This paper raises an open critical discussion on some key notions in Michael Ruse’s philosophy. These include the conceptual elements of scientific explanation, the difference between epistemic and cultural values, the epistemological status of science and religion in explaining nature, the compatibility or incompatibility between Darwinian thought and Christian thought, and especially between evolutionary theory and creationism, the key importance of admitting or not admitting supernatural causality when qualifying an explanation as scientific, the role played by the divinity in the (...) argumentation about the compatibility or incompatibility between science and religion, the convenience of not understanding the Abrahamic god from an ontological perspective but from a psychological one, etc. It ends by proposing certain conclusions that could perhaps contribute to contrast and enrich his philosophy. (shrink)

The Damasian concept of emotion and the self fits within the emotivist tradition, viewing mind and reason as embodied realities linked to the body and its social and natural interactions. Emotion, for Damásio, creates the context for reason to operate effectively, aligning with anti-Cartesian ideas. Due to the role of emotions, this may be used to suggest that living beings are not just skin-bound entities but processes integrating body and environment. Therefore, we examine both his relevance to contemporary philosophy of (...) mind and self, and his possible contribution to naturalized metaphysics, particularly within Developmental Systems Theory. (shrink)