Nicholas Rescher

On the mission of philosophy -- Ultimate questions -- World views -- Terminological contextuality -- On contingency and necessity -- Randomness and reason -- Issues of self-reference and paradox -- Explanation and the principle of sufficient reason -- Intelligent design revisited in the light of evolutionary neo-Platonism -- What if things were different? -- On the improvability of the world -- Consciousness -- Control -- Free will in the light of process theory -- Personhood -- The metaphysics of moral obligation -- Empathy, shared experience, and other minds -- Philosophy as an inexact science -- Philosophy's involvement with transcendental issues -- Religious variation and the rationale of belief.

Mit einem Initiativartikel von Nicholas Rescher, einem der profiliertesten Metaphysiker der Gegenwart, wird die dritte Jahrbuch-Kontroverse eröffnet, diesmal zu einem klassisch metaphysischen Hauptthema, nämlich der Frage von Leibniz: "Warum gibt es überhaupt etwas und nicht vielmehr nichts?" Mag zunächst der Gedanke naheliegend erscheinen, dass da, wo nichts ist, auch keinerlei fundierende Gründe bestehen können, mit Rückgriff auf die sich begründen ließe, dass überhaupt etwas existiert. So zeigt Rescher doch auf, dass sehr wohl rationale Erwägungen möglich sind, die der Annahme, dass überhaupt etwas ist, in genereller Weise den Vorzug geben gegenüber der Auffassung, dass nichts existiert. Der Existenz zumindest mancher Dinge wohnt ein solcher rationaler Vorzug oder "optimality" inne, dass demgegenüber ›nichts‹ als eine bloß nachgeordnete und darum voraussetzungsreichere Angelegenheit erscheint. Der Band enthält neben dem Initiativaufsatz die zwischen 2016 und 2017 im Philosophischen Jahrbuch erschienenen kritischen Diskussionsbeiträge von Friedrich Hermanni, Ludger Honnefelder, Michael-Thomas Liske, Isabelle Mandrella, Uwe Meixner, Benjamin Schnieder und Henning Tegtmeyer. Auf diese Diskussionsbeiträge zu seinem Initiativtext folgt eine ausführliche Replik Nicholas Reschers, die sich mit den Positionen und Argumenten seiner deutschen Kollegen auseinandersetzt.

Everything we know about what goes on in the world comes to us through reports, information transmitted through human communication. We rely on reports, which can take any number of forms, to convey useful information, and we derive knowledge from that information. It's no surprise, then, that reporting has many philosophical dimensions. Because it plays such a major role in knowledge management, as Nicholas Rescher argues, the epistemology of reporting not only deserves our attention but also sheds important light on how we understand the theory of knowledge. This book offers a clear, accessible introduction to the theory of reporting, with a special emphasis on national security, particularly military and diplomatic reporting, drawing on examples from historical accounts of espionage and statecraft from the Second World War. Rescher explores the various issues and problems related to the production and reception of reports - including reporter expertise and trustworthiness, transmission modalities, confidentiality, cognitive importance, and the interpretation, evaluation, and utilization of reports - providing readers with a distinctive and well organized philosophical clarification of some central features of the theory of reporting.

This book presents a critical reaction against two currently influential tendencies of thought. On the one hand, it rejects the facile relativism that pervades contemporary social and academic life. On the other hand, it opposes the rationalism inherent in new-contractarian theory — both in the idealized communicative-contract version promoted in continental European political philosophy by Jürgen Habermas, and in the idealized social-contract version of the theory promoted in the Anglo-American context by John Rawls. Against such tendencies, this pluralist approach takes a more realistic and pragmatic line, eschewing the convenient recourse of idealization in cognitive and practical matters. Instead of a utopianism that looks to a uniquely perfect order that would prevail under ideal conditions, it advocates incremental improvements within the framework or arrangements that none of us will deem perfect, but that all of us ‘can live with’. Such an approach replaces the yearning for an unattainable consensus with the institution of pragmatic arrangements in which the community will acquiesce — not through agreeing on their optimality, but through a shared recognition among the dissonant parties that the available options are even worse.

Pragmatism's founder, C. S. Peirce, initially envisioned philosophy as a means of rationally validating our beliefs and actions. Afterward, William James changed pragmatism into a way of undermining commitment to rational cogency. With the subsequent turn of various contemporary pragmatisms to relativism and subjectivism, such irrational tendencies have become still more prominent. Vagaries of Value aims to create a version of realistic and rationalistic pragmatism that is systemically viable and does justice to traditional pragmatism's salient insights. Nicholas Rescher strives to return pragmatism to its realistic and objectivistic roots in a detailed survey of issues across the whole board of philosophical thought, action, and evaluation. Rescher argues that the crisis of pragmatism created by today's subjective tendencies should be met by adopting not a revisionary, but a reconstructive understanding of pragmatism, keeping close to its Peircean roots. He argues that such a turning does not mitigate against the pragmatic program's practical orientation, but provides an opportunity for sharpening our understanding of how pragmatism can and should be developed.

During the years 800-1200 A.D., Arabic scholars studied many of the works of Greek philosophy, and recorded their interpretations. Significant Arabic interpretations of Aristotle's _Prior Analytics_, the key work of his logical Organon, however, have remained largely unavailable in the West. The recent discovery of several Arabic manuscripts in Istanbul revealed the “Short Commentary on Prior Analytics” by the medieval Arabic philosopher al-Farabi. Nicholas Rescher here presents the first translation of this work in English, and supplements this with an informative introduction and numerous explanatory footnotes.

This chapter will address seven questions regarding freedom of the will: Just what is freedom of the will? Does freedom require control? Does freedom require that the agent could have done otherwise? Does predictability preclude freedom? Is an act’s freedom compatible with its causal explanation? How can freedom of the will be evidentiated? Is free will unscientific? Drawing on John Locke’s famous example of a person who freely chooses to remain in a locked room, I argue that freedom does neither require control, nor require that the agent could have done otherwise. Instead, I argue that acting from the agent’s own, appropriately formed motives is the very essence of free will. I conclude, accordingly, that predictability does not preclude freedom—at least not necessarily.

Apart from its foray into technical issues of risk assessment and management, this book has one principal aim. With situations of chancy outcomes certain key factors—including outcome possibilities, overall expectation, threat, and even luck—are measurable parameters. But risk is something different: it is not measurable a single parametric quantity, but a many-sided factor that has several different components, and constitutes a complex phenomenon that must be assessed judgmentally in a highly contextualized way. This book explains and analyzes how this works out in practice. Topics in this work include choice and risk, chance and likelihood, as well as outcome-yield evaluation and risk. It takes into account abnormal situations and eccentric measurements, situational evaluation and expectation and scrutinizes the social aspect of risk. The book is of interest to logicians, philosophers of mathematics, and researchers of risk assessment. The project is a companion piece to the author's LUCK THEORY, also published by Springer.

Perfected science is but an idealization that provides a useful contrast to highlight the limited character of what we do and can attain. This lies at the core of various debates in the philosophy of science and Rescher’s discussion focuses on the question: how far could science go in principle—what are the theoretical limits on science? He concentrates on what science can discover, not what it should discover. He explores in detail the existence of limits or limitations on scientific inquiry, especially those that, in principle, preclude the full realization of the aims of science, as opposed to those that relate to economic obstacles to scientific progress. Rescher also places his argument within the politics of the day, where "strident calls of ideological extremes surround us," ranging from the exaggeration that "science can do anything"—to the antiscientism that views science as a costly diversion we would be well advised to abandon. Rescher offers a middle path between these two extremes and provides an appreciation of the actual powers and limitations of science, not only to philosophers of science but also to a larger, less specialized audience.

This book is an original—the first-ever treatment of the mathematics of Luck. Setting out from the principle that luck can be measured by the gap between reasonable expectation and eventual realization, the book develops step-by-step a mathematical theory that accommodates the entire range of our pre-systematic understanding of the way in which luck functions in human affairs. In so moving from explanatory exposition to mathematical treatment, the book provides a clear and accessible account of the way in which luck assessment enters into the calculations of rational decision theory.