The protection and improvement of the environment represents the most essential field of engagement among all the issues of international policy. An ecological paradigm in the traditional and postmodern context refers to a strategic approach to solving the outstanding controversies of human society in different stages of its existence. Globalization of the environment is the oldest example of this process, which in the contemporary world has gained a special significance. Negative trends in addressing ecological problems at all levels of organization of the planetary community oblige the international participants to apply more adequate measures to preserve the ecological safety of humankind.

The aim of this essay is twofold. First, I examine the role of Alfred North Whitehead and process thinkers in bringing about and shaping the field of environmental ethics. As we will see, our job is not so much to develop the connections between Whitehead and environmental thought as to recover them. Second, given this genealogical work, I invite process scholars to reconsider their generally hostile reception of Aldo Leopold and his land ethic. I suggest that a version of the land ethic grounded in a process axiology could make a significant contribution to contemporary environmental thought.

A significant part of the debate concerning the nature of rational requirements centers on disambiguating ordinary articulations of conditional requirements of rationality. Particular focus has been put on the question of whether conditional requirements of rationality take a wide or a narrow logical scope. However, this paper shows that this focus is misguided and harmful to the debate. I argue that concentrating on syntactic scope renders us more likely to arrive at incorrect formulations of rational requirements and to overlook questions of greater philosophical importance.

Early traits of moral subjectivism can be gleaned from some of Plato’s dialogues with the emphasis on the “self.” The Socratic injunction “man know thyself” provided a stimulus for self-examination and self-awareness, which spring from human subjectivity. The Republic, Plato’s greatest dialogue, a magisterial masterpiece, recognized truth, value, and reality as fluctuating as they relate to the physical world. However, he gave much credence to the forms or ideas as the real reality. Plato recognized the centrality of human subjectivity—the contemplative intellect which grasps the forms—as the basis of truth, value, and intelligibility in the physical world. His accommodation of objectivity and subjectivity is an eloquent testimony to the centrality of duality not only in the everyday reality of humanity, but also in the decision making process in world affairs. For Plato, subjectivity is grounded in “theory of justice,” the recognition that communication, understanding, and co-operation are required for harmony and peaceful co-existence to subsist in the human community. Not adhering to Plato’s theory of justice, which stipulates the need for specialization of functions—i.e., one man, one job—is injustice, and does not encourage peace and stability.This paper recognizes the need to go beyond Plato’s presentation of moral objectivism as an independent realm of reality to moral subjectivity. This is the task of a philosophy that recognizes the importance of the idea of human freedom and the attainment of a stable society.

The knowledge-based society developed technologies of information in order to make better use all the data it had acquired and to manage it efficiently. Computers have replaced human memory and improved other human capacities. However, these changes have had some hidden effects. Some information is processed by computers, and the epistemic subject is replaced by them. From an epistemological point of view, we cannot speak about the bits of knowledge that are stored, but only the semantic information or data which is attached. Secondly, in the case of an epistemic subject, the so-called tacit knowledge which is incorporated into skills and practical capacities becomes more important, and is externalized in new forms. Therefore, my claim is that we can speak of a paradoxical reverse transition from knowledge to information in the knowledge-based society.

This article explains how Aquinas understood: a) apprehension of the first intellectual concepts: ens, verum et bonum simpliciter (Ens is understood metaphysically as composed of human nature and the act of being, ordered according to the bonum); b) establishment of the first and the second practical commandments in a genuinely human or rational person; c) ethics and natural law as essentially derived from ontology. Therefore, natural law only makes sense from a metaphysical point of view, not merely a physical or material one.

This paper explores two different, even opposite, genealogies of Europe in contemporary phenomenology by Martin Heidegger and Jan Patočka. On the one hand, the paper focuses upon Heidegger’s 1936 lecture on “Europe and German Philosophy”, which is one of his lesser-known texts. In light of this reading, the paper examines a series of key commentaries by Éliane Escoubas, Franco Volpi, Franco Chiereghin, and Reiner Schürmann. On the other hand, the later Jan Patočka’s discourse on Europe lies upon utterly different hermeneutic premisses, construing a new humanism and renewing the metaphysical tradition in the form of negative Platonism. It concludes by arguing that the major differences between Heidegger’s and Patočka’s phenomenological genealogies of Europe are, first, their different stances toward Western metaphysics and humanism, and, second, their divergent understandings of historical lifeworlds.

In this paper, I will attempt to formulate some observations about the limits of a traditional ontology that is in its essence a judicative one. The main goal is to explore the possibility of constructing a pre-judicative ontology; in other words, to describe the cognitive and affective elements that are “under” the main ontological judgments, related naturally to being. The arguments in favor of a pre-judicative ontology offer a new perspective on judicative ontology itself. This pre-judicative ontology is nevertheless a kind of judicative ontology that covers a nonspecific realm of values. The paper has three parts: 1) a description of the main characteristics of traditional ontology from a judicative perspective; 2) the formulation of some logical conditions of possibility for a pre-judicative ontology; and 3) the outline of a pre-judicative ontology as an ontology of values.

This paper is focused, firstly, on the status of Christianity (as a whole) after a long period of secularization—examining in particular its “protective mechanisms”— and, secondly, on the modern tendencies that are transforming the present into an age of desecularization. The central interest here is the interaction between the civil and Christian values in the context of the two historical periods. The article provides a comparison between the aggressive use of reason during the Enlightenment and postmodern religious indifferentism in an attempt to illuminate the present status of Christianity.

This paper is focused on clarifying the concept and the phenomenon of aesthetic heterotopia. The paper takes as its starting point the cultural phenomenon of heterotopia itself and then reveals its aesthetical component in order to find the “topos” of aesthetic heterotopia in contemporary culture.Thus, the main task of the paper will be exploring the boundaries and the relations between possibility and reality in aesthetic heterotopia through W. T. Anderson’s central figure of the postmodern ironist as the only type of worldview with future. In this context, some important issues of contemporary philosophical aesthetics will be discussed, such as: what is the mechanism of creating new aesthetic heterotopias, and what is it based on? Why can the field of classical aesthetics not cover such a cultural phenomenon? Why can non-classical aesthetics also be called process aesthetics, and what do aesthetic heterotopias and the field of process philosophy have in common?And last but not least: what moral attitudes do plenty of aesthetic heterotopias encourage?

This paper aims to explain why we experience any virtual world as a space, even though we cannot speak about virtual words as having spatiality in the common sense of the word. Following Kant’s analysis of space and Merleau-Ponty’s view on the same, I will try to account, at least in part, for the mentioned phenomenon by explaining why cyberspace is experienced with an expectation of space, as is any other exterior object. Also, I will argue that this space should always be understood in the sense of a horizon. I am operating here under the assumption that any experience of the virtual world cannot be separated from the real world, because they are part of the same lived experience.

The main aim of this article is to analyse the relationship between two innovative concepts—the technoself and process identity—from a perspective inspired by process ontology. The working hypothesis is that industrialized and mass societies entered into a post-industrial or informational sphere of capitalism, becoming networking societies—also known as knowledge-based societies—which closely followed their role in approaching the plural identity of the digital Subject and the surveillance practices exercised in its governance as correspondent models for the changes of the current reality. The first section of the article is devoted to research on the technoself, a concept recently introduced by Luppicini in 2013. Criticizing the technoself in terms of process ontology and as a result of digitalization, subjectivity, and technical rationality, I will argue that the constitution of digital subjects, as well as their interactions, should be defined in terms of processes. Therefore, I introduce the concept of process identity—which includes the technoself—and explain how this approach contributes to the development of different research fields (such as speculative realism and object-oriented ontology) and how it affects Floridi’s distinction between digital ontology and informational ontology. The second section focuses on the effects of the digital environment on self-constitution practices and techniques, virtual worlds experiencing what Foucault recognizes as the aesthetics of existence. In the final part, I confront Bentham’s and Foucault’s panopticism, arguing that based on what is accomplished by process identities, networking societies represent societies of control, not disciplinary ones, and consequently this distinction should be applied in governing virtual communities. In the end, I will explain why notions such as digital personae or databased selves are insufficient, and should be replaced by the concepts of process identity and technoself, respectively, in order to improve the models of governing networking societies.

The transience of being in the Chinese context—and specifically within Daoist texts—has been the subject of scholarly attention both as a philosophical theme and as a social phenomenon. Dao is the mystery that makes nature “the way it is.” It can mean process, pattern, or existence. Eastern thinkers tend to find truth in every perspective, pursuing the middle way, and they stress mutual dependence—Zhuangzi’s “equality of things,” the “axis of Dao,” etc. The Chinese sages tend to harbor an optimistic outlook that, however opposed divergent views may appear, in the end they are bound to harmonize and complement one another. Humans can unite themselves with the way they live. There are three threads at work in Zhuangzi’s thought:(1) The principle of equality: all things are equal or have relative parity. Each has its own merit, even that which seems deformed or useless to humans.(2) The principle of difference: each thing is unique and exists in itself in accordance with the Dao.(3) The principle of transformation. The only constant is that myriad beings are always transforming and becoming.

Science is increasingly interdisciplinary, as evidenced by empirical measures, funding initiatives, and the rise of integrative fields such as systems biology and cognitive neuroscience. In this paper, I motivate and outline an account of explanation for interdisciplinary contexts, building on recent debates about scientific perspectivism. Insights from these debates yield an inclusive list of relations between models constructed from different perspectives, which I then refine and generalize into a simple taxonomy. Within this taxonomy of relations among models, I identify the set of relations applicable to interdisciplinary contexts, discuss concepts of unification associated with each, and introduce three further constraints which furnish norms for this variety of explanation. Finally, I discuss implications of this account for a recent debate about understanding and explanation. One important consequence of my view is that explanation in interdisciplinary contexts and understanding of individual agents in those contexts are not equivalent.

Factivism is the view that understanding why a natural phenomenon takes place must rest exclusively on (approximate) truths. One of the arguments for nonfactivism—the opposite view, that falsehoods can play principal roles in producing understanding—relies on our inclination to say that past, false, now superseded but still important scientific theories (such as Newtonian mechanics) do provide understanding. In this paper, my aim is to articulate what I take to be an interesting point that has yet to be discussed: the natural way in which nonfactivism fits within the unificationist account of scientific explanation. I contend that unificationism gives non-factivists a better framework to uphold their position. After I show why this is so, toward the end of the paper I will express doubts with regard to the viability of de Regt’s (2015) kind of non-factivism, based on the idea that understanding should be captured in terms of (scientific) skill.

Some philosophers argue that tying scientific understanding to explanation and truth generates a dilemma for a realist view of science: given the practice and the history of science, either we should give up the idea that understanding requires truth, or we should accept that we do not have scientific understanding. Given, we were told, that the latter horn is repugnant, we should jettison the first horn and disconnect understanding and truth. In this paper, I argue that the alleged dilemma for realism is a non-starter. We can accept both that understanding requires truth and claim that theories offer understanding. I argue that understanding and explanation in science go hand in hand, and that—for a realist at least—they should both be world-involving.

The central argument in this paper is the following: if we agree that one of the aims of explanation is to provide or increase understanding, and if we assess understanding on the basis of the inferences one can draw from the knowledge of the phenomenon which is understood, then the value of an explanation, i.e. its capacity to provide or increase understanding of the explained phenomenon, should be assessed on the basis of the extra-inferences which this explanation allows for. The extra-inferences which a given explanation allows for constitute its inferential content. The analysis of the explanation’s inferential content could be applied to all kinds of explanations with the aim of assessing their goodness. I show how such an analysis helps us to better understand a number of difficulties that have puzzled contemporary philosophers of explanation: the flagpole counterexample to the deductive-nomological model of explanation, the conjunction problem, the difference between good and bad circular explanations.

The aim of this paper is to argue that it is more plausible to approach understanding from a special type of model—the ABS/IBMs models—as a non-explanatory form following some suggestions advanced by Lipton. I will first look to the type of explanation that some authors claimed is disclosed by these models: Weisberg’s analysis of IBMs in ecology and Grüne-Yanoff’s analysis of the Anasazi model. I argue that their analyses fail to show that these models qualify as explanatory understandings. This brings us to Strevens’ “simple view,” which claims the existence of a correct explanation behind any understanding, and his strategy of dismissing the challenges posed by non-explanatory forms. I argue that this strategy incurs damaging costs on his view. In the last part we turn to Khalifa’s critique on Lipton’s proposals and argue that it is based on an unjustified construal of Lipton’s framework. I show how Khalifa’s “argumentative strategy” fails to establish the superiority of actual understanding over possible explanation.

A phenome occurs through the many pathways of the complex net of interaction between the phenome and its environment; therefore researching and understanding how it arises requires investigation into many possible causes that are in constant interaction with each other. The most comprehensive investigations in biology are the ones in which many biologists from different sub-areas—evolutionary biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, physiology, genetics, epigenetics, ecology—have collaborated. Still, biologists do not always need to collaborate or look for the most comprehensive explanations. A more standard investigation in biology occurs within a single subarea, and uses well-defined experiments with very specific conditions. This paper is about causation and related explanation in plant phenome research and its relevance to Aristotle’s Theory of Four Causes. I argue that there are causes which resemble Aristotle’s formal, material, and efficient causes in phenotype explanation and occurrence; but causes which resemble Aristotle’s final causes occur in phenotype explanation only, not in the occurrence.