One of the most intriguing problems of philosophy and of mankind is the question whether humans have a free will. This question is heavily disputed between natural scientists and especially neuroscientists, who deny f...One of the most intriguing problems of philosophy and of mankind is the question whether humans have a free will. This question is heavily disputed between natural scientists and especially neuroscientists, who deny free will, and philosophers and other groups, who insist on free will. It is perplexing that both sides base their premise on the same precondition, namely naturalism. We will prove that naturalism automatically leads to physicalism, to materialism, and to reductionism. We will also prove here that it is logically not possible to have a free will if naturalism is true. Free will definitely requires an additional substance, a non-material soul, which cannot be part of our universe. This must not be in contradiction to our current knowledge of natural sciences.展开更多
In the first part of this paper, different perspectives of time proposed in Aristotle＇s philosophy of nature, classic mechanics, thermodynamics, and the theory of relativity, will be presented. Later on, we explore t...In the first part of this paper, different perspectives of time proposed in Aristotle＇s philosophy of nature, classic mechanics, thermodynamics, and the theory of relativity, will be presented. Later on, we explore the phenomenological approach of duration by Henri Bergson and Mauro Dorato＇s naturalistic proposal, which defines the ＂present＂ moment based on neuroscientific experiments. In the second part of the paper, the topic of scientific creativity is introduced, paying particular attention to David Bohm＇s ideas. Finally, the previously analysed perspectives are used to answer the following question： How do physicists create time？展开更多
In his essay ＂Nietzsche＇s Metaethics： Against the Privilege Readings,＂ Brian Leiter critically examines Richard Schacht＇s naturalistic interpretation of Nietzsche. Leiter focuses on the metaethical question： ＂W...In his essay ＂Nietzsche＇s Metaethics： Against the Privilege Readings,＂ Brian Leiter critically examines Richard Schacht＇s naturalistic interpretation of Nietzsche. Leiter focuses on the metaethical question： ＂What status--metaphysical, epistemological^o the values used to undertake [Nietzsche＇s] revaluation [of value] （the ＇assessing values＇） enjoy？＂ （2000, 277）. Are these values true or better justified？ Leiter describes Schacht＇s position as a ＂privilege reading＂ that holds that the perspective from which Nietzsche revaluates values is privileged on the basis of＂normative facts＂ which are constituted by certain ＂natural facts＂ （2000, 279）. Leiter attempts to outline and even enhance the argument he sees Schacht making for this position, which Leiter calls a naturalistic realism. Leiter however finds that the arguments for ＂privilege readings＂ are insufficient. He concludes that the perspective from which Nietzsche revaluates values is not privileged at all. It is simply the idiosyncratic perspective from which Nietzsche revaluates values. In this paper I argue that a version of Schacht＇s privilege reading can be supported using two fundamental components of Leiter＇s interpretation of Nietzsche： his methodological and substantive naturalism. When we use scientific methods and view social systems like other natural systems, we find that in contemporary science a privilege is given to the maximum power principle. This concept was initially conceived by the chemist and mathematician Alfred Lotka and further developed by the ecologist Howard Odum and it has a fundamental similarity to the will to power. This principle provides an empirical foundation for the will to power and Schacht＇s privilege reading of Nietzsche＇s metaethics. It provides further evidence that human life is ultimately part of a vast natural process and the growth of all natural systems is made possible by an increase in power.展开更多
文摘One of the most intriguing problems of philosophy and of mankind is the question whether humans have a free will. This question is heavily disputed between natural scientists and especially neuroscientists, who deny free will, and philosophers and other groups, who insist on free will. It is perplexing that both sides base their premise on the same precondition, namely naturalism. We will prove that naturalism automatically leads to physicalism, to materialism, and to reductionism. We will also prove here that it is logically not possible to have a free will if naturalism is true. Free will definitely requires an additional substance, a non-material soul, which cannot be part of our universe. This must not be in contradiction to our current knowledge of natural sciences.
文摘In the first part of this paper, different perspectives of time proposed in Aristotle＇s philosophy of nature, classic mechanics, thermodynamics, and the theory of relativity, will be presented. Later on, we explore the phenomenological approach of duration by Henri Bergson and Mauro Dorato＇s naturalistic proposal, which defines the ＂present＂ moment based on neuroscientific experiments. In the second part of the paper, the topic of scientific creativity is introduced, paying particular attention to David Bohm＇s ideas. Finally, the previously analysed perspectives are used to answer the following question： How do physicists create time？
文摘In his essay ＂Nietzsche＇s Metaethics： Against the Privilege Readings,＂ Brian Leiter critically examines Richard Schacht＇s naturalistic interpretation of Nietzsche. Leiter focuses on the metaethical question： ＂What status--metaphysical, epistemological^o the values used to undertake [Nietzsche＇s] revaluation [of value] （the ＇assessing values＇） enjoy？＂ （2000, 277）. Are these values true or better justified？ Leiter describes Schacht＇s position as a ＂privilege reading＂ that holds that the perspective from which Nietzsche revaluates values is privileged on the basis of＂normative facts＂ which are constituted by certain ＂natural facts＂ （2000, 279）. Leiter attempts to outline and even enhance the argument he sees Schacht making for this position, which Leiter calls a naturalistic realism. Leiter however finds that the arguments for ＂privilege readings＂ are insufficient. He concludes that the perspective from which Nietzsche revaluates values is not privileged at all. It is simply the idiosyncratic perspective from which Nietzsche revaluates values. In this paper I argue that a version of Schacht＇s privilege reading can be supported using two fundamental components of Leiter＇s interpretation of Nietzsche： his methodological and substantive naturalism. When we use scientific methods and view social systems like other natural systems, we find that in contemporary science a privilege is given to the maximum power principle. This concept was initially conceived by the chemist and mathematician Alfred Lotka and further developed by the ecologist Howard Odum and it has a fundamental similarity to the will to power. This principle provides an empirical foundation for the will to power and Schacht＇s privilege reading of Nietzsche＇s metaethics. It provides further evidence that human life is ultimately part of a vast natural process and the growth of all natural systems is made possible by an increase in power.
