Band 31, Heft 3

Can human acts be causally explained in the same way as the rest of nature? If so, causal explanation in the manner of the Hempelian model shouldn’t the human sciences and the natural sciences equally. This is not so much a question of whether the Hempelian model is a completely adequate account of causal explanation, but about whether it is adequate or inadequate in the same way for each: if there is some unique feature of human acts that dictates that they are to be explained differently from natural events, then it is reasonable to suppose that this feature will be revealed by consideration of Hempelian explanations whether this is our final account of explanation or not, and if no such feature is revealed then it is reasonable to suppose that there are no fundamental differences between the human and natural sciences in how causal explanations proceed, whether this explanation is Hempelian or of some other kind. Two arguments have been given for there being such a feature. One - the well-known "Logical Connection Argument" - states that there cannot be a causal relation between a human action and the intention to perform that action. If this argument succeeds, then our ordinary explanations of human acts in terms of psychological states like intentions are not causal explanations at all. Although this does not mean that no causal explanation is true, we have the problem of finding appropriate causal antecedents of the acts. The other - the anti-predictionist argument - concludes from the fact that at least some human acts cannot be predicted that they cannot be causally explained. I wish to disarm the force of both of these arguments, and thus argue for explanatory monism: we do not need to adopt a mode of explanation for human sciences distinct from that of natural sciences.

The overall goal of this paper is to apply Hintikka's Socratic Epistemology to Gettier's counterexamples to the tripartite definition of knowledge as justified true belief. In the process, I will make full use of Socratic Epistemology's methodology and commitments. This includes, among other things, looking at Gettier's counterexamples as games between an Inquirer and Nature (the source of information), as well as treating the items in them as pieces of information. The strategy that I employ in this paper also makes use of frames (or partitions). One of the important results of this paper is a scenario where Gettier cannot setup the dilemma for the tripartite definition of knowledge.

Fabian Wendt [20] argues that political realism is not capable of explaining how the state's moral right to rule over its subjects is generated. I believe that Wendt's criticism is not sound because his position relies on the false implicit assumption that realism and moralism ask the same philosophical questions on state authority. I contend that it is fallacious to evaluate the realist account of legitimacy by the standards of moralism, and vice versa, as these two accounts arrive at different conceptions of legitimacy by raising different sets of philosophical questions. The two sets of philosophical questions are not reducible to each other. The realist account of legitimacy does not aim to explain what the moralist account of legitimacy aims to explain.

This paper is more than a plea for Rhees' reading of the work of Wittgenstein (particularly of On Certainty). My interest in Rhees' interpretation lies on its resemblance with my own reading, on the one hand, and on its being (surprisingly) unmentioned by other interpreters, on the other. The two core aims of this paper focus on Rhees' main ideas. First, I argue that although certain facts that are accepted beyond doubt belong to the method, which in turn is included in grammar, this does not mean that these facts are expressions of rules of grammar. Second, I argue that grammar is not conditioned by a certain class of facts (i.e. general facts of nature), but a language-game is possible because we do not call in question certain facts (i.e. grammar is not conditioned by something like ontology). The point is that those facts that are not called in question are beyond truth and falsity, but this does not mean that these facts must be true. The logical role these facts (and the sentences used to express them) play in a language-game is not that of being true or false. Moreover, grammar itself constitutes what is meant by `object', `fact', or `general fact of nature'.