Andrija ŠoćLOCKE'S ANTICIPATION OF IDEALISM 1 APSTRAKT: The primary purpose of this paper is to establish that some aspects of Locke's philosophy can be read as an anticipation of Kant's idealism. The paper consists of three main parts. In the first part, I examine the continuity of the conception of substance that exists between otherwise very different philosophical systems of Aristotle and Descartes. Identifying the difference between the questions of 'what' substance is and that to which the concept refers, I examine in some detail Locke's conception of substance, as well as his distinction between nominal and real essence, the latter being unknowable just like the substance. This unknowable character leads Locke to claim that we can cognize only one side of the existing world -the nominal one. In that sense, there is a striking parallel between the aforementioned distinction and the one Kant draws between appearance and the thing-in-itself. I also introduce philosophy of Richard Burthogge and his corresponding distinction I attempt to show how Locke indeed was anticipating Kant's idealism, even if he wasn't an idealist himself. Aside from anticipating the content of some of Kant's basic tenets, I also attempt to show how Locke is also anticipating the Kant's way of arguing for one of the essential components of his idealism -the thing-in-itself, where I draw the parallel between that concept and the concept of real essence.
This paper has four parts. 1 In the first, I discuss criteria for determining whether outcomes of individual and social choice are relevant. I examine the criteria listed in Arrow's theorem and how they pertain to Arrow's conclusion that there are no rational outcomes of social choice. In the second part, I discuss values that democratic institutions ought to embody. I try to show that the procedural system of voting does not always embody such values. I then examine differences between procedural and deliberative democracy, the latter being proposed as a potential resolution for the problem of irrationality of social choice. As empirical research shows, however, the level of deliberation is still fairly low. Because the success of deliberative democracy lies in its efficient implementation, in the fourth part of the paper I argue that the best route toward implementing it is not in discussing how deliberative process ought to work, but in developing deliberative education programme.
In the first part of this paper I will outline the debate in philosophy of mind between those who, to borrow from Chalmers (Chalmers 1996) recognize the existence of the hard problem of consciousness and between those who do not. I will call the two groups non-reductivists and reductivists, respectively. The second part will put forward a specific type of criticism against reductivists - in short that its proponents incorrectly assume the resolution of another dispute, the one between the so-called pessimistic and optimistic inductivists. It will be claimed that such an assumption should not be made, and that until the latter debate is settled, or at least until a specific solution is offered within the context of the philosophy of mind, we have every right to be skeptical towards reductivist attempts. In the third part of the paper I will propose a possible solution which might offer some hope of finding the middle ground between the two sides
UvodTeorije društvenog ugovora imaju za cilj formulisanje osnovnih principa na kojima jedno društvo (treba da) počiva. 1 One polaze od opisivanja preddruštvenog stanja, da bi zatim pokušale da odgovore na sledeća dva pitanja: 1) Koji je prvobitni razlog sklapanja društvenog ugovora odnosno izlaska iz prirodnog stanja? 2) Kako se prava koja pojedinac ima u prirodnom stanju odnose prema pravima koja on ima u društvenom stanju?Među najvažnijim teorijama društvenog ugovora svakako su Hobsova, Lokova i Rusoova teorija, ali je i Kantovo shvatanje datog problema, iako nešto drukčije postavljeno, takođe veoma značajno. Različiti odgovori na gore postavljena pitanja privlače najviše pažnje i izvor su velikog broja rasprava. Jedno pitanje koje se nešto ređe razmatra odnosi se na mogućnost legitimne pobune građana protiv institucije vlasti ustanovljene društvenim ugovorom odnosno suverena. Svaki od ovih filozofa nudi različit odgovor na postavljeno pitanje. Kantov eksplicitan odgovor je negati-1Autor rada je istraživač u okviru projekta "Logičko-epistemološki osnovi nauke i metafizike" (evidencioni broj 179067), koji finansira Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja Republike Srbije.THEORIA 4
In this paper I discuss how the need for defining truth in a political context retains its importance even in the light of the insistence from political realists that such attempts will necessarily fail.1 I mention two debates in the political philosophy that intersect at this issue. The first is the dispute between those who, like Rawls, adhere to epistemic agnosticism and deny that we can have an operational definition of truth in politics and those who, following Habermas, argue that our political propositions always have truth values. The second debate is that between political moralists and political realists. I then try to show why both realists and moralists need to amend their views in order to fully take into account the complexities of the political domain. Moralists need to recognize that the realists are correct in denying the effective applicability of general moral principles, while realists err in thinking that moral principles in politics must only be general in nature. By incorporating the possibility of particularism in politics we can also find the plausible candidate for the operational view of the concept of truth ? the pragmatist conception as elucidated by William James. This can then help us develop more meta-political cognitivism more fully and apply it to a wide range of issues in political philosophy, one of the most important being the efficacy of deliberative democracy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.