Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-7 of 7 documents


1. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 3
Susan Haack

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

2. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 3
Nicholas Rescher

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

3. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 3
Ralph D. Ellis

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Coherence requires more than logical consistency. Self-consistent viewpoints notoriously conflict with each other. Besides avoid logical selfcontradiction, coherent viewpoints must of course be consistent with empirical facts, including any social and interpersonal emotional facts that may be shared by all humans. But since these sets of facts are inherently probabilistic, they again lend themselves to motivated hermeneutical tweaking to make them fit one’s initial prejudices and presuppositions, trapping us again in the “hermeneutic circle” – the fact that we cannot know how much our previously-existing worldview motivates selective facts, proliferation of ad hoc hypotheses, choice of “moral intuitions,” etc. The problem of ad hoc hypotheses thus becomes crucial. Proliferation of ungrounded assumptions is motivated emotionally in the same way that believing a “conspiracy” theory requires positing unproven assumptions. Moral theory requires studying the way our emotions play into these moral “conspiracy theories.” Contemporary neuropsychology of emotion suggests that a certain kind of inner conflict model – one that grants autonomy to the exploratory drive, but in conflict with other hermeneutically relevant emotions – is especially useful in addressing the complexities of incoherence in ethical thinking.

4. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 3
James Wetzel

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Wittgenstein and Cavell have both been alerting me over the years to unsettling possibilities: that secularization is not always a lessening of religious intensity, that philosophy can be a religious calling, that God is less real in our theories than in the grammar of our lives. In short, I have been made aware of the possibility of a secular confession, not as an amputated version of the religious original, but as a genuine improvisation: a way of speaking to God without having to say much, if anything, about God. When Cavell’s hefty memoir came out in 2010, some thirty years after my first encounter with his writing, I assumed I would have my chance to test this possibility. This essay is the outcome of that testing.

5. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 3
Gert-Jan van der Heiden

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This essay critically examines how Bernard Stiegler addresses the question of present-day technological developments and how they affect our understanding of education and self-formation. The first section is devoted to an account of the basics of Stiegler’s understanding of the relationship between technology and humanity as well as of his characterization of the specific problems that characterize technology today. The main part of the essay analyzes how the questions of self-care, self-formation and education are addressed in relation to these specific problems. Stiegler addresses these problems in terms of the Derridean vocabulary of the pharmakon, and accounts for the present-day technological inventions in terms of pharmacological events. It is shown that Stiegler’s account of education is difficult to combine with his attention to the pharmakon as well as to the event. In the concluding section, it is suggested that the question of self-formation in relation to pharmacological events should be reinterpreted in terms of the concept of experience.

6. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 3
Barry Stocker

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
A discussion of how the criticisms of ethical theory in Søren Kierkegaard and Bernard Williams both reinforce each other and also provide some challenges to each other. Despite Williams’ brief and dismissive encounter with Kierkegaard around the reading of a ancient tragedy, both oppose any tendency to see the characters in those tragedies as lacking in agency. Both are consistently concerned with how the individual struggles for some ethical agency and how no individual can be free of the influence of chance or error. Kierkegaard and Willliams are shown to both oppose relativism and communitarianism in ethics, along with utilitarianism and to both have an interest in plurality of ethical ideas of how to live.

7. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 3
Raşit Çelik

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Adaletin ölçütü konusu çağdaş siyaset felsefesi içerisinde önemli bir yer tutar. John Rawls’un birincil değerler anlayışı ve Amartya Sen’in kabiliyetler yaklaşımı adaletin ölçütüne dair önemli bakış açıları sunmuştur. Sen’in oluşturduğu ve Martha Nussbaum’un geliştirdiği kabiliyetler yaklaşımı, Rawls’un tanımladığı birincil değerlere karşı önemli eleştiriler ortaya koyar. Bu çalışmada, bu iki önemli yaklaşımın karşıt görüşleri ve karşılıklı eleştirilerinin ötesinde, birbirlerini tamamlayıcı yanları vurgulanmaktadır. Kabiliyetler yaklaşımının, Rawls’un siyasi liberal teorisinde belirttiği örtüşen konsensüse ulaşmada önemli etkiler oluşturabileceği savunulmaktadır. Metric of justice is an important issue in contemporary political philosophy. John Rawls’s notion of primary goods and Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach have provided some important perspectives on the metric of justice. As developed by Sen and advanced by Martha Nussbaum, capabilities approach has offered a serious criticism about Rawls’s primary goods. This study, however, places an emphasis upon the complementary aspects of these two perspectives on the metric of justice, rather than their opposing ideas and criticisms against one another. It is also argued that capabilities approach may have significant effects on the way of arriving to an overlapping consensus as described in Rawls’s politically liberal theory.