Использование мысленных экспериментов в современной экспериментальной философии
Thought experiments are widely used nowadays in science and philosophy. Philosophical thought experiments can be distinguished from those spread in science for their critical and problematizing function. They can be described as fictional situations which are employed in order to criticize our use of philosophical concepts, make analogies, raise new questions, demonstrate limits of our theories. These fictional situations have a core function in survey technique used by modern experimental philosophy (x-phi), a recent movement which aim is to study folk philosophical intuitions by empirical methods. In the paper we are going to analyze methodological strategies of experimental philosophy. We are going to demonstrate that the use of fictional situations in survey not only have a little relevance for philosophical understanding of ontological and epistemological concepts, but barely can be compared to thought experiments.
Thought experiments can be used in various ways. A part of them seems to have a special epistemic value: they can give us a new, unknown information about reality. One of the most famous thought experiments of that kind is the thought experiment of Galileo which demonstrates that two bodies of the same kind should fall with the same speed. However, an analysis of this argument shows that it is based on several ontological presuppositions. Therefore it's not the thought experiment itself that has a significance, but its correspondence to real experience.
Author treats an issue on getting a new knowledge from thought experiments. A history of the notion of thought experiment is presented in a few words. Author considers a concept of instinctive knowledge, which Ernst Mach used in his investigations of the thought experiments. He puts a question on about the cultural conditionality of “instinctive knowledge”. In conclusion author makes a conjecture on the method of thought experiment as a tool for selection of the new knowledge patterns of the world.
In this article the author compares two historical phenomena: experimental philosophy of the XVII century and the modern “experimental philosophy”, having the identical name. Although the name is the same and it expresses the same protest against speculative philosophical thought, the nature of these two types of experimental philosophy is different. The experimental philosophy of the XVII century was working out its own approaches to the research of the reality and finally developped into modern natural sciences, the modern type of experimental philosophy applies already existing methods of other sciences. It applies these methods to study philosophical views and their cultural variations, becoming the impirical study of “popular philosophy”. Everithing indicates that it will stop to be philosophy, and turn into psychology or sociology of ideas and world-views.
It is not news that we often make discoveries or find reasons for a mathematical proposition by thinking alone. But does any of this thinking count as conducting a thought experiment? The answer to that question is “yes,” but without refinement the question is uninteresting. Suppose you want to know whether the equation [8x + 12y = 6] has a solution in the integers. You might mentally substitute some integer values for the variables and calculate. In that case you would be mentally trying something out, experimenting with particular integer values, in order to test the hypothesis that the equation has no solution in the integers. Not getting a solution the first time, you might repeat the thought experiment with different integer inputs.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.