this form of transcendental argument as relying on an empirical “verification principle” and hence he rejects it as unnecessary. Nevertheless, Stroud’s view is only warranted to a certain extent. In some non-empirical objective spheres, including concepts and propositions as regards general metaphysics, moral metaphysics and philosophy of religion, the transcendental approach is still necessary. In terms of quality, transcendental approach belongs to “conceptual argumentation,” which differs from experience and logic with the fundamental characteristic of setting up a theoretical antecedent before further inquiry at the level of doctrine, i.e., concepts.     

To Have and to Hold: Intelligible Possession and Kant's Idealism

While the debate about whether Kant's idealism requires a ‘Two Worlds’ or ‘Two Aspect’ interpretation has reached a seeming impasse, I argue that the account of intelligible possession found in the ‘Doctrine of Right’ provides novel and compelling evidence in favour of an epistemic ‘Two Aspect’ reading of Kant's position.     

Andrew Shanks,German Idealism,and the Speculative Redemption of Theodicy

In this review essay I discuss and critically evaluate the neo-Hegelian theologian Andrew Shanks’ Theodicy Beyond the Death of ‘God’ with regard to its central argument of the theological adequacy of the composite theodicy funded by Hegel, Jacob Boehme (1575-1624) and F. W. J. Schelling and also its highly individual theological style. While I commend Shanks’ impulses to enlarge the Hegelian discourse by speculative discourses that are more mythopoetic, especially given Shanks’ long-standing interest in the critical and constructive power of poetry, I consider it to be an open question not only as to whether Shanks has sustained his case for the theological adequacy of the composite theodicy, but whether this composite speculative matrix has the capacity to enlist the prophetic discourses of both the Bible and modern poetry that Shanks thinks it has. In addition, while Shanks’ theological style is a unique blend of disciplined analysis with a more hortatory rhetoric, as rendered in this his latest book, the generally polemical tone and the tendency to dismissive judgments not only regarding particular philosophers and theologians, but also particular forms of historical Christianity such as Roman Catholicism, compromise – if not entirely invalidate – its repeated message of inclusion.     

Two dogmas of analytic historiography

ABSTRACT

Starting from an analogy with Quine’s two dogmas of empiricism, I offer a (neo-Kantian) critique of two dogmas of analytic historiography: the belief in a cleavage between the justification of a philosophical claim and an account of its genesis and the belief in rational reconstructionism. I take Russell’s rational reconstruction of Leibniz’s philosophy as my detailed example.     

The relationship between space and mutual interaction: Kant contra Newton and Leibniz

Kant claims that we cannot cognize the mutual interaction of substances without their being in space; he also claims that we cannot cognize a ‘spatial community’ among substances without their being in mutual interaction. I situate these theses in their historical context and consider Kant’s reasons for accepting them. I argue that they rest on commitments regarding the metaphysical grounding of, first, the possibility of mutual interaction among substances-as-appearances and, second, the actuality of specific distance-relations among such substances. By illuminating these commitments, I shed light on Kant’s metaphysics of space and its relation to Newton and Leibniz’s views.     

Conceiving Possibility： Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi

This paper examines two notions of possibility conceived by Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi respectively. Kierkegaard conceives of it with appeals to the feeling of anxiety, while Zhuangzi deals with it in terms of a type of aesthetic feeling. Based on these distinctions, the paper goes further to explore two types of human existence as fostered by these two corresponding concepts of possibility. According to Kierkegaard, in order to maintain a connection with possibility, which would provide freedom to human existence, one must have faith in the redeemer bringing back possibility so that an individual human being might renew his or her choice ceaselessly. Zhuangzi, on the other hand, advises staying in the realm of nothingness and letting go of all things to avoid being trapped by the struggle of discerning between good and evil.     

Ontological Proofs of Existence and Non-Existence

Caramuels’ proof of non-existence of God is compared with Gödel’s proof of existence.     

小学生朴素热概念的发展

概念转变是认知发展与教育领域的热点话题之一,但关于小学生对于热概念的转变研究仍处于萌芽阶段。本研究抽取了某小学一、三、六年级学生共104名,采用三种任务情境考察了他们在热概念方面的认识水平。研究发现：一年级学生主要将热看作是一种物质,用物质模型理解热作为一个过程概念具有的速度属性。三年级学生热的物质概念和过程概念的认识并存,能够正确认识过程概念的速度和方向两个重要属性。六年级学生对于热作为一个过程概念所应具有属性的认知较为稳固,但未发生进一步的转变,他们还不能将热作为一个自发过程概念来理解。此研究结果部分     

概念及概念结构研究新进展

近来有关归类和概念结构的研究与理论出现了两个方面的转变。第一个方面是从概念定义属性的假设 (经典观 )到概念表征属性的观点 (概率观 ) ;第二个方面是从概念以相似性组织的观点到概念围绕理论而组织的观点。本文综合概述了基于相似性和理论驱动的归类理论。     

The French Revolution and the New School of Europe: Towards a Political Interpretation of German Idealism

Abstract: In this paper I consider the significant but generally overlooked role that the French Revolution played in the development of German Idealism. Specifically, I argue that Reinhold and Fichte's engagement in revolutionary political debates directly shaped their interpretation of Kant's philosophy, leading them (a) to overlook his reliance upon common sense, (b) to misconstrue his conception of the relationship between philosophical theory and received cognitive practice, (c) to fail to appreciate the fundamentally regressive nature of his transcendental argumentative strategy, and, ultimately, (d) to seek to deduce his philosophy from a single first‐principle, one grounded in the immediate awareness of the subject's mental life.     

Leibniz's Concept of Substance and his Reception of John Calvin's Doctrine of the Eucharist

Leibniz saw the question of the eucharist as a crucial stumbling block to the agreement between Lutherans and Calvinists. Mandated together with Daniel Ernst Jablonsky to prepare working documents for the negotiations between Hanover and Brandenburg in 1697, Leibniz carefully read through the Calvinist Confessions of faith and the works of Calvin in their 1671 edition. He made an extensive collection of excerpts from the Confessions of faith and from Calvin's Institutes all intended to show that Calvinists admitted the substantial presence of Christ's body in the eucharist. (This collection of excerpts is analysed here for the first time and compared with another little-known document, the Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken). L. had argued previously in 1691/92 that, contrary to the assertions of Pellisson-Fontanier, his own conception of substance and of Christ's presence in the eucharist was completely different from Calvin's. However, by 1697, it was clear to Leibniz that Calvin's concept of substance, which was broadly speaking Aristotelian, was never defined clearly by the reformer, and could be made to coincide with Leibniz's own notion of substance as force rather than substance in its dimensional sense. At the same time L. dissociated Ubiquitarianism (doctrine characteristic of late sixteenth century Lutheranism, which defended the dimensional presence of Christ's body in heaven and in the eucharist, by arguing that Christ in his divine nature could cause his physical body to be present in several places at the same time) from Lutheranism. He also drove a wedge between the doctrines of Zwingli and Calvin. L. thus attempted to find religious union on a common ontology and he might well have succeeded if it were not for complex political circumstances, which ultimately caused the failure of the negotiations.     

A Critical Examination of Anselm's Ontological Argument

This paper argues that St.Anselm's distinction of the two senses of existence in his ontological argument for the existence of God renders Paul Tillich's refutation of it invalid.At the same time,Anselm misuses the two types of existence in his ontological comparison,leading to a logical contradiction between the different kinds and degrees of existence.Since Anselm's idea of different reference subjects does not coherently solve this logical absurdity,Anselm's ontological argument falls well short of being a successful approach to establishing the existence of God.     

Dynamical agents: Consciousness, causation, and two specters of epiphenomenalism

The aim of this paper is to defend the causal efficacy of consciousness against two specters of epiphenomenalism. We argue that these challenges are best met, on the one hand, by rejecting all forms of consciousness-body dualism, and on the other, by adopting a dynamical systems approach to understanding the causal efficacy of conscious experience. We argue that this non-reductive identity theory provides the theoretical resources for reconciling the reality and efficacy of consciousness with the neurophysiology of the brain and body.

Heidegger and the Problem of Idealism

This paper contains a discussion of Quine's thesis of indeterminacy of translation within the more general thesis that using and understanding a language are to be conceived of as a creative and interpretative‐constructional activity. Indeterminacy is considered to be ineliminable. Three scenarios are distinguished concerning, first, the reasons for indeterminacy, second, the kinds of indeterminacy and, third, different levels of a general notion of recursive interpretation. Translational hypotheses are seen as interpretational constructs. The indeterminacy thesis turns out to be a consequence of the externalizing of language, meaning, and epistemology. By means of a three‐leveled interpretation model one can substantiate the crucial aspects, first, that indeterminacy is not an indeterminacy of facts of the matter and, second, that there is a significant difference between indeterminacy and underdetermination. In addition, the relationship between indeterminacy, interpretation, and charity is elucidated. Indeterminacy is seen not as an obstacle to but as a condition for communication. Charity and empathy in dialogue are conditional upon indeterminacy. All three components reveal the interpretative‐constructional character of the inseparable connection of meaning and experience.     

胡塞尔与观念论问题

确切说来,胡塞尔哲学是一种从内部摧毁观念论的尝试,是一种借助于意识去击穿先验分析之墙的尝试。与此同时,它还努力把这样的分析尽可能地加以应用。胡塞尔具有打破传统观念论的企图。可是,由于胡塞尔从没有把自己从观念论的假定中完全解脱出来,因此,他又遭遇到种种困难。胡塞尔在本质直观、被给予性、真理客观性、范畴直观、回到实事本身等关键问题上自相矛盾,存在着理论张力。被胡塞尔视为反对观念论的主要一击的本质学说,最终把自己展示为观念论的顶峰:纯粹本质似乎摒弃了任何主体建构的客观性,但它不过是抽象的主体性,是思维的纯粹功能,是康德意识同一性意义上的"我思"。     

On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments

We develop conceptions of arguments and of argument types that will, by serving as the basis for developing a natural classification of arguments, benefit work in artificial intelligence. Focusing only on arguments construed as the semantic entities that are the outcome of processes of reasoning, we outline and clarify our view that an argument is a proposition that represents a fact as both conveying some other fact and as doing so wholly. Further, we outline our view that, with respect to arguments that are propositions, (roughly) two arguments are of the same type if and only if they represent the same relation of conveyance and do so in the same way. We then argue for our conceptions of arguments and argument types, and compare them to alternative positions. We also illustrate the need for, and some of the strengths of, our approach to classifying arguments through an examination of aspects of two prominent and recent attempts to classify arguments using argumentation schemes, namely those of M. Kienpointner and D. Walton. Finally, we clarify how our conception of arguments and of argument types can assist in developing an exhaustive classification of arguments.