A revival of empiricist theories in cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and philosophy has been led by figures such as Antonio Damasio （1994）, Lawrence Barsalou （1999）, George Lakoff （1987）, and Jesse Prinz ...A revival of empiricist theories in cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and philosophy has been led by figures such as Antonio Damasio （1994）, Lawrence Barsalou （1999）, George Lakoff （1987）, and Jesse Prinz （2002; 2004）. Their work has served to connect familiar empiricist approaches to thought and reason with contemporary cognitive psychology and neuroscience. The work of Prinz is of special philosophical significance since it aims to bring together the work of neo-empirically minded theorists in the cognitive and neuro-sciences with main themes found in contemporary philosophical theories of intentionality and reference. In this paper, I examine Prinz＇s efforts to synthesize a neo-empiricist theory of concepts with contemporary semantic theories of reference and intentionality. In part one, I analyze Prinz＇s approach in some depth. In part two, I raise a question concerning the origins of intentionality. Specifically, I am interested in examining the minimum cognitive prerequisites for intentionality within Prinz＇s theory of perception-based representation. In part three, I raise a problem case for Prinz＇s account of the requirements for intentionality, and propose an adjustment in Prinz＇s account to meet the challenge of the objection.展开更多
One can distinguish three levels in the integrative unity of knowledge and norms （assessments）, which is termed bioethics. The first level is theoretical. It is connected with the facts and truths. The second level ...One can distinguish three levels in the integrative unity of knowledge and norms （assessments）, which is termed bioethics. The first level is theoretical. It is connected with the facts and truths. The second level deals with establishing of certain standards and rules of conduct, with the monitoring of their implementation and the assessment of the results of implementation/violation of norms. The third level is associated with individual behavior, formed on the basis of relevant knowledge （or lack of it, as is evident from the table）, and the rules governing its application. Theoretical Bioethics is an integral part of Philosophy---the practical Bioethics is directly related to Law and applied Bioethics deals with the personal standards of specific behavior in concrete situations. Social need for regulatory control of any activity with living entities has led to rapid development of practical Bioethics, while its philosophical content developed more slowly. This creates a conflict of norms and values, hampering the adoption of individual decisions now in the field of applied Bioethics. Deontologization of Bioethics can lead to the fact that it will lose its philosophical content and become a specific area of Law. This, in turn, leads to the dehumanization of Bioethics. It is therefore necessary to conduct a methodological analysis of the relationship of Philosophy, Bioethics and Law, the results of which will focus the researchers on the synchronization of the axiological, praxeological and ethical components of scientific research in order to preserve the intellectual integrity of Bioethics.展开更多
Among the few philosophers who dedicated philosophical reflection on the problem of technology, Hans Jonas would be the leading one. Still in a close affinity with Martin Heidegger, his teacher, Jonas argued that mode...Among the few philosophers who dedicated philosophical reflection on the problem of technology, Hans Jonas would be the leading one. Still in a close affinity with Martin Heidegger, his teacher, Jonas argued that modem technology bore some annoying characters. In line of this anxiety, Jonas suggested the importance of protecting life as an integral part of the ethical project he intended to build. Departing from his basic notion that human life is never separated from other organic life, Jonas has opened a wider space for ethical responsibilities towards life of the whole cosmos. In what sense is his notion of the responsibility towards the whole life should be understood is one of the aim of this paper. Baring in mind that Jonas developed his concept on life and human responsibility towards it as an argumentation against the development of technology, the social context in which modem technology finds its root is worthed to be discussed. It is concluded that separating ethics from ontology as many theorists and philosophers did so far has strengthened the old notion of human autonomy with its defects, and by that, the destruction of life seemed to be accepted as a consequence of it.展开更多
文摘A revival of empiricist theories in cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and philosophy has been led by figures such as Antonio Damasio （1994）, Lawrence Barsalou （1999）, George Lakoff （1987）, and Jesse Prinz （2002; 2004）. Their work has served to connect familiar empiricist approaches to thought and reason with contemporary cognitive psychology and neuroscience. The work of Prinz is of special philosophical significance since it aims to bring together the work of neo-empirically minded theorists in the cognitive and neuro-sciences with main themes found in contemporary philosophical theories of intentionality and reference. In this paper, I examine Prinz＇s efforts to synthesize a neo-empiricist theory of concepts with contemporary semantic theories of reference and intentionality. In part one, I analyze Prinz＇s approach in some depth. In part two, I raise a question concerning the origins of intentionality. Specifically, I am interested in examining the minimum cognitive prerequisites for intentionality within Prinz＇s theory of perception-based representation. In part three, I raise a problem case for Prinz＇s account of the requirements for intentionality, and propose an adjustment in Prinz＇s account to meet the challenge of the objection.
文摘One can distinguish three levels in the integrative unity of knowledge and norms （assessments）, which is termed bioethics. The first level is theoretical. It is connected with the facts and truths. The second level deals with establishing of certain standards and rules of conduct, with the monitoring of their implementation and the assessment of the results of implementation/violation of norms. The third level is associated with individual behavior, formed on the basis of relevant knowledge （or lack of it, as is evident from the table）, and the rules governing its application. Theoretical Bioethics is an integral part of Philosophy---the practical Bioethics is directly related to Law and applied Bioethics deals with the personal standards of specific behavior in concrete situations. Social need for regulatory control of any activity with living entities has led to rapid development of practical Bioethics, while its philosophical content developed more slowly. This creates a conflict of norms and values, hampering the adoption of individual decisions now in the field of applied Bioethics. Deontologization of Bioethics can lead to the fact that it will lose its philosophical content and become a specific area of Law. This, in turn, leads to the dehumanization of Bioethics. It is therefore necessary to conduct a methodological analysis of the relationship of Philosophy, Bioethics and Law, the results of which will focus the researchers on the synchronization of the axiological, praxeological and ethical components of scientific research in order to preserve the intellectual integrity of Bioethics.
文摘Among the few philosophers who dedicated philosophical reflection on the problem of technology, Hans Jonas would be the leading one. Still in a close affinity with Martin Heidegger, his teacher, Jonas argued that modem technology bore some annoying characters. In line of this anxiety, Jonas suggested the importance of protecting life as an integral part of the ethical project he intended to build. Departing from his basic notion that human life is never separated from other organic life, Jonas has opened a wider space for ethical responsibilities towards life of the whole cosmos. In what sense is his notion of the responsibility towards the whole life should be understood is one of the aim of this paper. Baring in mind that Jonas developed his concept on life and human responsibility towards it as an argumentation against the development of technology, the social context in which modem technology finds its root is worthed to be discussed. It is concluded that separating ethics from ontology as many theorists and philosophers did so far has strengthened the old notion of human autonomy with its defects, and by that, the destruction of life seemed to be accepted as a consequence of it.
