Wilfrid Sellars’ distinctive scientific realism has lately been gaining ground, but a crucial issue is how it can or should theorize modality. We argue that many interesting questions in this area transcend the usual ‘first-order’ concerns: “Is there an objectivist modal ontology?” and “What modal entities should we posit”? Rather, Sellars invites us to take a fresh look at the relationship between logic and metaphysics through an investigation of ‘second-order’ philosophical categories. This investigation contrasts with both the first-order 'external' ontologising (...) of metaphysicians such as David Lewis and the 'easy' ontologising of metaphysicians such as Amie Thomasson. We argue that Sellars' approach stimulates a more conscious and fruitful examination of our role and methods as philosophers in the modal arena. Moreover, since the notion of metaphysics as a ‘second-order’ activity has recently gained attention in contemporary philosophy of science through the work of David Wallace, we explore both Sellars’ potential contribution to these discussions and the relationship between Sellars’ approach and contemporary ontic structural realist views regarding modal structure, thereby opening up fundamental questions concerning where and how the metaphysics of modality might be integrated with our current best physics. (shrink)

Many assumed that the Obama administration would usher in a sea change from the previous administration by expanding NIH support for human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and reducing the patchwork of state and federal regulations that currently governs it. This article examines the extent to which NIH’s new Guidelines are likely to accomplish these goals.

Legitimate expectations should be considered in the transition to a low-carbon society. After explaining under what conditions and circumstances expectations are legitimate, this paper shows that those expectations whose frustration undermines the ability to plan, infringes basic moral rights, or is extremely costly for its bearer might justify a deviation in the baseline of justice in favour of the expectation holder. People should be notified about the likely frustration of their expectations so that they can avoid the frustration of their (...) expectations, adapt their life plans and minimise costs. Since the frustration of legitimate expectations seems unavoidable in the transformation to a low-carbon society, priority should be given to the protection of the expectations of those who cannot be materially compensated. Still, if two groups are eligible for material compensation, we should give priority to protecting the expectation of those who cannot continue with the same life plan as before if their expectations are frustrated. (shrink)

Much social theory takes for granted the core conceit of modern culture, that modern actors-individuals, organizations, nation states-are autochthonous and natural entities, no longer really embedded in culture. Accordingly, while there is much abstract metatheory about "actors" and their "agency," there is arguably little theory about the topic. This article offers direct arguments about how the modern (European, now global) cultural system constructs the modern actor as an authorized agent for various interests via an ongoing relocation into society of agency (...) originally located in transcendental authority or in natural forces environing the social system. We see this authorized agentic capability as an essential feature of what modern theory and culture call an "actor," and one that, when analyzed, helps greatly in explaining a number of otherwise anomalous or little analyzed features of modern individuals, organizations, and states. These features include their isomorphism and standardization, their internal decoupling, their extraordinarily complex structuration, and their capacity for prolific collective action. (shrink)

A major question for the relevant logics has been, “Under what conditions is Ackermann's ruleγ from -A ∨B andA to inferB, admissible for one of these logics?” For a large number of logics and theories, the question has led to an affirmative answer to theγ problem itself, so that such an answer has almost come to be expected for relevant logics worth taking seriously. We exhibit here, however, another large and interesting class of logics-roughly, the Boolean extensions of theW — (...) free relevant logics (and, precisely, the well-behaved subsystems of the 4-valued logicBN4) — for which γ fails. (shrink)

Michael Dummett claims that the classical model of time as a continuum of instants has to be rejected. In his view, “it allows as possibilities what reason rules out, and leaves it to the contingent laws of physics to rule out what a good model of physical reality would not even be able to describe.” This paper argues otherwise.

Epistemic entrenchment, as presented by Gärdenfors and Makinson (1988) and Gärdenfors (1988), is a formalisation of the intuition that, when forced to choose between two beliefs, an agent will giveup the less entrenched one. While their formalisation satisfactorilycaptures the intuitive notion of the entrenchment of beliefs in a number ofaspects, the requirement that all wffs be comparable has drawn criticismfrom various quarters. We define a set of refined versions of theirentrenchment orderings that are not subject to the same criticism, andinvestigate (...) the relationship between the refined entrenched orderings,the entrenchment orderings of Gärdenfors and Makinson, and AGM theorycontraction (Alchourrón et al., 1985). To conclude, we compare refinedentrenchment with two related approaches to epistemic entrenchment. (shrink)

In this paper, we shall confine ourselves to the study of sentential constants in the system R of relevant implication.In dealing with the behaviour of the sentential constants in R, we shall think of R itself as presented in three stages, depending on the level of truth-functional involvement.

After having defined the KARO logic for specifying intelligent agents in earlier work we now turn to the question how to realise agents specified in the KARO framework. To this end we look at agent programming languages that we have defined, and investigate how programs in these languages can be linked to the KARO logic.

In this article, we focus on the concept of leadership ethics and make observations about transformational, transactional and servant leadership. We consider differences in how each definition of leadership outlines what the leader is supposed to achieve, and how the leader treats people in the organization while striving to achieve the organization's goals. We also consider which leadership styles are likely to be more popular in organizations that strive to maximize short run profits. Our paper does not tout or degrade (...) any of these leadership theories. Instead, it points out which theories allow reason to play more than a minimal role in ethical decision-making, as well as those that are most consistent with a firm's desire to achieve efficiency in the short run. We explain our view that the way leadership is practiced in large, bureaucratic organizations suggests that ethics is often absent from the leader's decision-making process. Consequently, we suggest that before we engage in a meaningful dialogue about what kind of leaders we might really want in business, we must consider how much short-run profit we are willing to forego in exchange for more ethical corporate cultures. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Even though fatalism has been an intermittent topic of philosophy since Greek antiquity, this paper argues that fate ought to be of little concern to metaphysicians. Fatalism is neither an interesting metaphysical thesis in its own right, nor can it be identified with theses that are, such as realism about the future or determinism.

The question dealt with in the article is the following: Is reality a Unity, a Plurality or a Whole. We do not expect to get definit results, we are only interested in pointing out a new ideal of scientific research.Under the predominance of physical thinking science was inclined upon nature as a Unity. The philosophy corresponding with this conception is Monism, to which belong all philosophical systems founded on the mecanistic idea from the primitive Monism ofHaeckel to the most sophisticated (...) Positivism. All these conceptions had to be rejected, because they were not able to eliminate the contingences of reality.Every conception of nature consistent with experience must recognize these contingences of reality. On this bases one can take reality either as a plurality or as a whole. According to the doctrine of pluralism contingence of the laws of nature is an original phenomenon which has to be accepted as such. This would mean the definit solution of the philosophical problems, if this would prove to be the only philosophy founded on the principle of contingence.But there is still such an another conception that is Holism. Here contrary to Pluralism, the domains of reality are not absolutely autonomous but form an organic whole comparable to that of the organs of a living body. In a living body each organ besides having its autonomous life, fulfils a special function in the whole of the organism. In the same science the different domains of reality are only the functionally differenciated organs of the whole nature. Consequently nature is not a passive and mecanistic unity, but an active and creative whole. Each cell is a member of a tissue, each tissue a member of an organ and the organ a member of the whole organism; each of them however has its personal and relatively “autonomous” existence. In the same way physical reality forms a member of organical reality, organical reality a member of psiquical reality, psiquical reality a member of social reality and social reality a member of historical reality. These domains also keep their autonomy and contingence. So the members of an organism can only be explained starting from the superior organ, i.e. in order to understand the functions of the cell one must first know those of the tissue etc. Though different domains of reality can only be understood by deriving in each case the less complicated reality from the more complicated, for instance the physical reality must be derived from organical reality, organical reality from psiquical reality etc. ... The details of the argumentation are given in the treatise itself. In summary the result is a biological conception of nature as a whole instead of physical conception prevalent up to now.La question formulée est la suivante: il s' agit de prouver si la réalité est une unité, une pluralité ou une totalité. Nous ne nous proposons pas trouver des résultats définitifs; nous nous bornerons plutôt à renseigner un nouveau ideal de la connaissance des choses, pour ainsi servir les buts de la science avenir.Sous la prévalence de l'orientation physicale la science tendait à comprendre la nature comme une seule unité. La philosophie qui corresponde à cette conception est le Monisme, qui embrasse tous les systèmes philosophiques fondés sur l'idée mécanistique du monisme primitif deHaeckel jusqu'au positivisme sublime. Toutes ces conceptions ont échoué, car ils n'étaient pas capables d'éliminer les contingences de la réalité.Toute la conception de la nature soutenable du point de vue empirique, doit reconnaître ces contingences de la réalité. Sur cette base on peut comprendre la réalité ou comme une pluralité ou comme une totalité. Selon la doctrine de pluralisme “la contingence des lois de la nature” est un phénomène, qu'on doit accepter comme tel. Il donnerait la solution définitive des problèmes philosophiques, à moins qu'il n'existât une autre philosophie de la réalité fondée, elle aussi, sur la contingence de la nature.Cette nouvelle philosophie est le Holisme.À la difference du pluralisme les rayons de la réalité ne constituent pas des domaines absolument autonomes, mais ils forment une totalité organique comparable à celle des membres d'un corps vivant. Dans un corps vivant chaque organe, entre la vie autonome, remplit une fonction spécifique dans l'ensemble total de l'organisme. De la même façon les différents rayons de la réalité ne sont que des organes fonctionnellement différenciés de la nature totale. Par conséquent, la nature n'est pas une unité passive et mécanistique, mais une totalité active et créatrice. Chaque cellule est un membre du tissu, chaque tissu un membre de l'organe et chaque organe un membre de l'organisme total; cependant chacun d'eux a sa propre existence. D'une manière analogue la réalité physique forme un membre de la réalité organique, la réalité organique un membre de la réalité psychique, la réalité psychique un membre de la réalité sociale, et enfin la réalité sociale un membre de la réalité historique. Toute fois ces rayons conservent leur autonomie et leur contingence. Or, les membres d'un organisme ne peuvent être expliqués qu'en partant de l'organe supérieur, c'est à dire pour comprendre les fonctions de la cellule il faut d'abord connaître celle du tissu et ainsi de suite etc. Les différents rayons de la réalité ne peuvent donc être compris qu'en dérivant, en chaque cas, la réalité moins compliquée, ce qui signifie par exemple qu'on doit dériver la réalité physique de la réalité organique, la réalité organique de la réalité psychique etc. Les détails de l'argumentation sont donnés dans le traité lui-même.En résumé il résulte une conception biologique de la réalité totale au lieu de la conception physique qui prévalait jusqu'ici. (shrink)

In comparing it with the mechanistic and vitalistic views, the author seeks to make clear the nature of holistic causality, referring toDonnan's equations as an example.Holistic causality is essentially dimensional simplification. A complex system which forms a whole must be described in the first instance autonomo-phenomenologically, and if possible mathematically. Thereafter it is simplified into other wholes of less dimensionality, through progressive elimination of its higher dimensions, and so on until there remain over constituents no longer showing „wholeness”. These are (...) called „atoms” in the general sense. In holistic thought we do not begin with the atom; it is found at the end of the process of simplification.All unitary systems which lie between the atoms — the ultimate terms of holistic simplification, no longer showing wholeness — and the highest world-whole which we call the universe, are relative wholes. Each of these unitary systems is a complete whole only with respect to those systems of lower dimension into which it can itself be simplified. On the other hand it is itself a partial whole in relation to the wholes of higher dimension to which it is subordinated. Accordingly all these systems are at the same time complete wholes and partial wholes.It follows from this principle, as indeed theDonnan equations show, that theoretical biology can be simplified into the complementary domain of theoretical physics, but that it is quite impossible to „deduce„ the principles and theorems of theoretical biology from those of theoretical physics, as all mechanistic doctrines maintain.L'auteur, en discutant les points de vue mécanistes et vitalistes, cherche à définir la causalité holistique tout en se référant aux équations deDonnan, qu'il prend comme exemple.La causalité holistique est essentiellement une simplification dimensionnale. Un système complexe, constituant une totalité, doit être décrit avant tout de façon autonomo-phénoménologique et — si possible — de façon mathématique. Ensuite il est simplifié de manière à former d'autres totalités de dimensionalité inférieure par suite de l'élimination progressive de ses dimensions supérieures et ainsi de suite jusqu'à ce qu'il n'en reste plus que les parties ne formant plus totalité. Celles-ci s'appellent „atomes” dans le sens propre du mot. Dans le holisme on ne commence pas par l'atome, qu'on trouve au contraire à la fin de la simplification.Tous les systèmes constituant une totalité et se trouvant entre les atomes en tant que restes de la simplification holistique, qui ne possèdent plus un caractère de totalité, et d'autre part la totalité mondiale la plus élevée, appelée Univers, sont des totalités relatives. Tout système constituant de cette façon une totalité, ne forme une totalité complète que pour ceux-là des systèmes de dimensions inférieures dans lesquels il peut être simplifié lui-même; par contre il constitue lui-même un membre-totalité pour les totalités de dimensions supérieures auxquelles il est luimême subordonné. Ainsi tous ces systèmes sont en même temps membres-totalités et totalités complètes.Il s'ensuit de ce principe, que, comme le démontrent aussi les équations deDonnan, la biologie théorique peut bien être simplifiée dans les domaines qui lui sont complémentaires de la physique théorique, mais qu'il est complètement impossible de dériver les principes et les théorèmes de la biologie théorique de ceux de la physique théorique, comme le prétendent toutes les doctrines mécanistes. (shrink)

This article provides a critical analysis of Justin Remhof’s attempt to defend the view that Nietzsche is best understood as a metaphysician.