Модальная версия онтологического аргумента в свете логических идей Н.А. Васильева
The present paper deals with the modal version of St. Anselm’s ontological argument (the so-called «modal argument», or MA, developed by N. Malcolm and A. Plantinga) and the logic used therein. The authors focus on the problem of conceptual connection between the logic of this argument and some implicit ontological and epistemological assumptions inherent in it.
This article deals with the concept of omnipotence very important for contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Within the analytic tradition it is usual to uncover an apparent tension between God’s omnipotence and other divine attributes. In response, some authors have proposed their own ideas on how classical problems of omnipotence can be solved in terms of possible worlds theory. In this paper we aim to consider the approaches developed by Geach, Adams and Plantinga. While admitting that each of them has made a significant contribution to the refinement of the concept of omnipotence, we still point out a number of important challenges that these authors were not able to overcome.
Proceedings of Philisophy of Law International Symposium "Rationality in Law" (Buenos Aires, 5-7 May, 2014)
There were two tendencies in ancient philosophy: according to the first one, our universe is unique (the Eleatics, Plato, Aristoteles), while according to the other, there are several universes, similar or totally dissimilar to ours (the Pythagoreans, the Atomists). Proponents of the first theory diverged in their opinion on the universe’s eternity though. Supporters of the second one argued over the similarity of another universes as well as the question if those universes co-exist or replace each other over time. These questions didn’t stop being actual in medieval Christian philosophy. But if there were no doubts about the question of an actual existence of our universe as being the only and unique, the question if God created only our universe was yet to be answered. St. Thomas Aquinas provides several evidences of the uniqueness of the universe – two from the ‘authority’ and three from himself.
The book is devoted to consideration in a popular form of evolution of one of the most debatable creations of the Western European metaphysics – the ontological evidence for God's existence or ontological argument. The idea of classical and non-classical arguments has allowed the author to analyses argument development as process of formation of the reflexive methodology, which is adequate for knowledge of the systems including free activity of the person. These are the problems constantly facing modern social sciences; therefore, despite the historical and philosophical direction of the book, the problems that are relevant to modern social and human sciences are under continued discussion. The book is primarily addressed to specialists in the field history of philosophy and methodology of social knowledge, philosophy and sociology of religion, and also to all who are interested in fundamental questions of classical metaphysics.
The proceedings of the conference "Rationality in Action: Intentions, Interpretations and Interactions". The project has been carried out as part of the HSE Program of Fundamental Studies.
There is a chronological study in this paper consisting of three parts: 1) the conception of simplicity of God maintained by St. Thomas Aquinas, 2) rejection of God’s simplicity undertaken by Alvin Plantinga, and 3) an attempt to return to the idea of the simplicity of God in modern analytic research.
The paper focuses on the concept of ‘financial strategies’ and addresses two problems: first, how to define the concepts of financial strategy and strategizing, and second, how to operationalize them into indicators for empirical research. The introduction to this new concept is based on the conviction that strategizing (which is understood as a specific attitude to life held by people who do not live for the moment, think about their future even if it is rather uncertain, set long-term financial goals and act towards achieving them), is an intrinsic factor in the financial behavior of people. It is argued that it is not possible to define financial strategy or to operationalize it objectively and universally since people operate in very different circumstances; i.e. in different institutional environments or at different stages of life, etc. The solution must be found in the interactionist sociological perspective with the emphasis on the construction of the interpretation of a situation: how individuals themselves make sense of financial strategizing in their own environment, the options they perceive and the constraints they feel.
The present paper deals with the problem of omnipotence in the context of an original version of possible worlds ontology developed by Alvin Plantinga. His conception of “de re” and “de dicto” is analyzed in connection with the problems of essentialism and transworld identification. Using the notion of TWD (“transworld depravity”) Plantinga claim to solve the logical problem of evil, this solution being the part of his famous FWD (“free will defense”) program. Plantinga’s strategy is to confine the notion of omnipotence step by step with rational arguments. But some of his technical concepts are not clear-cut enough and some of his philosophical speculations are rather scholastic.
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 Eastern or Crimean War (1853–1856) phenomenon is the reflection of fundamental conflicts of the era: the clash of empires’ interests and emerging centers of capital – financial elites. The Crimean War can be referred as a protoworld war even by just considering the number of participants. The participants were not united by a common interest, but rather by a common rival. With the commencement of military actions, a common rival became a common enemy. Wars of such a scale usually occur in transitional phases of history, for example, a period of transition from political stability to political fragmentation, or vice versa. The Crimean War was related to the phase of the first type: it destroyed international political stability – the Vienna system, and opened the gate for political instability. The war had a chronocultural sense and this is one of the Crimean War’s secrets.
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.