Keith R. Peterson

Abstract:In environmental philosophy, it has often been argued that adopting a new ecological worldview is necessary in order to generate environmentalist social change in response to ecological crisis. I introduce the analytical category of metascientific stance (tacit assumptions about the nature, practices, goals, and place of the sciences in society) in order to discuss the popular model of worldview clash in this article and contrast it with other models of science-environmentalism relation. I argue that its frequent combination with an epistemological holism, often implying antirealism, is entirely at odds with an environmental philosophy that recognizes the real asymmetrical dependence of humankind on the nonhuman. Moreover, it assumes a questionable metaethical relation between worldview and action. I examine three essential tensions in the worldview clash model for environmentalism and argue that because the very idea of a worldview has deep roots in Modernist dualism and anthropocentrism, it is a fundamentally flawed way of framing environmentalist action.

This paper is a preliminary treatment of the categories of agency and dependence in the context of ecosystem services discourse. These categories are discussed in terms of critical categorial ontology in order to articulate adequately the nature of humankind’s dependence upon the nonhuman natural world, inadequately captured by ecosystem services discourse. Following Val Plumwood, this essay takes ecosystems services discourse as an example of one type of failure to discern various forms of agency as well as dependence, and it goes on to define diffuse dependence as the relation that corresponds to the form of agency expressed through ecosystem services.

The dissertation addresses the issues of subjectivity, method, and criticism in postmodern European philosophy by tracing their roots back to a specific interpretation of the meaning of Kantian critique. It then presents an alternative line of Kant-interpretation opened up by F. W. J. Schelling and which, I argue, is prolonged in this century by Gilles Deleuze. Specifically, it engages in a historical and thematic analysis of the concepts of construction, deduction, problem and Idea as they are variously treated in Kant, Schelling, and Deleuze. It examines the epistemological, ontological, and indeed ethical dimensions of the method of construction in philosophy since Kant. The key issue motivating this reinterpretation is the implicit relationship between ontology and ethics, or theoretical and practical philosophy, and how this relationship has been conceived in twentieth-century European philosophy by thinkers such as Heidegger and Levinas. The claim is that much contemporary European and Euro-American philosophy conceives this relationship in such a way that it is constrained to deal exclusively with "human reality" and meaning-formation, generating an aversion toward discourses oriented primarily toward treating nonhuman objects . By dealing both historically and analytically with the notion of "construction" in philosophy, the dissertation aspires to reorient contemporary philosophy away from its preoccupation with the human and toward the treatment of nature as a legitimate subject for philosophy today

Some contemporary philosophers have called for a “new realism” in philosophical ontology. Hartmann’s works provide some of the richest resources upon which recent realists might draw for both inspiration and argument. In this brief exploration I touch on some key concepts and arguments from a few of the players in this “ontological turn,” including Meillassoux, Brassier, and Ferraris, and show how many of them were already clearly articulated in Hartmann’s works. I’ll also describe and comment on Hartmann’s arguments concerning the “thing in itself,” which he considers a key “critical” concept of his new ontology. His treatment of this issue demonstrates the sophistication—and, perhaps, superiority—of Hartmann’s approach.

This is a translation of Nicolai Hartmann’s article “Der Megarische und der Aristotelische Möglichkeitsbegriff: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des ontologischen Modalitätsproblems,” first published in 1937. In this article, Hartmann defends an interpretation of the Megarian conception of possibility, which found its clearest form in Diodorus Cronus’ expression of it and according to which “only what is actual is possible” or “something is possible only if it is actual.” Hartmann defends this interpretation against the then dominant Aristotelian conception of possibility, based on the opposition between dynamis and energeia, and according to which there is always an open multiplicity of simultaneous “possibilities,” the outcome of which remains undetermined. Since, according to Hartmann, reality suffers no indetermination, the Megarian conception of possibility is an account of real possibility, whereas the Aristotelian one is merely an account of epistemic possibility.

Nicolai Hartmann contributed significantly to the revitalization of the discipline of ontology in the early twentieth century. Developing a systematic, post-Kantian critical ontology ‘this side’ of idealism and realism, he subverted the widespread impression that philosophy must either exhaust itself in foundationalist epistemology or engage in system-building metaphysical excess. This essay provides an introduction to Hartmann’s approach in light of the recent translation of his early essay ‘How is Critical Ontology Possible?’ ( 1923 ) In it Hartmann criticizes both the pretensions of epistemology as well as the principal errors of classical ontology, and he proposes a series of correctives that lead to his development of a highly original and elaborate stratified categorial ontology. This introduction explains the most important errors of the ‘old’ ontology, his correctives to them, and further fleshes out these correctives with reference to his mature ontological work.

Ecophilosophers have long argued that addressing the environmental crisis not only demands reassessing the ethical aspects of human and nature relations, but also prevailing theories of human nature. Philosophical anthropology has historically taken this as its calling, and its resources may be profitably utilized in the context of ecophilosophy. Distinguishing between conservative and emancipatory naturalism leads to a critical discussion of the Cartesian culture/nature dualism. Marjorie Grene is discussed as a resource in the tradition of philosophical anthropology which enables us to avoid dualistic thinking and espouse an emancipatory naturalism by resisting reductionism and acknowledging the diffuse dependence of human being on natural processes. In order to fully explicate the conditions of human dependence upon nature it becomes necessary to define an appropriate approach to ontology. This critical ontology facilitates a stratified understanding of the place of humans in nature without lapsing into reductivism or post-Kantian constructivism. It provides a sounder basis than either alternative for motivating a many- sided ecophilosophical perspective on human being

This is a translation of an early essay by the German philosopher Nicolai Hartmann (1882–1950). In this 1923 essay Hartmann presents many of the fundamental ideas of his new critical ontology. He summarizes some of the main points of his critique of neo-Kantian epistemology, and provides the point of departure for his new approach in an extensive criticism of the errors of the classical ontological tradition. Some of these errors concern the definition of an ontological category or principle, and others concern the relations among categories themselves. The outline for the new ontology is sketched through the correctives Hartmann appends to the treatment of each error, prefiguring his mature ontological system