Uwe A. Meixner

The semantical framework is fundamentally intensional: neither possible worlds nor sets as basic entities, but rather, besides individuals, propositions, properties and relations (in intension). Logical truth is defined in terms of logical form (without mentioning this notion) without employing sets of models and the concept of truth in a model. Truth itself is explicitly defined (without recursion); the truth-conditions for the logical constants of the object-language become theorems derivable from the axioms for "to intend"--the basic semantical relation

The paper first distinguishes ontological priority from epistemological priority and unilateral ontic dependence. Then explications of ontological priority are offered in terms of the reducibility of the actual existence or identity of entities in one ontological category to the actual existence or identity of entities in another. These explications lead to incompatible orders of ontological priority for individuals, properties of individuals and states of affairs. Common to those orders is, however, that the primacy of the category of individuals is abandoned. This primacy is challenged in the paper also by epistemological arguments, and an onto-anthropological explanation is offered for the very common but false idea that individuals are ontological prior to all other kinds of entities. Finally ontological priority is discussed with respect to a fully specified system of ontological categories.

The paper analyzes the concept of a first cause, both for event causation and for agent causation. It turns out that one is rather ready to believe in the existence of first causes that are events, but not in the existence of first causes that are agents. The paper, however, develops and defends a complex argument to the conclusion that there is a first agent-cause. one version of that argument proves -- not necessarily the existence of God -- but still the existence of a godlike agent. Finally, the notion of a first agent-cause is employed for an analysis of freely willed human action.

In the first part, the paper describes in detail the classical conception of intentionality which was expounded in its most sophisticated form by Edmund Husserl. This conception is today largely eclipsed in the philosophy of mind by the functionalist and by the representationalist account of intentionality, the former adopted by Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers, the latter by John Searle and Fred Dretske. The very considerable differences between the classical and the modern conceptions are pointed out, and it is argued that the classical conception is more satisfactory than the two modern ones, not only regarding phenomenal adequacy, but also on the grounds of epistemological considerations. In the second part, the paper argues that classical intentionality is not naturalizable, that is, physicalizable. Since classical intentionality exists (in the experiences that display it), the non-naturalizability of classical intentionality implies psychophysical dualism.

The paper expounds the sense in which Husserl was not a psychophysical dualist – but also the sense in which he was a psychophysical dualist after all. On the one hand, it takes into account Husserl’s critical statements regarding “dualism,” on the other hand it closely considers Husserl’s understanding of the intentionality of phenomenal experiences. It is shown that Husserl’s writings contain several argumentations that can be interpreted as arguments for psychophysical dualism . It is argued that Husserl’s dualism – the result of phenomenological insights, though not called “dualism” by Husserl himself – is to a high degree defensible and can hold its own in the confrontation with physicalism

Der Kausalbegriff gehört zu den, gerade in der Gegenwart, am häufigsten in Anspruch genommenen philosophischen Begriffen. In Erkenntnistheorie, Wissenschaftstheorie, der Philosophie des Geistes, in der Handlungstheorie und der Sprachphilosophie taucht er immer wieder in zentraler Funktion auf. Für die Philosophie ist die Deutung des Kausalbegriffs daher von größter Bedeutung. Das vorliegende Buch ist ein Leitfaden zum Kausalbegriff. In seinem ersten Teil wird eine detaillierte Explikation dieses Begriffs geboten, die auf eine neuartige Fassung der nomologischen Regularitätstheorie und die Formulierung einer Logik der Kausalität hinausläuft. Im zweiten Teil wird diese Explikation in einer umfassenden kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit der Literatur zu den verschiedenen Themen, die sich mit dem Kausalbegriff verbinden, weiter begründet und verteidigt. Dabei ergibt sich ein umfassendes Panorama des gegenwärtigen Standes der kausalitätstheoretischen philosophischen Diskussion - mit teilweise weit zurückreichenden Perspektiven in die Vergangenheit. Zur Sprache kommen u. a. die folgenden Themen: probabilistische und Sine-qua-non-Kausalität, kausale Überdeterminierung und Präemption, die Probleme der kausalen Notwendigkeit und des kausalen Vorrangs, Physikalisierung der Kausalität, Retrokausalität, die Deutungen des Ereignisbegriffs und Agens- versus Ereigniskausalität.