Georg Gasser

Eleonore Stump’s intensive work on theodicy culminates in her opus magnum Wandering in Darkness. Her explicit thesis with regard to the evidential problem of evil is: From the background of a Christian worldview even terrible sufferings can be conceived as a necessary and indispensable part of a healing process through which God guides human beings from their postlapsarian sinful state towards their ultimate end, communion with God and fellow human beings. Stump pursues this aim by the use of biblical narratives as a way of sharing interpersonal experiences between God and men. In this article I present the main steps of Stump’s argument. Then I discuss whether she is successful in her attempt to treat human suffering and the loss of one’s deepest desires as appropriately as she claims. Finally I outline the explanatory limits of this, and most probably, every theodicy by means of the concept of a worldview.

We take it for granted that a person persists over time: when we make plans, we assume that we will carry them out; when we punish someone for a crime, we assume that she is the same person as the one who committed it. Metaphysical questions underlying these assumptions point towards an area of deep existential and philosophical interest. In this volume, leading metaphysicians discuss key questions about personal identity, including 'What are we?', 'How do we persist?', and 'Which conditions guarantee our identity over time?' They discuss whether personal identity is 'complex', whereby it is analyzable in terms of simpler relations such as physical or psychological features, or whether it is 'simple', namely something that cannot be analyzed in terms of more fundamental relations. Their essays offer an innovative discussion of this topic and will be of interest to a wide readership in metaphysics.

This article is a contribution to what we might call „commonsense-ontology“. The aim is to defend the commonsensical distinction between living beings and artefacts on the basis of ontological arguments. The distinction between living beings and artefacts is increasingly difficult to draw because of new developments in biotechnology. For developing criteria of an acceptable distinction I defend the existence of artefacts first. Subsequently I discuss three criteria how we might sensibly distinguish between living beings and artefacts. These criteria are metabolism, active powers and the capacity to develop. In this context I rely on the ontological distinction between unity and whole.

Die intensive Auseinandersetzung mit Dispositionen und Kausalkräften innerhalb der analytischen Ontologie hat wesentlich dazu beigetragen, in der Handlungstheorie offener und ungenierter von den Kausalkräften des Handelnden („agent causal powers“) bzw. der Agenskausalität (AK) zu sprechen. In diesem Beitrag gehe ich auf diese Entwicklung ein, indem ich aktuelle Ansätze agenskausaler libertarischer Willensfreiheit (ALW) diskutiere. Zuerst stelle ich kurz die Konkurrenztheorie von ALW dar, welche libertarische Willensfreiheit im Rahmen ereigniskausaler Ansätze (ELW) zu entfalten versucht. Dann skizziere ich zwei Haupteinwände, welche Vertreter von ALW gegenüber ELW einbringen, nämlich den Zufallseinwand („problem of luck“) und das Problem des verschwindenden Handelnden („problem of the disappearing agent“). Im Anschluss daran argumentiere ich dafür, dass Agenskausalität den Kontrolleinwand nur dann beheben kann, wenn sie nicht als rein kausales, sondern zusätzlich auch als ein rationales Vermögen bestimmt wird. Ich schließe mit einigen Überlegungen, inwiefern eine Metaphysik der Kausalkräfte positiv zur Fortführung dieser Diskussion beitragen kann, und wo die Grenzen eines solchen metaphysischen Ansatzes zu zeichnen sind.