The paper gives a reconstruction of Donald Davidson’s theory of primary reasons in the context of the unified theory of meaning and action and its ontology of individual events. This is a necessary task to understand this philosophy of language and action because since his article “Actions, Reasons, and Causes” he has developed and modified his proposal on describing and explaining actions. He has expanded the “unified theory” to a composite theory of beliefs and desires as a total theory of (...) behavior. At first, the anomalous monism was a byproduct. Yet, the step to this philosophy of the mental is not contingent. It will be shown that the anomalous monism as the primary feature of the mental does not lead us to a materialic monism in our ontology. If the evidence of radical interpretation has no echo in natural science, we have to give up materialism.Following this, I will argue for a pure anomalism. Or, in other words, for the ascription of propositional attitudes given by the semantical analysis of sentences of such attitudes does not commit us to a materialistc framework in our ontological thinking. Yet, to understand Davidson’s unified theory, we have to grasp the role of individual events in this framework since the ontological reduction of individual events explains par example the relation between the mind and the body, and the possibility of autonomous action in the world of causality. I do not argue for a dualism of properties between the physical of the mental in the manner of other philosophers, since from the radical interpreters point the empirical restrictions of the speaker’s attitudes and behavior cannot be fixed for all cases. (shrink)

In this article I argue that contractarian theory is a fruitful approach for dealing with questions of legitimacy in light of globalisation. I try to point out that impaired conditions for providing collective goods in nation-states do not call the legitimacy of globalisation into question, even if the provision of such goods meets with consent amongst the citizens of the nation-state. The need to raise taxes as a consequence of the transfer of mobile resources to other countries can indicate the (...) existence of state activities which lack legitimacy from the contractarian perspective. However, the impossibility of applying the exclusion principle in providing collective goods indeed entails legitimatory problems of globalisation. In this respect, a need for international agreements exists. Nevertheless, unilateral attempts by nation-states to withraw the domestic economy from global influences can interfere with the welfare of other collectives and they therefore lack legitimacy, a moral consequence which is in danger of being neglected even from a contractarian approach. (shrink)

The Diagnostic Understanding of Gestalt Theoretical Psychotherapy: In accordance with the basic thoughts of the Guideline, Gestalt Theoretical Psychotherapy acts on the conviction that diagnostic revelations and therapeutic change processes are inseparable. Even if each of them is related to different functions and thus to particular demands, an efficient patient support requires the professional and proper interplay of discovery and change processes throughout her therapy. Each new discovery is per se related to a change and may set off a series (...) of further changes, which may again trigger off new discoveries. As widely known, this may also happen when this whole process and this cause-and-effect-relation are neither intended, nor planned, nor insightfully administered or understood. The authors of the Guideline are, therefore, right to not only ascertain the fact that discovering and changing in psychotherapy are joint and intertwining processes, but also to postulate that the psychotherapist has to work on this intertwining process consciously and deliberately, guided by and in accordance with her particular scientific-methodological approach. Even in the diagnostic strand of psychotherapeutic work, Gestalt Theoretical psychotherapists let themselves be guided by the “characteristics of working at the living”, as they were elaborated by Wolfgang Metzger (1962) and transferred to psychotherapeutic applications by Hans-Jürgen P. Walter (1977) and his colleagues. Simultaneously, essential anthropological, epistemological and ethical home positions of Gestalt theory are concisely expressed therein. I am going to mention them briefly, reformulating them in reference to the diagnostic remit. By doing so, the accordance with the major viewpoints of the Guideline in the description of diagnostic processes in psychotherapy should become apparent. (shrink)

The paper critically reconstructs the crowd psychological heritage in phenomenological and social science emotion research. It shows how the founding figures of phenomenology and sociology uncritically adopted Le Bon’s crowd psychological imagery as well as what I suggest calling the disease model of emotion transfer. Against this background, it can be examined how Le Bon’s understanding of emotional contagion as an automatic, involuntary, and uncontrollable mechanism has remained a dominant force in emotion research until today. However, a closer look at (...) phenomenological descriptions and empirical investigations of how emotion’s spread shows that there is little evidence supporting Le Bon’s crowd psychological framework. Thus, I suggest that the disease model should be dismissed in favor of more plausible approaches to interpersonal emotion dynamics. (shrink)