2011 Sayı 16

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11452/10171

Browse

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Against wittgenstein’s reading of freudian psychoanalytic methodology
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2011) Hutchens, Benjamin
This paper is intended to examine the coherence and efficacy of Wittgenstein’s notorious dismissal of Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. It will examine what Wittgenstein explicitly wrote (and said) about the psychoanalytic method, as well as what he might have written if he had read Freud more carefully and utilized his own most relevant notions from the middle and later periods of his work. It will propose that Wittgenstein’s critique of Freud lags behind his own developing views of hypotheses, evidence, the making of significant connections, and obedience to rules in language games. The author concludes that Wittgenstein’s critique of Freud is more interesting for its deficiencies than its ability to force improvements in psychoanalysis.
Does the freedom sentence work?
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2011) Démuthová, Slávka
In the presented study, the main objectives of the freedom sentence are stressed. They are compared with the reality of statistics and practice in the imprisonment houses. Numbers of recidivists show the need for a better evaluation of the expected influences of this kind of punishment. Among various theories of criminality, the Cloninger´s biosocial theory is presented. Within these terms, an antisocial personality is characterized through the high level of novelty seeking, low level of reward dependence and harm avoidance. This model provides an explanatory background for understanding persistent social failures as well as low correctional potential of the prison. It turns an attention to the basic problems of freedom and determinism, which are discussed at the closure of the paper.
“Novum organum” versus “organon”
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2011) Güzel, Cemal
There are two methods that humans use when they reason and produce knowledge about things, namely, deduction and induction. Whereas the former makes something unknown be known by proceeding from general knowledge, the latter proceeds to new general knowledge from some particular things that are already known. Deduction, having this property, is argued to be a “solid” reasoningor inference. Induction, on the other hand, is believed not to be a “solid” form of inference because it tries to reach a prediction on the basis of some observations, but that prediction can easily be refuted by something that is not observed by itself. The basis of the critique directed to deduction is that the quality that explains the “solidness” of the former is that what is to be explained is already contained within the proposition that the inference rests on. In other words, deduction does not provide us with new knowledge. Induction on the other hand produces new knowledge through the general proposition that it expresses as a conclusion. Depending on which argument is adopted, the only legitimate method of science is asserted to be either induction or deduction. Nevertheless, in order for human beings to think, they must use both methods. There is no quality that makes one better over the other. Moreover, when the varieties of the being on which induction reasons is taken into account, it can be seen that induction about some objects is just as solid as the deduction itself.
Respect for reason as a reason of law and morality in the world some anottation to Kant’s conception of worldcitizenship
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2011) Démuth, Andrej
The background of the study is set on the analysis of Kant’s idea of worldcitizenship in empire of human rationality, which he sees as world of academic liberty, authority of reason and equality of actors. Author of this study tries to focus an attention on basic idea of Kantian morality – on Respect to moral law giver. He shows that in Kant’s conception is the law giver only the critical reason. This moment allows Kant to create authonomious morality in which is law giver, actor and judge the same. Reason in each from these persons is the same like in each rational being. So Kant discovered proof of equality as a condition of universal morality. The second moment of Kantian morality is duty of logical consistency (respect of rationality to reason in everybody). Because the rationality is universal, we must respect Reason in each man and it gives the dignity to each. Equality and the duty of respect to another is a main idea of Kant’s conception of of worldcitizenship. At the end of study author shows phyziocratic source of worldcitizenship from Kant’s point of view. He analyses typical idea of Freedom as a condition of morality in the polemic with Kant’s idea of “providence” and rationality of Nature. Author believes that Kant’s argumentation can be inspirative in conterporary world, too.

Browse

Browsing by Language "en"