Protophysics and Special Theory of Relativity. First, a proposal for a constructive foundation of the Special Theory of Relativity by M. Buth is criticized and confronted with an alternative proposal by the author. The main idea is to solve the problem of transforming coordinates between inertial systems in terms of the General Theory of Measurement. Regarding transformations of co-ordinates as transformations of thecorresponding “functions of measurement” these functions have to meet two demands. 1. To identify measured values which are related (...) to different inertial systems and measuring procedures as the same magnitude, the ratio scale of length and duration has to be defined with respect to the whole class of inertial systems. 2. Using the concept of a certain physical magnitude, propositions about measuring devices are made which are invariant with respect to measuring procedures. As aconsequence every transformation between functions of measurement has to be an equivalence relation. The first demand leads to linearity, the second one reduces the set of permissible transformations between inertial systems to the alternative of Galilei- and Lorentz-transformation. The (im)possibility of putting an absolute simultaneity into practice decides between these transformations. (shrink)

Several problems arise with the Axiomatizability Theorem : Each 2-valued consequence is s.f.a . We mention in particular.

v. 1. History of linguistics.--v. 2. Contemporary linguistics.

Dieser Essay behandelt das Phanomen der doppelten Belastung von Frauen, die zugleich "ihren" Haushalt in Ordnung halten und einem "normalen" Beruf nachgehen (wollen/miissen).Er konzentriert sich auf zwei Seiten einer dialektischen Situation: einmal das naheliegende Faktum, daB eine zweifache Belastung die Arbeitshetze intensiviert, den StreB intensiviert und die freie Zeit so weit "auffriBt", daB ein humanes Leben ausgeschlossen bleibt: die Not der Tugend; zum andern der weniger leicht zugangliche, gleichwohl reale Sachver halt, daB Belastungen auch Herausforderungen darstellen, Bewiih rungs proben mit (...) der Chance zu personlicher Entwicklung und strate gischer Entfaltung: die Tugend der Not. Beide Seiten gehOren untrennbar zusammen. Wie ihr Verhaltnis im einzel nen verlauft, ist eine offene Frage. Vermutlich folgt es jener "Laffer-Kur ve", die einige Zeit lang in der wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Diskussion eine Rolle spielte: d.h., bis zu einem gewissen Maximum fordern zusatzli che Belastungen die Entfaltung der Personlichkeit; was dariiber hinausgeht, lost regressive Veranderungen aus. Den Umschlagpunkt galte es theoretisch zu bestimmen und praktisch zu stabilisieren. (shrink)

Zodiacal and Planetary ‘decani’. The 36 ecliptical ‘decani’ (sectors of 10°) were distributed either to the twelve zodiacal signs or to the seven planets. The first system has been transmitted only by the Roman didactic poet Manilius, who commits an error at the end of his catalogue that can be explained by comparing it with the more frequent planetary one. Both systems follow the Roman calendar beginning with the Ram respectively Mars. Although the zodiacal system (36 : 12) runs without (...) remainder whereas the planetary one (36 : 7) repeats Mars once more (six times), so that it both begins and ends with this planet, this planetary system prevails. Four possible astrological reasons of this contradiction are discussed including other texts, mostly taken from the ‘Babylonian’ Teucrus (at the latest first century BC), who represents the first witness, if not the inventor of this particular lore. (shrink)

Meets what? Ranking theory is, as far as I know, the only existing theory suited for underpinning Keith Lehrer’s account of knowledge and justification. If this is true, it’s high time to bring both together. This is what I shall do in this paper. However, the result of defining Lehrer’s primitive notions in terms of ranking theory will be disappointing: justified acceptance will, depending on the interpretation, either have an unintelligible structure or reduce to mere acceptance, and in the latter (...) interpretation knowledge will reduce to true belief. Of course, this result will require a discussion of who should be disappointed. So, the plan of the paper is simple: In section 1 I shall briefly state what is required for underpinning Lehrer’s account and why most of the familiar theories fail to do so. In section 2 I shall briefly motivate and introduce ranking theory. Basing Lehrer’s account on it will be entirely straightforward. Section 3 proves the above-mentioned results. Section 4, finally, discusses the possible conclusions. (shrink)

Maybe human aesthetics developed from animal aesthetics. I am not, of course, suggesting that sophisticated aesthetics as practiced by humans already exists among animals. Yet the aesthetic attitude as such might have originated in the animal kingdom. Drawing on this animal resource, human aesthetics might have evolved and, when cultural evolution emerged, it had reached results very different from animal aesthetics. With this perspective in mind, I show that the evolutionary aesthetics, as commonly pursued today, falls prey to serious shortcomings.

In his early Freiburg lectures Heidegger developed various theories of the self that differ substantially from his later ideas about the selfhood of everyday Dasein in Being and Time. Exploration of these differences facilitates the explanation of a concept of self that provides a substantial contribution to contemporary discussions of the topic.