2017 Sayı 29

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11452/13210

Browse

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Behaviorism: Dead or alive?
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2017-09-29) Gökel, Nazım
Behaviorism, both as a psychological research program and a philosophical doctrine, was once a very popular and promising theory, the extension of which had a great impact on various fields such as socio-political theory and education. Both behaviorist movements actually shared something in common, which is to bring the downfall of the Cartesian metaphysics, in which the mental is understood as something essentially private and subjective. In this work, first I will briefly go over the general circumstances before the rise of behaviorism and the challenge of behaviorism to the Cartesian metaphysics. Later on, I will provide some of the technical details of philosophical behaviorism. In the last section, I will summarize some of the famous criticisms of behaviorism. I will argue for the claim that despite what Putnam and others thought, behaviorism does not seem to be a weak theory at all. On the contrary, I think that Putnam’s criticisms could only show how badly behaviorism is misunderstood and caricaturized. Finally, I will talk about possible theoretical responses to Putnam’s criticisms, responses that could easily be launched from a Rylean or Wittgensteinian perspective.
Did Francis Bacon see Democritus as a mechanical philosopher?
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2017-08-22) Çimen, Ünsal
Robert Kargon interpreted the pneumatism of the later works of Francis Bacon as vitalism; however, for him, the atomism of the early Bacon was mechanistic. Similarly, Graham Rees argued that pneumatism and atoms are incompatible; so, without making any distinction between the early and later Bacon, he thought that Bacon was never an atomist. Both Kargon’s and Rees’ claims rest on the false idea that atomism necessitates a mechanistic view of the world. In this paper, contrary to the generally accepted identification of mechanical philosophy with atomism, it will be argued that Francis Bacon saw Democritus, an atomist, as a vitalist philosopher.
The difference as the individual beings in Duns Scotus’ metaphysics
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2017-07-30) Kılıç, Sinan
In this article, Duns Scotus’s metaphysics will be examined in terms of the universal concepts and the individual beings as difference or one. These problems will be discussed in the perspective of Duns Scotus’ metaphysics that is related to transcendentals and being. Duns Scotus is the philosopher of being of beings and the individual beings as the difference because he does not destroy the individual being under the essence of the universal concepts, which is the object of metaphysic. In terms of his metaphysic the universal concepts that are the essence of beings are connected to the individual beings. In order to be able to understand the problem of the individual beings and the universal concepts like species and genius, we need to know what his metaphysics is. Therefore, in this study, firstly the relationship of metaphysics and the universal concepts will be explained; secondly, what the individual being as difference is. As a result, I argue that Duns’ the idea of individual beings belongs to the difference that is the one.
Intentionality and givenness in french phenomenology: M. Henry and M. Merleau Ponty
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2017-09-18) Şan, Emre
My guiding research hypothesis is as follows: the significant progress made by the phenomenology of immanence (according to which no worldly hetero-givenness would be possible without subjectif self-givenness) and by the phenomenology of transcendence (which states that no subjectif self-givenness would be possible without worldly hetero-givenness) are not distinguished so much by the positing of new problems as by the reformulation of “the question of the ground of intentionality” that fueled the entire phenomenological tradition. It is striking that despite the different solutions they offer, these two approaches have the same critical orientation regarding phenomenology (they characterize intentionality by its failure to ensure its own foundation), and they have the task of testing phenomenology in a confrontation with its various outsides such as “Invisible”, “Totality”, “Affectivity” or “Le visage” which escape the Husserlian concept of experience determined by the consciousness and its correlative noetic-noematic structure. This pathos of thought which is proper to the French phenomenology wants to go further than what remains unquestioned in Husserl (presence determined in the solid figures of intuition and objectness), and in Heidegger (presence determined as phenomenon of being). This new phenomenological movement reorganize and revise the method of classic phenomenology and deal with a certain experience of “hyper-phenomenon” or “counter-phenomenon” which is an event of appearing that establishes itself by itself.
Paradox and protreptic in Plato’s Meno
(Uludağ Üniversitesi, 2017-01-10) Bove, Geoffrey
The Meno contains a host of puzzles and problems, not the least of which is the status of the theory of recollection in the dialogue. This essay aims to present both the theory of recollection and what has been called “Meno’s Paradox” not as epistemological issues, but as issues of eristic and protreptic. I suggest that the true purpose of the Meno’s use of the theory of recollection is to be found in the implicit and explicit caveats that Socrates uses to frame the theory. These caveats, which indicate that we should not take the theory of recollection as demonstrated or proven, ultimately justify interpreting Socrates’ claims about the theory of recollection serving a protreptic rôle as definitive. This paper has three sections. Section I offers some preliminary remarks on the nature of philosophical protreptic as a literary genre of the fourth century in general and its employment in Plato. Section II distinguishes the geometry problem used to 'demonstrate' the theory of recollection is employed to solve from the problem of inquiry into virtue that Socrates and Meno are facing. I show that the two problem are disanalagous. I also discuss the character of Meno as susciptible to a certain kind of persuasion, and how Socrates converts Meno's questions about the possibility of philosophical enquiry into a sophistical paradox and offers the theory of recollection as a solution to it. Finally, Section III offers evidence that Plato provides us with a number of caveats and warnings about taking the theory of recollection in the Meno as serious epistemology, leading to the conclusion that Plato's primary purpose in employing it in the Meno is as a protreptic device meant to keep Meno on the path of philosophical inquiry.

Browse

Browsing by Language "en"