Science can (also) be studied as responsible and rational human activity, guided and legitimated by its own normative system: a finite and ordered set of norms and values for agents in a given field of activity. Such norms of inquiry are needed for a rationality requirement of science, which also presupposes a partial agreement on (acceptance of, respect for) these norms between scientists and their social environment. The notions of scientific accountability, autonomy, and freedom of inquiry are elucidated by means of an action-theoretic definition of science and by a certain use of the distinction between internal methodological) and external norms of science.

There are old and convincing arguments for intellectual liberty in all of its forms — freedom to think, to speak, to publish — based on assumptions that we who have been brought up in Western democratic countries take for granted. Two major arguments are particularly powerful. The first I shall call the Utilitarian argument which, in its simplest form, says that without intellectual liberty any Party and any government will harden into an exploiting class, a tyranny. The Kantian argument is that, quite apart from its value to society, intellectual liberty — Kant calls it autonomy — is absolutely indispensable to the integrity of the person. In this paper I defend the Kantian approach. The philosophical-epistemological question "How do you know autonomy is a good thing?" remains unanswered. No further foundation can be given.

The elementary, liberal form of democracy has been criticized for being purely political, predominantly representative, centralistic, involving struggle for power among oligarchic political parties, maintaining professional politics and domination of wealthy classes. A more rational and radical form, the council democracy, is projected as a historically possible and better alternative. It extends democratic principles to economy and culture, combines direct participation with representation, replaces centralism with federalism, develops political pluralism without ruling parties, deprofessionalizes politics, and dismantles any monopoly of power. In the light of existing historical experiences the structure of council-democracy is analyzed, possible solutions of crucial practical problems indicated, and different strategies of its realization are examined.

It is argued that the opposition of nature and ethics ought to be overcome by the cooperation of scientific and ethical studies. Beyond that, theoretical, practical and specifically political reasons suggest a serious examination of the possibilities for an ethical orientation derived from evolutionary biology. So far, however, the conceptual connexion between evolutionary facts and ethical norms appears to be insufficiently understood. Given that, suggestive connexions offered by biological thinkers need critical examination, especially of their hidden historical conditions and their potentially dangerous political implications.

According to one version of the Causal Theory, an action is a mental or bodily event caused by an intention to act. Deliberate action requires prior planning. The practical syllogism is interpreted as a summary description of the planning process, where the conclusion reports the agent's intention. Social action differs from individual action in that only the former requires coordination of one's action with members of a group. This difference is reflected in the intention with which we act, labeled 'we-intention' by Raimo Tuomela. Reports of we-intentions are the conclusions of interpersonal practical syllogisms. We-intentions differ from individual intentions both cognitively and conatively. The cognitive component of a we-intention includes a representation of the pattern of group activity into which one's action fits, as well as expectations of other's actions; the conative component includes at least one socially generated motive. These cognitive and conative components of we-intention find their explication in cognitive and motivational psychology and related fields.

It is shown that two arguments given by Alvin Plantinga, which he offers to refute the existentialist thesis that propositions, states of affairs, and properties are ontologically dependent upon the objects they are directly about, are unsound. The existentialist position is then defended on the basis of both some intuitive considerations and a rigorous argument that does not presuppose any particular theory of the nature of propositions, states of affairs, and properties.

The traditional ways in which philosophy is conceived are in retreat. Classical foundationalism, in both its epistemological and its semantical phrasing, not only rests on a mistake, its very self-image of philosophy is both presumptuous and unsound. Richard Rorty's work has done much to establish these things. Most of his critics have accepted his critique of classical foundationalism while continuing to espouse either some form of modest foundationalism or a coherentist naturalized epistemology. But in doing so they have, either explicitly or in effect, given up the claim — a claim that gave philosophy a clear rationale — that philosophy could be the arbiter of culture by telling us what genuine knowledge or significant discourse really are. This transformation is so deep as to make it thoroughly problematic whether there is anything viable left in the tradition.

I argue for modal realism from the following principles:(R1) p just in case there are truth-makers for the proposition that p.(R2) If there are truth-makers for the proposition that p and the proposition that p relevantly entails the proposition that q, then there are truthrmakers for the proposition that q.(M) The proposition that p relevantly entails the proposition that possibly p.(R3) I f there are truth-makers for the proposition that q, then necessarily, if q, there are truth-makers for the proposition that q.All of the above principles are to be read as necessary truths. Also, the propositional variable 'p' is restricted to propositions that necessarily satisfy R1. 'q' is not so restricted.The argument is ontological because I argue that the possibility of modal reaUsm together with R3 entails that modal realism is true. The possibility of modal realism follows from R1, R2 and M.

Die Unterscheidung zwischen Definition und Kriterien der Wahrheit wird weitgehend akzeptiert, ohne daß die Unterschiedenen jedoch förmliche Bestimmung erfahren. Die Arbeit versteht sich als diesbezüglicher Explikationsvorstoß. Während die Definition von "Wahrheitsdefinition" keine problematischen Züge aufweist, ergibt sich für "Wahrheitskriterium" eine folgenreiche Zweideutigkeit: Wahrheitskriterien sind einerseits zu charakterisieren als wahre generelle Aussagen einer Metasprache L', mit denen man in U über die Wahrheit von Aussagen einer Objektsprache L befindet. Wahrheitskriterien sind andererseits zu fassen als Wahrheitsregeln einer Sprache L, mit denen man in L entsprechende Wahrheitshandlungen über die Wahrheit von Aussagen von L entscheidet.

Alvin Plantinga charges classical foundationalism with self-referential incoherence, meaning that that doctrine employs criteria for rationally acceptable propositions which exclude the criteria themselves. More specifically, the charge is that the criteria are neither properly basic nor supported by properly basic propositions. In section 1 the doctrine of classical foundationalism is briefly explained. In section 2, a defense against Plantinga's objection is provided showing how the foundationalist can provide arguments which ground the criteria in question in properly basic propositions.

Philosophers who advocate an ontology without events must show how sentences containing apparent reference to events can be systematically paraphrased, or "regimented," into sentences which avoid ontological commitment to these putative entities. Two alternative proposals are set forth for regimenting statements containing putatively event-denoting definite descriptions. Both proposals eliminate the apparent reference to events, while still preserving the validity of inferences sanctioned by the surface grammar of the regimented sentences.

If (1) a person's knowing a proposition P implies that P is true and if (2) facts are unidentical with true propositions then in knowing P a person does not know a fact. Unless the correspondence view of truth is abandoned, this skepticism as regards facts cannot be answered by denying (2). If facts are identical with true propositions then facts are (trivially) true. But if truth consists in a correspondence to fact then every fact, being true, corresponds to a fact and the latter fact to another fact and so ad infinitum leaving the truth of any fact groundless. But the skepticism can be answered by construing the dictum that knowledge implies truth not as (1) above but as (1')» a person's knowing a fact F implies that the statement of that fact is true. On this solution of direct realism facts are substituted for propositions as the objects of knowledge and statements instead of propositions are made the bearers of 'true'.

In this paper Schlick's use of the term "concept" is analyzed and also secondarily the term "content." An unambiguous and straightforward use of such a basic term as "concept" which is of great importance in Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre in part should determine the value of Schlick's philosophical writing. Concepts are, for Schlick, either pure thought objects or signs. As thought objects, they do not exist at all. I t is shown that as thought objects concepts can be interpreted as sets and that as signs they must be understood as physical designators. Concepts are thought by conceptual functions which Schlick compared with Brentano's intentions. A critical interpretation of conceptual functions is given. Additionally Schlick's theory of defining concepts is analyzed.

The aim of this paper is to show that the definition of a possible world in the actualist tradition of A. Plantinga, R.M. Adams, R. Chisholm, J. Pollock and N . Wolterstorff is unable to accomodate tensed states of affairs. An example of a tensed state of affairs is the transiently obtaining state of affairs that the storm is present, which obtains only if its negation, it is not the case that the storm is present also obtains but at different times. A possible world that includes tensed states of affairs and their negations cannot be defined in the traditional way, which states that a possible world is a state of affairs S that includes every state of affairs S' or (exclusive disjunction) the negation of S'. Rather, it must be defined in a new way: A possible world is a state of affairs S that includes every state of affairs S' or (inclusive disjunction) the negation of S', such that for every pair P of mutually contradictory tensed states of affairs entailed by S, the members of P obtain nonsimultaneously in S.

Veber's theory of value is based on his general classification of mental phenomena. Value-experiences constitute a special variety of emotional experiences: they have a pseudo-cognitive role; that is, they "perceive" values just as ordinary presentations perceive things and their properties. Veber also makes several distinctions between different types of value-perceiving emotions. Finally he discusses the kinds of objective correlates that these experiences have and thereby distinguishes between three types of value: thing-value, person-value and hagiological value. He may be criticised for inconsistency, because he starts f r om the descriptive standpoint but ends up by legislating on how we ought to value persons.