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

Displaying: 1-6 of 6 documents


1. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Philip Pettit Three Mistakes about Democracy
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
2. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Bosuk Yoon A Critique of Epistemological Disjunctivism
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
3. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Soraj Hongladarom Metaphysics of Change and Continuity: Exactly What is Changing and What Gets Continued?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This is a metaphysical and conceptual analysis of the concepts ‘change’ and ‘continuity’. The Buddhists are in agreement with Heraclitus that all are flowing and nothing remains. However, the Buddhists have a much more elaborate theory about change and continuity, and this theory is a key element in the entire Buddhist system of related doctrines, viz., that of karma and rebirth, the possibility of Liberation (nirv na) and others. Simply put, the Buddhist emphasizes that change is there in every aspect of reality.According to a later developed form of the Buddhist teaching, change is absolutely pervasive, and even these particles are subject to change as they are nothing more than putative objects which are conceptualized to be such and such, and without the conceptualization they are ‘nothing’ at all. (This is known as the Doctrine of Emptiness). Hence it seems that continuity is not possible. But in fact according to the later theory, change is not only possible, it is accepted as part and parcel of everyday life. The fact that nothing at all remains the same does not imply that continuity is not possible, since continuity does not always have to be that of an inherently existing object. A changing object can be continued also, in roughly the same sense as we say that an event, like a drama, continues even though everything in it is changing. The thread that ties the disparate elements of the event together in this case lies within our own conceptual imputation. This does not imply that everything is subjective, since the distinction between subject and object presupposes the idea of an absolutely existing individual self, which all Buddhist schools rejects. So in this later theory, absolute change is not possible because there is, ultimately speaking nothing to change, and when there is no change there is no continuation either. This is not to deny the empirical fact of changes and continuities that are present to us; things are there and they are indeed changing. What is being denied here is the belief that that there are essences to things which endure through all the changes. Since things are empty (of inherently existing nature) they can change, and continuity is only possible, not because there is something that exists and endures, but because there is change. A drama that does not move cannot be continued.The foregoing discussions of the Buddhist theories have many implications for the dialog between science and religion. One point is that science still seems to subscribe to the object/subject distinction. But if change and continuity are not real in the ultimate sense, then perhaps the distinction should be reconsidered. Another point concerns how to find continuity amidst all the change. But perhaps in some important sense continuity depends on us.
4. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
William Simkulet On Derivative Moral Responsibility and the Epistemic Connection Required for Moral Responsibility
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Derivative moral responsibility is not moral responsibility at all. Much of the confusion found in the literature concerning moral responsibility and the free will problem can be traced back to a penchant to reconcile our philosophical theories of moral responsibility with our folk commonsense linguistic accounts of moral responsibility, a tradition that is notable for its utter lack of making two important distinctions - (1) the distinction between derivative moral responsibility and non-derivative moral responsibility (what Galen Strawson calls “true moral responsibility”) and (2) the distinction between the scope and degree of one’s moral responsibility.1 The failure to make such distinctions, ultimately, leads to confusion in interpreting the content of folk intuitions about moral responsibility, and as a result leads many philosophers to adopt watered down, or overly complex theories of moral responsibility. In “The Epistemic Requirements for Moral Responsibility,” Carl Ginet fails to make such distinctions, and as a result the requirement he arrives at is unwieldy at best. By making such distinctions, I will provide a much more straightforward account of what moral responsibility requires.
5. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Erhan Demircioğlu The Puzzle of Consciousness
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this article, I aim to present some of the reasons why consciousness is viewed as an intractable problem by many philosophers. Furthermore, I will argue that if these reasons are properly appreciated, then McGinn’s so-called mysterianism may not sound as far-fetched as it would otherwise sound.
6. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Aret Karademir Foucault ve Cinsellik Deney(im)i Kurgusu
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Foucault's philosophy is often divided into three periods: the archeological period of the 1960's, the geneological period of the 1970's, and the ethical period of the 1980's. Considering the subjects Foucault worked on, the methods he employed, and the nature of his analyses in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, it seems prima facie that there is a considerable difference between the different periods of Foucault's career. Nevertheless, Fooucault claims that he has been working on the same subject, that is, the construction of subjective experience, throughout most of his career. The aim of this paper is to question, via the presentation of two sexual case studies taken from the history of psychiatry, what kind of portrait of Foucault has painted if we take him by his word. These studies will also help us ask how we can give an account of the construction of sexual experience from the perspective of Foucault the archaeologist, the genealogist, and at the same time, the ethicist.