This volume has its already distant or1g1n in an inter national conference on Evolutionary Epistemology the editors organized at the University of Ghent in November 1984. This conference aimed to follow up the endeavor started at the ERISS (Epistemologically Relevant Internalist Sociology of Science) conference organized by Don Campbell and Alex Rosen berg at Cazenovia Lake, New York, in June 1981, whilst in jecting the gist of certain current continental intellectual developments into a debate whose focus, we thought, was in (...) danger of being narrowed too much, considering the still underdeveloped state of affairs in the field. Broadly speaking, evolutionary epistemology today con sists of two interrelated, yet qualitatively distinct inves tigative efforts. Both are drawing on Darwinian concepts, which may explain why many people have failed to discriminate them. One is the study of the evolution of the cognitive apparatus of living organisms, which is first and foremost the province of biologists and psychologists (H. C. Plotkin, Ed. , Learning, Development, and Culture: Essays in Evolu tionary Epistemology, New York, Wiley, 1984), although quite a few philosophers - professional or vocational - have also felt the need to express themselves on this vast subject (F. M. Wuketits, Ed. , Conce ts and Approaches in Evolutionary Epistemology, Dordrecht Boston, Reidel, 1984). The other approach deals with the evolution of science, and has been dominated hitherto by (allegedly) 'naturalized' philosophers; no book-length survey of this literature is available at present. (shrink)

This article concerns Aquinas’s practical doctrine on two philosophical difficulties underlying much contemporary ethical debate. One is Hume’s Is-ought thesis and the other is its radical consequence, Moore’s Open-question argument. These ethical paradoxes appear to have their roots in epistemological scepticism and in a deficient anthropology. Possible response to them can be found in that Aquinas’s human intellect (essentially theoretical and practical at the same time) naturally performs three main operations: 1º) To apprehend the intellecta and universal notions ens, verum (...) and bonum. 2º) To formulate the first theoretical and practical principles. 3º) To order that the intellectum and universal good be done and the opposite avoided. Thomistic philosophical response to both predicaments will not be exclusively ethical, but will harmonically embrace ontology, anthropology and epistemology. (shrink)

This paper is about participation in efficient risk sharing among agents who have ambiguous beliefs about uncertain states of nature. The question we ask is whether and how can ambiguous beliefs give rise to some agents not participating in efficient risk sharing. Ambiguity of beliefs is described by the multiple-prior expected utility of Gilboa and Schmeidler, or the variational preferences of Maccheroni et al. :1447–1498, 2006). The main result says that if the aggregate risk is relatively small, then the agents (...) whose beliefs are the most ambiguous do not participate in risk sharing. The higher the ambiguity of those agents’ beliefs, the more likely is their non-participation. Another factor making non-participation more likely is low risk aversion of agents whose beliefs are less ambiguous. We discuss implications of our results on agents’ participation in trade in equilibrium in assets markets. (shrink)

First Published in 1998. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Posings as such form part of hierarchic thinking and prevailing practices and are thus subsumed in negativity. Idle talk, seemingly dimming one's view, has been replaced by hallucination, dreams, and illusions. It is so very difficult to see through them and to realize that there is nothing there but them.

In this paper, I argue for two principles to determine the temporal interpretation of modal sentences in English, given a theory in which modals are interpreted against double conversational backgrounds and an ontology in which possible worlds branch towards the future, The Disparity Principle requires that a modal sentence makes distinctions between worlds in the modal base. The Non- disparity Principle requires that a modal sentence does not make distinctions on the basis of facts settled at speech time. Selection of (...) the modal base will set these principles against each other, or allow for their cooperative interaction. For a root modal base, there is a conflict and disparity wins. The resulting interpretation is future. For a non-root modal base, the principles cooperate. Non-disparity determines a non-future interpretation and disparity requires the sentence to go beyond what is known by the speaker. (shrink)

In dieser Arbeit werden Chisholms Konzeption des Analytischen und des synthetischen Apriori sowie die damit zusammenhängenden Aspekte der Chisholmschen Eigenschaftstheorie diskutiert; es wird zu zeigen versucht, daß dieser Versuch zur Explikation des von Kant herkommenden Begriffspaares in Schwierigkeiten führt, die seine Einbettung in den ontologischen Rahmen einer Eigenschaftstheorie, wie sie Chisholm vertritt, als undurchführbar erscheinen lassen.

Es wird versucht, einige Aspekte von Carnaps Werk Der logische Auflyau der Welt vor dem Hintergrund des Kantianismus zu betrachten, insbesondere die Strukturalismusthese, das Verhältnis von Gegebenem und Konstruiertem und den Wirklichkeitsbegriff; das Ergebnis geht dahin, daß sich mehr Gemeinsamkeiten mit der kantianischen Tradition zeigen als es von einem klassischen Werk des Neopositivismus zu erwarten wäre.

Dans la recherche jusqu'à présent la théorie de la „respublica optima” a été totalement négligée. C'est pourquoi on présente ici une reconstruction de cette théorie sous ses différents aspects. À cette fin la fonction et la portée de cette idée viennent brièvement exposées aussi bien que son développement historique. De cette analyse résulte la question d'un impact possible de cette construction particulière et personelle sur la réalité politique.

The thesis is an attempt to give a precise formal semantics for various time-referential linguistic categories of English such as tense, perfect, progressive and Aktionsart or "action type", with the ultimate goal of explaining why with a verb phrase such as walk the inference from, for instance, John is walking to John has walked is intuitively valid, while with a verb phrase such as build a house the even weaker inference from John is building a house to John will have (...) built a house is intuitively invalid. The difference is seen as one of the Aktionsart of the sentences involved. ;Accordingly, a theory of Aktionsarten is developed in chapter 2. Four different Aktionsarten are formally distinguished. In chapter 3 a theory of the tenses and their interaction with temporal adverbials is worked out. Chapter 4 is about the perfect. The so-called "extended now" theory of the perfect is given a precise treatment. Finally, chapter 5 deals with some problems of the English progressive. Especially the so-called "imperfective paradox" is given a solution. ;The method I use is that of model-theoretic semantics applied to natural languages, as it was first developed by the logician, Richard Montague. (shrink)