Andrej Ule

We deal with five aspects of the intrinsic connection of logic, ethics, and aesthetics in Wittgenstein's Tractatus: (a) the indication of what Wittgenstein called the "higher" of the world and language; (b) the conveyance of values through an intuition "sub specie aeternitatis"; (c) the discussion of internal properties of volitional totalities; (d) the reference to the metaphysical subject as the subject of volition (the will) (e) the indication of a "happy life". This intrinsic connection supplements the idea of the transcendental unity of logic, ethics, and aesthetics, and goes beyond it.

I analyze Wittgenstein’s criticism of several assumptions that are crucial for a large part of cognitive science. These involve the concepts of computational processes in the brain which cause mental states and processes, the algorithmic processing of information in the brain (neural system), the brain as a machine, psycho physical parallelism, the thinking machine, as well as the confusion of rule following with behavior in accordance with the rule. In my opinion, the theorists of cognitive science have not yet seriously considered Wittgenstein’s criticism so they, quite surprisingly, frequently confuse the question “how does it work?” with “what does it do?” But their most “deleterious” mistake is their confusion of the internal computational (or parallel) processes taking place in the brain (which possibly cause mental states) with socially-based, everyday criteria of recognition and classification of, and knowledge about, the content of mental states.

Der Autor setzt sich mit Gödels kosmologischem Ansatz auseinander, der scheinbar Zeitschleifen und Zeitreisen erlaubt, sowie insbesondere mit seiner These, dass die Objektivität des Zeitablaufs nicht a priori gegeben ist, sondern von physikalischen Bedingungen im All abhängt. Wir könnten keine einheitliche Weltzeitlinie in Bezug zum mittleren Bewegungsstatus der Dinge „definieren”, sondern nur einige relative und partielle Zeitabläufe, die den Betrachtern als gleichzeitig verlaufend vorkommen würden. Der Autor hinterfragt die Möglichkeit verschiedener „Zeitwahrnehmungen“ für denselben Betrachter: einmal da, wo der Zeitverlauf eine gewöhnliche „Bewegung” wäre und die Vergangenheit der Gegenwart vorausgeht , und wiederum dort, wo dieser Verlauf gewissermaßen simultan wäre. Er vertritt die Meinung, dass das Bewusstsein viele Zeitmodalitäten besitzen kann und dass die „Annihilierung des Zeitablaufs” eine davon wäre. Vielleicht deutet gerade die momentane Besinnung auf vergangene Ereignisse in unserem Geist auf diese Möglichkeit hin. Allerdings bleibt die Frage offen, was diese Möglichkeit für die physikalische Realität oder für den „Kosmos selbst” bedeutet

The Carssirer's conceptions of aprioricity, especially of synthetic a priori principles in exact sciences, is analysed. I consider his 'Marburg's' period, first of all his paper on Kant and modern mathematics. Cassirer defends the thesis on invariance principles as the modern variant of synthetic principles a priori. I analyze his arguments on the existence of apriori principles of science and compare his concept of aprioricity with holistic accounts of theories, 'semantic view of theories' and structural realism.

I analyze some classical solutions of the skeptical argument and some of their week points (especially the contextualist solution). First I have proposed some possible improvement of the contextualist solution (the introduction of the explicit-implicit belief and knowledge distinction beside the differences in the relevance of some counter-factual alternatives). However, this solution does not block too fast jumps of the everyday context (where empirical knowledge is possible) into skeptical context (where empirical knowledge is impossible). Then I analyze some formal analogies between some modal arguments on the contingency of empirical facts (and the world as whole) and the skeptical arguments against empirical knowledge. I try to show that the skeptical conclusion “Empirical knowledge does not exist” is logically coherent with the thesis that they are empirical facts and that we have true belief on them. In order to do that without contradictions I have to accept a non-classical definition of knowledge: S knows that p:= S is not justified to allow that non-p. Knowledge and justified allowance function here as some pseudo-theoretical concepts which allow only some partial and conditional definitions by some “empirical” terms and logical conditions.