Social cognition can be based on two contrary axioms that answer the question of whether the society can provide for the universal survival of all of its members. Negative answer (relativist model of society) is more productive methodologically. The key notion here is the technosocial formula of society, the physical meaning of which is that the society as an aggregate of people needs bigger vital space than it can create. The growth of man in nature was the result not only (...) of the supplanting of other species but also of the intraspecific struggle which became the main factor of the development process. The criterion of social progress is reduced in the end to only one index – the ability of society’s survival and it doesn’t have any absolute value in space and time. (shrink)

O. R. Jones; VIII—Things Known Without Observation, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 61, Issue 1, 1 June 1961, Pages 129–150, https://doi.org/10.

O. R. Jones; VIII—Things Known Without Observation, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 61, Issue 1, 1 June 1961, Pages 129–150, https://doi.org/10.

It is argued that "a's statement, That x is eligible, Is true" says, And not merely presupposes as williams holds, That x is eligible. A brief summary is given of williams' analysis of what is said about a statement when it is said to be true. An attempt is made to show that the predicable in williams' definition is anomalous by contrasting it with genuine conjunctive predicables. Finally, It is suggested that williams' predicable, Even if suitably modified, Would not be (...) the formal equivalent of "things are as a says they are", Which is what williams had claimed. (shrink)

In his book, Theory of Knowledge , Roderick Chisholm distinguishes very precisely between, amongst others, what he calls acceptable, reasonable and evident propositions. A proposition is acceptable if with-holding it is not more reasonable than believing it; a proposition is reasonable if believing it is more reasonable than with-holding it; and a proposition is evident for a person provided it is reasonable for him, and there is no other proposition such that the latter is more reasonable than the former. The (...) notion of being more reasonable is obviously pivotal, and Chisholm explains what it is for an attitude to be more reasonable than another in the following words: “If the person in question were a rational being, if his concerns were purely intellectual, and if he were to choose between the two attitudes, then he would choose the more reasonable in preference to the less reasonable”. The wording of this conditional suggests that Chisholm does not think a person is necessarily rational, so it is imperative that we ask: When is a person rational? (shrink)

In the post-Soviet period, the problem of reviving the spirituality of our people arose in Ukrainian society. Today, after twelve years of Ukraine's independence, the question of whether or not this revival has taken place remains open. Perhaps, largely because the phenomenon of spirituality is complex and multifaceted, its semantic horizons are still blurred. The study of the formation of the spirituality of the individual will allow us to get to know one aspect of this phenomenon more deeply. Finding out (...) ways to bring to life the various forms of personality spirituality will help to identify which of these forms a person is capable of realizing in today's Ukrainian society. (shrink)

Cappelen et al. (2015) open their paper, “Fairness is intuitive,” with the observation, “A key question in the social sciences is whether it is intuitive to behave in a fair manner or whether fair behavior requires active self-control” (p. 2). They purport to offer “evidence showing that fair behavior is intuitive to most people” (p. 1). Their premise is that deciding by intuition is faster than deciding by deliberation. While this premise in and on itself is rather uncontroversial—the conclusion that (...) they draw from it is not: “Since a decision that relies on intuition is typically made faster than a decision that relies on deliberation, the response time of a fair decision relative to a selfish decision provides an important indication of the intuitiveness of fair behavior” (p. 2). This reasoning, in fact, amounts to a reverse inference fallacy. ‘Intuitive’ may mean ‘fast’, but this would not imply that ‘fast’ means ‘intuitive’. However, we may ask, under which empirical conditions might we be allowed to draw the inference of ‘intuitive’ from ‘fast’? Naturally, these conditions would require that ‘fast’ rule out ‘deliberative’. To achieve this, we would need information beyond relative response speed alone—such as absolute decision times. And this begs the question, which range of decision times would rule out ‘deliberative’—or at the very least, render it improbable? Although the precise cut-off for deliberative decisions may be difficult to establish (see e.g., Schnei... (shrink)