Tomas Hribek

[Realism, Materialism, and Art] Recent years have seen the ascendance of a new trend in continental philosophy called “the speculative turn”, “speculative realism”, “continental materialism”, or “object-oriented ontology” (OOO). I focus on the work of one of the proponents of this new trend, Graham Harman, in particular his recent attempt to extend his “object-oriented” approach to art and aesthetics. In part 1, I start with a brief characterization of the new trend in terms of the shared opposition of all its proponents to what Quentin Meillassoux calls “correlationism”, which is, roughly, anti-realism. However, there is a split among the new realists as to whether they accept materialism. As I explain in an exposition of OOO in part 2, Harman does not accept it, but he has an inadequate view of materialism. This affects his defense of the Greenbergian formalism as an alternative to materialism, which I outline in part 3. I believe Harman’s favorite formalism is quite unfit for understanding the art of the period that interests him, that is, post-1960s art. I close with a few notes on an alternative, namely a certain branch of materialism which, however, has as its source psychoanalysis rather than the metaphysical doctrine which usually goes by this name.

The volume presents original contributions from the 2009 Knowledge, Value, Evolution conference, held in Prague in 2009. While the conference was held during the year of Darwin's double anniversary, its aims were not historical. Rather, we brought together researchers from many different countries who work on topics at the interface of philosophy, the humanities and evolutionary biology. Chapters included in this volume give a very comprehensive picture of the work on a Darwinian-inspired epistemology, philosophy of mind, ethics, social philosophy, as well as a more empirical study of cognition and religion.

The paper critically examines C.A.J. Coady's analysis of testimony, concentrating on his interpretation of the views of David Hume. The author tries to show that not only is Coady's interpretation of Hume inadequate, but that Hume's conception of testimony is in fact superior to that of Coady. Coady sees Hume as the originator of the individualistic, first-person, view of testimony, according to which the reports of other people must be confirmed on the basis of an individualistically interpreted perception. Coady argues against the first-person view that it undermines the very possibility of communication. Drawing on the ideas of Davidson and Wittgenstein, he argues that a good many beliefs must be true for the communication to be possible. The author provides evidence that Hume was a third-person theorist himself, even if he did not think that the truth of the majority of beliefs must be presupposed. Moreover, Wittgenstein and perhaps Davidson are also Humean in their belief that it suffices for beliefs to be generally correct rather than true.

[Descartes, Davidson, and the Causal Impotence of Mind] [Descartes, Davidson, and the Causal Impotence of Mind] The paper deals with the mind-body problem understood as the problem of mental causation. The paper has three parts. In the first part, the author discusses the origins of the problem in Descartes. Three alternative interpretations of his notion of causal efficiency are proposed: strong dualism, moderate dualism, and eliminativism. It is argued that strong dualism makes causal efficiency of the mental mysterious; moderate dualism makes the mental epiphenomenal; and eliminativism wipes it out. The remaining two parts of the paper examine those current theories that want to avoid both dualism and eliminativist materialism. The most important among them is Davidson's anomalous monism which is examined in the second part. In accordance with McLaughlin's objection, a residual epiphenomenalism is found in anomalous monism; it is type-epiphenomenalism rather than Descartes's token-epiphenomenalism. The third part sorts out various attempts to deal with this problem according to their relation to Davidson's notion of "strict causality." The theories discussed (those of Horgan, McLaughlin, Fodor etc.) are criticized as collapsing either to dualism or eliminativism. Finally, Searle's construal of mental causation is applauded for indicating how to avoid epiphenomenalism. However, this proposal has a different shortcoming: internalism.

[Charles Darwin, Philosopher for the 21st Century] This is, by and large, a review paper which discusses the current situation and future prospects of a philosophy based on the Darwinian view of life. The first section reflects on Wittgenstein's aversion to Darwinism, which was a symptom of his construal of philosophy as conceptual analysis free from empirical inquiry. The contemporary turn to Darwinian considerations in philosophy is a consequence of the Quinean rejection of conceptual analysis in favour of a continuity between philosophy and empirical science. The second section synthesizes some recent views on the character of Darwin's theory -- the structure of his argument and the evidence for his premises. The third section moves on to a Darwinian epistemology, where the main contention concerns the possibility of deriving epistemic norms from evolutionary history. Appeals to evolution in an attempt to account for the possibility of misrepresentation and the debate over original versus derived intentionality both play a central role in philosophy of mind, explored in the fourth section. Finally, the fifth section turns to ethics, in particular a recent research into the evolutionary origins of moral behaviour.

[Are We Necessarily Embodied?] The author concentrates on the relation between person and body in phenomenology and analytical philosophy. Both of these traditions are, in their own way, critical towards the Cartesian dualism. While phenomenology tries to overcome this dualism through the description of the experience of our corporeality from the first person point of view, analytic philosophy examines the metaphysical problem of the relation between person and body from the third person perspective and usually proposes a materialist answer in the sense of an identity of person and body. The central part of the paper is a detailed analysis of Kripke's challenge to contemporary materialism. The author argues that it is possible to accept Kripke's modal and temporal arguments in favour of the dualism of person and body without being forced to accept the idea of dualism itself. It is the metaphysics of constitution that represents an alternative: the person is constituted by her body, but she is not identical with it. Surprisingly, it is the idea of the living body that is rediscovered in thsi solution -- the idea which, in a sense, is a part of the phenomenological heritage, even though it is devoid of phenomenological anti-scientism and idealism

[Socialism, essentialism and externalism] The paper defends two assumptions in Burge's externalist argument against materialism. One assumption is that the content of a belief is determined by the rules that govern its expression in a shared language. Hence, I call this principle "linguistic socialism." According to the other assumption, a belief survives as long as it keepds its content. Content is regarded hee as essential to a belief, so I call this principle "semantic essentialism." The critics of socialism such as Davidson and Bilgrami reject it in favor of "individualism," claiming that the mental cotnent is idependent of conventionally fixed meaning. The opponents of essentialism such as Gibbons prefer "accidentalism," arguing that content is inessential to a belief. I argue that individualism and accidentalism contradict empirical facts and modal intuitions about belief ascriptions, respectively.

[Davidson on Externalism] This is a critical analysis of Davidson's version of psychological externalism. The author argues that Davidson offers two different types of the theory, which do not coincide, however, with the usual distinction between physical and social externalism. On the one hand, Davidson argues that the mental states of an individual are determined by her causal history (what could be called "historical externalism"); on the other hand, he argues that each individual's mental states are determined by her interactions with other people (or what might be dubbed "interactionist externalism"). The author contends that these two externalisms are mutually not quite consistent, and that Davidson's arguments for them are inconclusive.

While the Vienna Circle had virtually no impact on the Czech-speaking philosophical community during the 1930s, one can find a curious meeting point in the field of theory of architecture. There is now a growing literature on Otto Neurath as a theorist of architecture and urbanism, who emphasized the social aspects of modern building and approached architecture from his idiosyncratic viewpoint of Marxism interpreted as a physicalistic social science. It is less well known that a young Czech architecture critic and theorist, Karel Teige, cultivated strikingly similar views during the same period—from 1920s to 1930s—albeit without any knowledge of Neurath’s thought in particular, or for that matter the Vienna Circle in general. The chapter reveals similarities as well as differences between Neurath and Teige on Marxism, science and architecture, and the Bauhaus, as well as a discussion of the relations of both to the contemporaries, most importantly Adolf Loos, Josef Frank and Hannes Meyer.

[How is Irrationality Possible? Davidson and the Split Mind] The paper deals witht Davidson's response to the challenge posed to his theory of mind by the phenomena of irrationality. This challenge is especially acute for Davidson, since he famously argued that it is a necessary condition on intentional agency that the agent be largely rational. The author begins by defending Davidson against some recent critics of perfect rationality. The middle part of the paper is an explication of Davidson's own theory of irrationality, usually ignored by his critics. Somewhat similar to Freud, Davidson posits a split within the mind -- though not between conscious and subconscious parts, but rather between the mental states that are related to others as reasons and those that are mere causes. The final part of the paper critiques this proposal.