Edward Erwin's clear analysis addresses some of the fundamental questions on behavior therapy that remained in 1978, when this book was first published.

Die 1990 gegründete Reihe, die auf eine Anregung von Mazzino Montinari zurückgeht, publiziert Quellenmaterialien zu Nietzsches Leben, seinem Umkreis und seiner Wirkung. Die Supplementa stellen somit eine Ergänzung zu den Kritischen Ausgaben von Nietzsches Werken (KGW) und Briefen (KGB) dar.

The relation between universal and particular is considered to be the Achilles’ heel of universal realism. However, modern universal realism with facts does not have the difficulties which traditional Platonic universal realism had. Its exemplification relation connecting particulars and universals in atomic facts is very different from Platonic participation. Bradley’s regress argument against the exemplification relation can be refuted in two different ways. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to avoid the assumption of an exemplification relation and thus to go without (...) the Achilles’ heel altogether. (shrink)

`Erwin′s argumentative skills and knowledge of the literature are remarkable and most of his original claims are persuasive....The merit of the analysis Erwin offers is to provide a well-informed and accessible account of the current state of psychotherapy, its history and its philosophical grounds′ - Metapsychology Online `For those readers who favour an empirical-scientific approach to counselling and therapy, and who view therapy, at least potentially or in principle, as an objective science, this will no doubt be a (...) very useful and informative book... We should be grateful that Erwin has set out more fully than anyone to date the specifically philosophical case for a "science of therapy"; and those of a New Paradigm persuasion at least now know the nature of the arguments they will have to refute in order to sustain their position. I look forward with eager anticipation to their efforts, and to an emerging and fruitful engagement between philosophy and therapy - for both have a great deal to learn from each other′ - Counselling, The Journal of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy This pioneering book analyzes the interface between philosophy and psychotherapy. The first authoritative work to apply rigorous philosophical discipline to therapeutic claims and counter-claims, it will encourage psychotherapists, counsellors and applied psychologists to examine their practice and clarify their thinking. Edward Erwin discusses some of the key philosophical issues that have a particular relevance to psychotherapeutic theory - autonomy and free choice, the nature of the self, epistemology, and values and morals - as well as examining specific interdisciplinary issues that cut across the boundaries between philosophy and psychotherapy. Finally, he looks at the `crisis′ in psychotherapy today, offering a valuable philosophical insight into the debate about the proliferation and efficacy of therapeutic approaches. (shrink)

This article shows the origin of the famous Aristotelian expression τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι in everyday language. The expression is analysable in τὸ εἶναι and τί ἦν, and this part is the core of the common language question τουτὶ τί ἦν; or τουτὶ τί ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμα; always in imperfect form. This question is often found in Aristophanes’ comedies, which represent common Attic language. The imperfect ἦν is noted as a common Attic form indicating the present already by early comentators (...) of Aristotle as Alexander of Aphrodisias, the scholia to Aristophanes, later by Budaeus, but also in the modern Greek Lexikon of D. Demetrakos. Therefore not the imperfect is the problem, by mere embarrassement it was called "philosophic." The situations in the Aristophanean comedies, in which the question occurs, show that the thing about which somebody asks, is present, in front of the speaker, that it is an individual thing and something absolutly unexspected. The questioner will ask "What on the whole is this?" He asks about the first ground of being of the thing. The term τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι quotes only the use of εἶναι in this question in common language (like many other terms are quotations as τὸ τί ἐστίν; τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα etc.) and may be paraphrased by "Think of ’to be’ as you use it in the question ’What at all is this?’ " See also my article: Sonderegger (2001). Zur Sprachform des Ausdrucks to ti en einai. Rheinisches Museum Für Philologie 144:113–122. -/- The consequences of this linguistic finding can be found in my comments on Metaphysik Z and Metaphysics Λ (English version from 2020). (shrink)

Wissen wir, wer oder was unseren Lebensgang bestimmt? Wissen wir überhaupt, was in uns und ausserhalb von uns abläuft? Das einzig Gewisse ist unser Tod, doch was hilft die Gewissheit unseres Todes, wenn ungewiss bleibt, wann er kommt? Unsere Bedürfnisse kennen wir, aber wo sind die Grenzen der Befriedigung? Wenn unsicher geworden ist, wer oder was das bestimmt, was faktisch geschieht, wenn die Welt uns körperlich und seelisch bedrängt und die einzige Gewissheit in der Zukunft unser Tod ist, wenn uns (...) unsere Bedürfnisse und die Grenzen ihrer Befriedigung unklar geworden sind, dann hilft nichts mehr als das Nachdenken – das Nachdenken über unsere Natur und ihren Platz in der Welt, über die Hierarchie unserer Bedürfnisse, darüber, wie wir das Gelingen unseres Lebens mit Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit in Einklang bringen. Kurz, es hilft nichts als der Epikureismus. ********** Do we know who or what determines the course of our lives? Do we even know what is going on inside and outside of us? The only certain thing is our death, but what good is the certainty of our death if it remains uncertain when it will come? We know our needs, but where are the limits to their fulfilment? When it has become uncertain who or what determines what actually happens, when the world oppresses us physically and emotionally and the only certainty in the future is our death, when our needs and the limits of their fulfilment have become unclear to us, then nothing helps more than reflection - reflection on our nature and its place in the world, thinking about the hierarchy of our needs, about how we can harmonise the success of our lives with reason and justice. In short, nothing helps but Epicureanism. (shrink)

Parmenides advances four arguments against becoming. Two of these are sound. Plato's and Aristotle's attempt to refute them fail. They react to Parmenides' challenge by differentiating and grading being and existence. Thus they deviate from Parmenides' strict concept of existence which is the only reasonable one. What's wrong with Parmenides' train of thought is a decisive premise: that becoming is a transition from non-existence to existence. The reality of becoming can be maintained if this premise is given up. One has (...) to see that becoming is a purely temporal affair not involving existence and that existence is timeless. Time and existence are independent of each other. (shrink)

Discussions about the content of Plato’s Gorgias mostly follow the structure of this dialogue given by the change of the interlocutors. As plain as this change is, as little does it correspond with the development of the subject. This becomes obvious if we compare the division of the dialogue by the interlocutors with the division of the leading questions. New themes do not start with a new person, but only in the course of the conversation with Gorgias, Polos, and Callicles (...) respectively Socrates gets a more fundamental niveau for an old question or introduces a new subject. (shrink)

Scholars have cited the influence of Lucretius on Machiavelli as important to framing Machiavelli’s position on the freedom of political agents. Some scholars like Roecklin and Rahe argue that Machiavelli was a determinist based on Machiavelli’s rejection of the clinamen; others argue with Brown and Morfino that Machiavelli’s affirmation of Lucretian natural principles left room for the freedom of agents. However, this paper takes a different approach by arguing that Machiavelli successfully resists identification with either of these positions. I argue (...) here that Machiavelli affirms a notion of agency that reflects the influence of the Lucretian notion of mixed bodies where human actions emerge from an irreducible multiplicity of subjective and objective factors. I also argue that Machiavelli structures the narratives describing the actions of his agents in a way that supports interpreting their actions as both contingent and necessary. (shrink)

In this work, first published in two volumes in 1890 and 1894, Erwin Rohde, the German classical scholar and friend of Nietzsche, describes the ancient Greek cult of souls and establishes the sources of the belief in the immortality of the soul, exploring its relation to life both before and after death. This belief in the survival of the soul already existed in the earliest Greek writings, but when and from where did it originate? In Volume 1 Rohde examines (...) belief in the soul as it appears in Homeric poetry and within local cults, and finds that the idea of an afterlife is already represented in different forms in the works of Hesiod and Aeschylus. He also discusses burial rites and the Eleusinian Mysteries. Psyche, reissued here in the 1898 edition, remains a standard reference work on this topic. (shrink)

Adam Smith has long been remembered as an economist, but the past decades have witnessed an ever-increasing recognition and discussion of his moral philosophy with renewed interest in his first maj...

Ich bin ein Überläufer gewesen, von Habermas zu Albert. Damals gab es doch die Front im sogenannten Positivismusstreit: Adorno gegen Popper und Habermas gegen Albert. Die Angreifer saßen tatsächlich in Frankfurt.

The author rejects the theory of holism and criticises especiallyA. Meyer's works. An important starting point ofMeyer's arguments consists in the opinion that the physiologists of to day are out of days because they still want to base biology on classical physics which has been superseded by the “Quantenmechanik” . As organisms, however, are not microphysical systems — as may be proved —Meyer's arguments become futile. Also the opinion that the qualities of the whole are not determined by those of (...) the parts, but that on the contrary the whole determines the performances of its parts is rejected, since the whole can only work by influences proceeding from its parts. —Meyer's opinion that not physical but biological laws are the more generally valid results from a use of the words „more generally valid” in a sense differing from common usage. Many other results ofA. Meyer also arise through a modified use of language.L'auteur récuse la théorie du holisme et critique avant tout les travaux deA. Meyer. Un point de départ important des arguments deMeyer consiste dans l'opinion que les physiologistes d'aujourd'hui soient arriérés parce qu'ils veulent encore baser la biologie sur la physique classique qui est dépassée par la „Quantenmechanik” . Comme toutefois les organismes ne sont pas des systèmes microphysicaux, ce qui est prouvable, les arguments deMeyer sont mal assurés. Il faut aussi récuser l'opinion que les qualités du tout ne soient pas déterminées par celles des parties mais que, inversement, le tout stipule les traveaux de ses parties, puisque le tout peut seulement agir par des influences partant de ces parties. — L'opinion deMeyer, que ce ne sont pas les lois physiques mais les lois biologiques qui sont d'une validité plus générale , résulte de l'emploi des mots „validité plus générale” s'écartant de la manière de parler. Encore bien d'autres résultats deMeyer ne résultent que d'une manière de s'exprimer modifiée. (shrink)

_Why originalism is a flawed, incoherent, and dangerously ideological method of constitutional interpretation__ “Chemerinsky... offers a concise, point-by-point refutation of the theory [of originalism]. He argues that it cannot deliver what it promises—and if it could, no one would want what it is selling.”—David Cole, _New York Review of Books__ Originalism, the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted, was once the fringe theory of a few extremely conservative legal scholars but is now (...) a well-accepted mode of constitutional interpretation. Three of the Supreme Court’s nine justices explicitly embrace the originalist approach, as do increasing numbers of judges in the lower courts. Noted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky gives a comprehensive analysis of the problems that make originalism unworkable as a method of constitutional interpretation. He argues that the framers themselves never intended constitutional interpretation to be inflexible and shows how it is often impossible to know what the “original intent” of any particular provision was. Perhaps worst of all, though its supporters tout it as a politically neutral and objective method, originalist interpretation tends to disappear when its results fail to conform to modern conservative ideology. (shrink)