Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:

Displaying: 41-50 of 847 documents

41. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 42 > Issue: 1/2
Darrow Schecter System and Life-world, or Systems and Systemic Environments?: Reflections on the Social and Political Theories of Habermas and Luhmann
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
42. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 42 > Issue: 1/2
Stefan Müller-Doohm Are There Limits to Postmetap hysical Thought?: Jürgen Habermas’ Conception of Normativity in a secularised Society
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
43. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 42 > Issue: 1/2
Piet Strydom The Problem of Limit Concepts in Habermas: Toward a Cognitive Approach to the Cultural Embodiment of Reason
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This essay deals with Habermas’ concept of truth in his late theoretical philosophy. Assuming his suggestive yet highly inspiring inauguration of a cognitive turn in Critical Theory, it probes his use of the notion of limit concept against the background of the tradition of thought from which it originally derives with the intention of identifying the notion’s potential for taking this promising departure further. It brings to the fore a number of issues in his late writings that reveal the presence of what may be considered the problem of limit concepts in his thought. For present purposes, these issues are located in two areas: Habermas’ revision of his long-held concept of truth and the related criticism of Peirce; and his account of the role of limit concepts like truth and warranted assertibility or rational acceptability in processes of discursive justification. The analysis finds that there is a structural deficit in his presentation that could be filled by cognitively conceived cultural structures that not only correspond to the major types of limit concepts, but also answer to his undeveloped vision of the ‘cultural embodiment of reason’.
44. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 42 > Issue: 1/2
Hauke Brunkhorst Democratic Self-Determination through Anarchic, Public Will-Formation: Towards a robust theory of deliberative democracy
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Aim is a robust theory of deliberative democracy. Therefore, three theses are explained by two historical examples, the revolution of 1848 in France (Chapter I), and the new social movements that emerged in the 1960s (Chapter II). The theses are that (1) democratic will-formation is related internally to truth. The foundation and justification of all legal norms in public will-formation presupposes (2) the sublation of the liberal dualism of democracy and rights and of the idealist dualism of rationality and reality in favor of (3) a continuum of public debates, social struggles, and legislative procedures.
45. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 41 > Issue: 4
Samuel Kahn Positive Duties, Maxim Realism and the Deliberative Field
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
46. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 41 > Issue: 4
Luca Forgione Kant on the Reflecting Power of Judgment and Nonconceptual Content
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
47. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 41 > Issue: 4
Joby Varghese Misguided Explanation by the Application of Screening Off Via the Principle of Common Cause
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The Principle of common cause (PCC) has its significance in providing explanations of phenomena in terms of causal theories. Though the principle has its own epistemological advantages, there can be certain situations where the principle might fail. In the first part of the paper, I offer a preliminary assessment of the PCC and then I turn to make an attempt to illustrate those scenarios where the PCC might misguide us in providing explanation of phenomena in terms of common cause.
48. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 41 > Issue: 4
Petros Damianos Non Conceptual Content And Observable, In Realism Debate
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this article, I try to present some effects of the acceptance of nonconceptual content of perception in the realism problem. After having enhancement as main the problem of discrimination observable - unobservable into the conflict of realism with the constructive empiricism, I criticize a particular aspect, that nonconceptual content of perception strengthens the realistic position. Arguing that, while the starting point of the realist position is the existence of entities of common sense, there is nothing that assures us that the world of our daily life consists of objective, specific, unambiguous entities, that is made up the deep structure of the world - as realists believes - and entities are not just "relevant" objects, which are meant only for our own biological species. These “subjective for species” entities we are obliged, as a particular species, to percept with particular perceptual organs in order to satisfy specific needs, and manage to survive ourselves in a particular environment.
book review
49. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 41 > Issue: 4
Nikolaos Garipidis Democracy as Popular Sovereignty
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
50. Philosophical Inquiry: Volume > 41 > Issue: 2/3
Theodore Scaltsas Sharing a Property
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The Socratic discussion in the Hippias Major, 300-303, is not a passing comment on plural reference; it is a theory of plural subjecthood. It has escaped attention because it is a small part of a larger complex argument on the topic of which pleasures are fine. Socrates’s theory is further concealed by the fact that it is presented as an antithesis between Hippias and himself, whereas in fact, Hippias’s position becomes part of Socrates’s theory. I begin by examining Hippias’s position, and subsequently Socrates’ criticism of it. I then turn to Socrates’s further proposal, and the development of a theory of plural subjects that incorporates elements of Hippias’s position, and Socrates’s own. At the end, I address the question of the ontology of plural subjects. I argue that the key to sharing a property between subjects is not in the way that the plural terms refer to these subjects, or in any decomposition of the commonly owned property instance into parts distributed to these subjects. Rather, I follow Socrates in finding the common ownership of a property instance central to plural subjecthood, and develop an account of how this metaphysical function can be performed by the plural subjects without threatening their distinctness and plurality.