Volume 25, Issue 2

This article is a slighty adapted version of my inaugural lecture as Professor of Philosophy presented on 21 June 2024 at the University of Copenhagen. Given my seniority and as the first woman ever to be appointed professor of philosophy at the University of Copenhagen, I decided to take this opportunity to address a broader and more fundamental topic: namely, what is philosophy, what role does philosophy play in today’s university systems, and what kind of history of philosophy do we need for the 21st century. My lecture has three parts. First, I present and defend a specific understanding of philosophy focussing on the notion of knowledge for its own sake. Second, I outline some of the challenges for contemporary and future historiography of philosophy. Third, I conclude with some remarks on the societal relevance of feminist history of philosophy.

Carnap described ways to test scientific hypotheses. However, Carnap acknowledged that confirmation can never be definite. This left open the issue about the criteria to accept hypotheses. On the other hand, Wang has developed a computer program working without sufficient knowledge or resources, which makes the action of the program akin to the manner the human mind thinks. Wang’s program includes quantitative indicators that can be assigned to the frequency and the confidence of sentences. The present paper tries to link both approaches. The goal is to show how quantitative indicators such as those in Wang’s program can also be attributed to scientific hypotheses. Those indicators can help make decisions about the acceptance of the hypotheses. All of this allows proposing general characteristics for a possible algorithm to decide whether a particular hypothesis is admissible.

Must you respect basic logical laws (BLL) – such as the law of non-contradiction – in order to think? Frege wrote that one must “acknowledge” BLL in order not to “abandon judgement altogether”. Some have argued that Frege therefore thought of logic as somehow ‘constitutive’ of thinking. However, some interpreters contend, due to his strong commitment to logic’s normative status, that Frege held the opposite view, namely the non-constitutivist view that (systematic) ‘illogical’ thinking is possible and that one need not accept or follow BLL in order to think as such, although one must do so in order to think correctly. The aim of this paper is to investigate the interpretative landscape regarding Frege’s view on logic’s constitutive role for thinking and suggest, against the non-constitutivist readings, that he indeed was committed to some version of the constitutivity thesis, but that this commitment is not, as some constitutivist interpretations suggest, inconsistent with the idea that logic is normative for thinking. I will, instead, propose to read his view in a soft and agent-relative sense, according to which it is a necessary condition for the possibility of thinking that the agent in question is sensitive to and acknowledges BLL.