The Experts below are selected from a list of 31902 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Stathis Psillos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Semirealism or Neo-Aristotelianism?
    Erkenntnis, 2012
    Co-Authors: Stathis Psillos
    Abstract:

    Chakravartty claims that science does not imply any specific metaphysical theory of the world. In this sense, science is consistent with both neo-Aristotelianism and neo-Humeanism. But, along with many others, he thinks that a neo-Aristotelian outlook best suits science. In other words, neo-Aristotelianism is supposed to win on the basis of an inference to the best explanation (IBE). I fail to see how IBE can be used to favour neo-Aristotelianism over neo-Humeanism. In this essay, I aim to do two things. Firstly, I explain why this failure is not idiosyncratic: it should be there even by Chakravartty’s lights. Secondly, I raise some critical worries about Chakravartty’s semirealism, especially in connection with the concept of a ‘concrete structure’ and the detection/auxiliary distinction. The essay ends with a dilemma: an exclusive disjunction encapsulated in its title.

Hans Johann Glock - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • minds brains and capacities situated cognition and neo Aristotelianism
    Frontiers in Psychology, 2020
    Co-Authors: Hans Johann Glock
    Abstract:

    This article compares situated cognition to contemporary Neo-Aristotelian approaches to the mind. The article distinguishes two components in this paradigm: an Aristotelian essentialism which is alien to situated cognition and a Wittgensteinian "capacity approach" to the mind which is not just congenial to it but provides important conceptual and argumentative resources in defending social cognition against orthodox cognitive (neuro-)science. It focuses on a central tenet of that orthodoxy. According to what I call "encephalocentrism," cognition is primarily or even exclusively a computational process occurring inside the brain. Neo-Aristotelians accuse this claim of committing a "homuncular" (Kenny) or "mereological fallacy" (Bennett and Hacker). The article explains why the label "fallacy" is misleading, reconstructs the argument to the effect that encephalocentric applications of psychological predicates to the brain and its parts amount to a category mistake, and defends this argument against objections by Dennett, Searle, and Figdor. At the same time it criticizes the Neo-Aristotelian denial that the brain is the organ of cognition. It ends by suggesting ways in which the capacity approach and situated cognition might be combined to provide a realistic and ecologically sound picture of cognition as a suite of powers that flesh-and-blood animals exercise within their physical and social environments.

Robin Celikates - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Critique and resistance: Ethical, social‐theoretical, political? On Fabian Freyenhagen's Adorno's Practical Philosophy
    European Journal of Philosophy, 2017
    Co-Authors: Robin Celikates
    Abstract:

    Fabian Freyenhagen's impressive reconstruction of Adorno's ‘practical philosophy’ provides a convincing defence of the possibility of making normative claims about the social world we live in without justifying these claims in terms of the right, the good, or human nature. More specifically, and more controversially, Freyenhagen argues that the normative resources Adorno's critique relies on are provided by a negative Aristotelianism. In this paper, I argue that this approach underestimates the extent to which Adorno follows the model of immanent critique, I highlight the socio-theoretical underpinnings of what Freyenhagen calls Adorno's ‘ethics of resistance’, and I discuss the risk of overstating the danger of co-optation that collective political action faces.

  • critique and resistance ethical social theoretical political on fabian freyenhagen s adorno s practical philosophy
    European Journal of Philosophy, 2017
    Co-Authors: Robin Celikates
    Abstract:

    Fabian Freyenhagen's impressive reconstruction of Adorno's ‘practical philosophy’ provides a convincing defence of the possibility of making normative claims about the social world we live in without justifying these claims in terms of the right, the good, or human nature. More specifically, and more controversially, Freyenhagen argues that the normative resources Adorno's critique relies on are provided by a negative Aristotelianism. In this paper, I argue that this approach underestimates the extent to which Adorno follows the model of immanent critique, I highlight the socio-theoretical underpinnings of what Freyenhagen calls Adorno's ‘ethics of resistance’, and I discuss the risk of overstating the danger of co-optation that collective political action faces.

Marco Sgarbi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Early Aristotelianism Between Humanism and Ramism
    Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2012
    Co-Authors: Marco Sgarbi
    Abstract:

    Early British Aristotelianism, after the momentous medieval Scholastic systematization of Aristotelian philosophy, was defined by its position against humanistic logic and Ramism. It was not a particularly advanced form of Aristotelianism and chiefly involved commentaries on Aristotelian texts, but it rejected any kind of rhetorical and dialectical logic that did not serve science.

  • Late Seventeenth-Century Aristotelianism
    Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2012
    Co-Authors: Marco Sgarbi
    Abstract:

    The dissemination of the works of Bacon, Harvey and Hobbes did not mark the end of the Aristotelian tradition; rather, with their latent Aristotelianism they promoted the integration of Aristotelian philosophy with the new science.

  • The Reformers of Aristotelian Logic
    Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2012
    Co-Authors: Marco Sgarbi
    Abstract:

    For the first half of the seventeenth century, as we have seen, Aristotelian logic dominated in the British Isles, pervading not only university, but also sophisticated treatises from outside the university. The consent was almost unanimous, and a British Aristotelian school with an empiricist strand was born and disseminated at the universities. The problem of sensation and induction was paramount to all the most important Aristotelian philosophers, who tried to elaborate a method for scientific knowledge. This is a peculiarity of British Aristotelianism. In Germany, logic was useful for solving theological disputes or as an ancillary discipline to ontology and metaphysics—that is, its study was not primarily the foundation of scientific method.

  • Towards a Reassessment of British Aristotelianism
    Vivarium, 2012
    Co-Authors: Marco Sgarbi
    Abstract:

    Abstract The aim of the paper is to reassess the role of British Aristotelianism within the history of early modern logic between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as a crucial moment of cultural transition from the model of humanistic rhetoric and dialectic to that of facultative logic, that is, a logic which concerns the study of the cognitive powers of the mind. The paper shows that there is a special connection between Paduan Aristotelianism and British empiricism, through the mediation of British Aristotelianism. British Aristotelians took the ideas of the Paduan Aristotelian tradition and carried them to an extreme, gradually removing them from the original Aristotelian context in which they were grounded and developing what would later become the fundamental ideas of British empiricism.

Charles H. Lohr - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Aristotelian theories of science in the Renaissance
    1999
    Co-Authors: Charles H. Lohr
    Abstract:

    In the tradition of Latin Aristotelianism 'science' did not mean, as it does today, research or discovery, but rather the certain knowledge of conclusions drawn syllogistically from principles already known. But the encounter of Aristotelian science with the new religious confessions in the period between Copernicus and Galileo gave rise, on the one hand, to a crisis in the understanding of the principles of the Arisotelian system, and, on the other, to an understanding of 'science' in a way which Aristotle would have called 'art' - that is, to disciplines leading not to knowledge but rather to the production of things.

  • The Sixteenth-Century Transformation of the Aristotelian Division of the Speculative Sciences
    The Shapes of Knowledge from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, 1991
    Co-Authors: Charles H. Lohr
    Abstract:

    The Aristotelianism of the period 1450–1650 presents a picture which differs radically from the university philosophy of the Middle Ages. Despite the many late medieval developments in logic and physics which would eventually contribute to the breakdown of Aristotelian science, the Aristotelianism of the earlier period remained predominantly clerical and offered an essentially unified world-view. But in the sixteenth century this unity broke down, so that we must speak not of one but of several Aristotelianisms in the Renaissance.1