Adam Smith is usually seen as the founding father of modern economics, interpreted as a science that explains human agency in terms of the pursuit of egoistic self-interest. But a reading of Smith’s writings on moral sentiments shows how critical he was of explanations of society which focus solely on self-interest. When engaging in a critique of those individualistic explanations, Smith refers to the criticism that Thomas Hobbes received from the Cambridge Platonists, who argued against the fatalist view of the human agent driven solely by self-interest. Here the connections between Smith’s view and the Cambridge Platonists are further explored, while also assessing its implications for the common interpretation of Adam Smith as the founding father of modern economics.

This article focuses on Kant’s central belief that an individual’s humanity, her rational personhood, ought never be treated merely as a means. I focus on two paradigmatic cases of such treatment, for Kant, namely suicide and prostitution. In the case of suicide, the individual treats his own humanity merely as a means in completely eliminating it to escape from his miserable life. The case of prostitution is more complicated. It is not obvious how the prostitute’s rational personhood is compromised. An analysis of Kant’s views on prostitution and sexuality enables us to understand Kant’s concern that the prostitute is treated merely as a means. However, his more extreme position that the prostitute is reduced to the status of a thing for use is not supported by arguments. A woman’s use (or, rather, misuse) as a mere means, I explain, is insufficient to define her status as an object.

The second part of the 20th century has been dominated by a nominalist, anti-realistic and post-metaphysical trend, focused on the performativity of languages, texts, discourses, power structures, economic relationships, etc., and involved in any kind of sociolinguistic, hermeneutical, structural and deconstructive analysis. By contrast, the first part of the 21st century seems to emerge from the exhaustion of that nominalist paradigm, and the drive of a new realistic impulse defined by the irreducibility of the real to mere cultural discourses or power’s relationships. In this new speculative context, several materialisms and realisms spread out their strands, with the certainty of grasping the real in and by the real itself. The following lines aim at looking over the main authors and ideas of the newest philosophical stream.

It is argued that some of Beauvoir’s short, journalistic pieces shed new light on her overall philosophical positions. Special analysis is made of “Existentialism and Popular Wisdom”, with its advertence to our standard take on human affairs. Part of the argument is that Beauvoir expands on notions taken from the common culture, and that she does so in a way that sheds new light on existentialist concepts. Taking into consideration the extent of her work with Sartre, we can assume that Beauvoir is making powerful statements with her analysis. It is also important to note that this work represents a level of publication intended for the average French reader, and that much of her writing in this vein has received very little comment.

During the last decade Castoriadis’ questioning has become a reference point in contemporary social theory. In this article I examine some of the key notions in Castoriadis’ work and explore how he strives to develop a theory on the irreducible creativity in the radical imagination of the individual and in the institution of the social-historical sphere. Firstly, I briefly discuss his conception of modem capitalism as bureaucratic capitalism, a view initiated by his criticism of the USSR regime. The following break up with Marxist theory and his psychoanalytic interests empowered him to criticize Lacan and read Freud in an imaginative, though unorthodox, fashion. I argue that this criticai enterprise assisted greatly Castoriadis in his conception of the radical imaginary and in his unveiling of the political aspects of psychoanalysis. On the issue of the radical imaginary and its methodological repercussions, I’m focusing mainly on the radical imagination o f the subject and its importance in the transition from the “psychic” to the “subject”. Taking up the notion of “Being” as a starting point, I examine the notion of autonomy, seeking its roots in the ancient Greek world. By looking at notions such as “praxis”, “doing”, “project” and “elucidation”, I show how Castoriadis sought to redefine revolution as a means for social and individual autonomy. Finally I attempt to clarify the meaning of “democracy” and “democratic society” in the context of the social imaginary and its creations, the social imaginary significations.

In this paper, I intend to dispute Marc Hauser’s thesis, sustained in Wild Minds. What Animals Really Think (2000), that we must abandon the question of whether animals have a feeling of themselves, replacing it for an objective and scientific analysis capable of disclosing the extraordinary similitude between different mental procedures animals undergo when they face common challenges.

Aristotle is reportedly held to have been a Moderate Realist in that he would maintain that a concept derives from an act of grasping a mind-independent universal object that exists somehow inside of the many different things which the concept is predicated of. As far as a universal is independent of mind, it would stand for the proper object of a concept that subsumes a given number of things as its own instantiations. But we claim that Aristotle rejected such a view and instead did perceive and comprehend universality as a feature of thought rather than as a feature of reality in its own right. As showed in the chapters of Topics regarding the so-called logic of comparison (with the support of Albert the Great’s commentary), each predicate can be more or less consistent with the attribute of the subject of which it may be predicated. Both essential and accidental attributes assume a definite degree of being related to the degree of belonging to substance. Unlike particular things, the universality of a concept is to be understood always in comparison with another concept according to a hierarchy of predicates in terms of universality degree arranged by comparative terms such as ‘more’ (μἂλλον), ‘less’ (ἧττον), and ‘likewise ’ (όμοίως). What is really mind-independent are the truth conditions which make a universal true when exclusively referring to a set of things identically meant by the same predicate whose universality is given by the place occupied in the hierarchy of predicates.

The type of authority needed for a good environmental public policy is discussed. We looked at some authors who saw in Leviathan, a type of authority possibly compatible with a model for environmental policy and to some others who refuted it. The need for a Leviathan, what type of Leviathan and could Hobbes’s arguments be used in environmental policy is then discussed. The tragedy of the commons, a rich metaphor for environmental policy is used as the main drive. This small essay will, even though very modestly, contribute for an almost absent environmental political philosophy, where traditional concepts such as authority, sovereignty or state are being challenged and need discussion.

Very early on, the works and ideas of the French socialist P.J.-Proudhon were discussed in the circle of the German young Hegelians. Also, Max Stimer mentioned him several times in Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. His critique of Proudhon’s thoughts is very important for his own définition and confrontation with the concept of property. The article analyses the different levels of his examination with this concept.

Stimer and Feyerabend, despite being historically a hundred and fifty years apart, seem to have been of the same mind in revolting against the methodological explaining of what cannot methodologically be explained. Stirner attempted an explanation in a more intuitive version, Feyerabend in a more sophisticated one. For both thinkers it is obviously important to sustain dissent with the assumption that method is the one and only vital promoter of scientific progress. They equally voice the opinion that, despite science itself producing inconsistencies as well as results, its proceedings nonetheless follow a certain rationale. But to codify a definite approach to phenomena or matter i.e. to establish a definite method for taking a look into things turns science into religion and scientists into believers. As a resuit no new insights are to be gained.

In his first work, the poetics Meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus. Baumgarten frequently cites Horace’s Ars Poetica. Horace was highly esteemed by Baumgarten and his contemporaries, especially in the fields of poetics and art theory. Baumgarten uses Ars Poetica throughout Meditationes. but it is especially in the paragraphs introducing some of the key concepts of his philosophy that there is a significant amount of excerpts from Horace’s poetics. In this article, I examine if and how contemporary scholarly interpretations may have influenced these uses of Horace’s text and maybe even Baumgarten’s theory. Following a brief account of relevant commentaries as well as Horace’s position in contemporary art theory, I explore the implied interpretations of Ars Poetica in Baumgarten’s excerpts, focusing on his three key terms, phantasia. heterocosmica and methodum lucidam. Compared to the conception of Horace as expressed in the commentaries, this study suggests a complex interaction between those and Baumgarten’s art theory.

This article explores the genealogical and metaphysical grounds for the positive re-evaluation of the concept of “confusion”, which played a vital role in Baumgarten’s foundation of aesthetics as scientia cognitionis sensitivae. First, a reconsideration of Descartes’ and Leibniz’ conceptualisations of “confusion” attempts to identify the place of Baumgarten’s aesthetics within the rationalistic dilemma of evaluating moral and art-related thinking. Secondly, the way in which Baumgarten attempted to resolve the dilemma is explored by a close examination of his concept of “the aesthetic” and of how the concept changed in the course of his writings. The ultimate purpose of this article lies in illuminating an aspect of Baumgarten’s aesthetics, that is, an attempt to synthesize the cognitive and the ethical by means of a re-configuration o f the concept of “confusion”.

One of the most important concepts Baumgarten introduces in his Reflections on Poetry is the concept of sensible perfection. It is surprising that Baumgarten does not elaborate upon this concept in his Metaphysics, since it plays such an important role in the new science of aesthetics that he proposes at the end of the Reflections on Poetry and then further develops in the Aesthetics. This article considers the significance of the absence of sensible perfection from the Metaphysics and its implications for Baumgarten’s aesthetics, before tuming to the use Meier and Kant make of Baumgarten’s concept. In the end, this article shows that Baumgarten did not abandon his conception of sensible perfection in the Metaphysics, though its influence declined significantly after Kant rejected the idea that sensibility and the understanding could be distinguished by the perfections of their cognition.

Scholars are prone to emphasize A.G. Baumgarten’s foundation of aesthetics as a discipline in its own right and Kant’s use of Baumgarten’s Metaphysica as a handbook for his lectures on metaphysics. Nonetheless there are some further and deeper reasons for Baumgarten to mark a division between the so called Leibnizian-Wolffian tradition and the Kantian transcendental revolution. The goal of this paper is to take into account these reasons and to analyze them in order to show that they are rooted in psychology as it is treated in Baumgarten’s Metaphysica. The paper’s aim is to highlight Baumgarten’s methodological approach, that is, the use of Leibnizian doctrines, which are exposed through the Wolffian order. The radical originality of this procedure can be adequately assessed only by virtue of its Kantian development.

This paper defends the Principle of Sufficient Reason, taking Baumgarten as its guide. The primary aim is not to vindicate the principle, but rather to explore the kinds of resources Baumgarten originally thought sufficient to justify the PSR against its early opponents. The paper also considers Baumgarten’s possible responses to Kant’s pre-Critical objections to the proof of the PSR. The paper finds that Baumgarten possesses reasonable responses to all these objections. While the paper notes that in the absence of a response to Kant’s Critical discussion of the PSR (which is omitted here due to limitations of space), this result does not vindicate the principle, it shows how this discussion provides a deeper understanding of what, according to Baumgarten, the PSR really assumes and intends, and prepares the way for a more responsible discussion of Kant’s critical objections to Baumgarten’s supposed proof.

The article treats as significant the formal coincidence between Kant’s presentation of the science of metaphysics in the “Architectonic of Pure Reason” chapter of the first Critique and Alexander Baumgarten’s presentation of the same in the Metaphysica. From his comments on Baumgarten in the metaphysics lectures, the article shows that for Kant metaphysics in its traditional form lacked completeness and systematic order. Kant fits completeness into his architectonic plan of a scientific metaphysics by Converting Baumgartian ontology into an “analytic of the understanding”; Kant achieves the systematicity by modeling a rational “idea of the form of the whole” after Baumgarten’s tree-like ordering of the special sciences of metaphysics. Thus, Kant realizes the completeness and systematicity in a theoretical presentation of the science of metaphysics that he finds lacking in Baumgarten precisely by borrowing from the latter his scheme for metaphysics.