Uwe A. Meixner

Until quite recently, mind-body dualism has been regarded with deep suspicion by both philosophers and scientists. This has largely been due to the widespread identification of dualism in general with one particular version of it: the interactionist substance dualism of Réné Descartes. This traditional form of dualism has, ever since its first formulation in the seventeenth century, attracted numerous philosophical objections and is now almost universally rejected in scientific circles as empirically inadequate. During the last few years, however, renewed attention has begun to be paid to the dualistic point of view, as a result of increasing discontent with the prevailing materialism and reductionism of contemporary scientific and philosophical thought. Awareness has grown that dualism need not be restricted to its traditional form and that other varieties of dualism are not subject to the difficulties commonly raised against Descartes' own version of it. Interest in these alternative versions of dualism is growing fast today, because it seems that they are capable of capturing deep-seated philosophical intuitions, while also being fully consistent with the methodological assumptions and empirical findings of modern scientific work on the human mind and brain. The object of this book is to provide philosophers, scientists, their students, and the wider general public with an up-to-date overview of current developments in dualistic conceptions of the mind in contemporary philosophy and science.

Uwe Meixners Essay stellt in gedrängter Form die Hauptgedanken seines 1997 publizierten großen systematischen Entwurfes “Ereignis und Substanz” vor, der neben einer Ontologie im engeren Sinn auch eine Bewusstseinstheorie, eine philosophische Gotteslehre und eine Theodizee beinhaltet. Im vorliegenden Beitrag erläutert er seinen Begriff von Substanz, der eng mit seiner Sicht von Kausalität zusammenhängt und vertritt dabei den radikalen Standpunkt, dass Ereigniskausalität auf Agenskausalität, die von transzendenten Substanzen als Realisationssubjekten getragen werde, reduziert werden könne. Dieser monadische Ansatz wird dann zu einem “eingeschränkten metaphysischen Pluralismus” weiterentwickelt, dessen zentrale These darin besteht, dass das Wirklichmachen – in Meixners Worten die “Realitätsmitteilung an die Welt” – bei einer einzigen Zentralsubstanz liege. Eine Idee, die vor allem aus der Perspektive der modernen japanischen und der chinesischen Philosophie auf Interesse gestoßen ist.

Es wird gezeigt, daß sich Parmenides' Argument gegen Veränderung und Vielheit aus den Fragmenten seines Lehrgedichts so rekonstruieren läßt, daß es entweder formal korrekt wird, oder aber seine Prämisse,,Seiendes ist, Nichtseiendes ist nicht" evidentermaßen richtig ist. Beides zugleich ist nicht zu haben. Es wird plausibel gemacht, daß die Rekonstruktionen in Parmenides' Sinn sind. Betrachtet man sein Argument als formal korrekt, so stellt es, wenn wir das Zeugnis der Erfahrung akzeptieren, eine redactio ad absurdum der auch heute noch vielfach vertretenen Position des Aktualismus „Es gibt nur Aktuales" dar. Parmenides freilich faßte es im Gegenteil als reductio ad absurdum der kognitiven Relevanz der Erfahmng auf.

I argue (1) that it is not philosophically significant whether causation is linguistically represented by a predicate or by a sentence connective; (2) that there is no philosophically significant distinction between event- and states-of-affairs-causation; (3) that there is indeed a philosophically significant distinction between agent- and event-causation, and that event-causation must be regarded as an analog of agent-causation. Developing this point, I argue that event-causation's being in the image of agent-causation requires, mainly, (a) that the cause is temporally prior to the effect, (b) that the cause necessitates (is sufficient with necessity) for the effect. Causal necessity is explained as a derivative of nomological necessity, and finally, via a definition of the causal sentence connective, the logic of event-causation is shown to be a part of temporal modal logic.

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.