Peter Schulte

The claims about free will that Descartes makes in his writings seem, at first glance, to be inconsistent. In recent years, several authors have argued that we can dissolve the apparent contradiction by taking a closer look at the role that attention plays in Descartes’s theory of the processes of judging and deciding. Prima facie, this exegetical approach seems promising, thus its considerable influence is understandable. Nevertheless, I aim to show that the approach is doomed to failure, since its proponents are committed to ascribe incoherent or otherwise unacceptable doctrines to Descartes, thus violating the principle of charity. This result raises interesting methodological questions, which I discuss in the concluding section of the paper.

It is often claimed that Realism about universals is problematic because it cannot account for the relation between particulars and universals without falling prey to ,,Bradley's regress". In this article, I consider four different versions of this regress argument (the semantic regress, the explanatory regress, the ,One over Many' regress, and the truthmaker regress), each based on a different ,regress-generating' assumption. I argue that none of these arguments succeeds in refuting Realism. Still, I contend that two interesting conclusions can be drawn from the discussion. First, ,Bradleyan' regress problems show that some arguments for Realism have to be abolished because they involve ,regress-generating' assumptions. Second, these problems suggest that Realists about universals should opt for a nominalistic treatment of the ,exempflification relation'. As it turns out, this account of exemplification has the further advantage of being more in line with a science-oriented metaphysics than all the traditional alternatives. German Es wird oft behauptet, dass der Universalienrealismus problematisch ist, weil er die Beziehung zwischen Partikularen (Einzeldingen) und Universalien nicht erklären kann, ohne ,,Bradleys Regress zum Opfer zu fallen. In diesem Artikel betrachte ich vier verschiedene Versionen des Regresses (den semantischen Regress, den explanatorischen Regress, den ,,One over Many-Regress und den Wahrmacher-Regress), die alle von unterschiedlichen ,,regress-generie-renden Voraussetzungen ausgehen. Ich argumentiere dafür, dass keines dieser Regressargumente den Universalienrealismus widerlegt. Dennoch, so behaupte ich, können aus der Diskussion zwei interessante Schlussfolgerungen gezogen werden: Erstens zeigen ,Bradleysche' Regressproblem, dass einige Argumente für den Universalienrealismus aufgegeben werden müssen, weil sie sich auf ,,regress-generierende Voraussetzungen stützen; zweitens legen diese Probleme nahe, dass sich der Universalienrealist bei der Behandlung der ,,Exemplifikationsrelation für eine nominalistische Strategie entscheiden sollte. Wie sich herausstellt, hat diese Analyse von Exemplifikation zudem den Vorteil, besser zu einer wissenschaftsorientierten Metaphysik zu passen als die traditionellen Alternativen.

Morality and rationality are both normative: the moral claim “you ought to help others” is a genuine normative judgment, as well as the rational maxim “you ought to brush your teeth twice a day”. But it seems that there is a crucial difference these two judgments. In the first part of this paper, I argue that this difference is to be understood as a difference between two kinds of normativity: demanding and recommending normativity. But the crucial task is, of course, to explain the difference. In the second part of this paper, I suggest that metaethical expressivists can provide a good explanation: by extending the analysis of ordinary (non-normative) demands and recommendations to normative judgments, they can formulate a convincing account that captures the key differences between morality and rationality

The compatibilism debate revolves around the question whether moral responsibility and free will are compatible with determinism. Prima facie, this seems to be a substantial issue. But according to the triviality objection, the disagreement is merely verbal: compatibilists and incompatibilists, it is maintained, are talking past each other, since they use the terms “free will” and “moral responsibility” in different senses. In this paper I argue, first, that the triviality objection is indeed a formidable one and that the standard replies to it are unconvincing. This, however, does not mean that the objection succeeds. Starting with the debate about moral responsibility, I attempt to show that there is an account of moral responsibility which enables us to defend the compatibilism debate against the charge of triviality—namely, the normative conception of moral responsibility. If “moral responsibility” is defined in normative terms, then we cannot distinguish between a compatibilist and an incompatibilist sense of “moral responsibility”, because such a disambiguation would be inconsistent with the essential action-guiding force of normative expressions. Finally, I examine how the normative conception of moral responsibility can help us to defend the free will debate against the triviality objection and draw some general conclusions.

Naturalisten stehen heute vor zwei großen Herausforderungen: Sie müssen zunächst präzisieren, was sie mit dem Ausdruck „Naturalismus“ meinen, und ihre Position anschließend plausibel begründen. Gegner des Naturalismus haben in den letzten Jahren immer wieder zu zeigen versucht, dass der Naturalist diesen Herausforderungen nicht gerecht werden kann. Ich argumentiere in diesem Artikel dafür, dass traditionelle Formulierungen der Naturalismusthese tatsächlich problematisch sind, dass es aber einen Ausweg für den Naturalisten gibt: Er kann natürliche Entitäten durch ihre besondere Beziehung zu physikalischen Tatsachen charakterisieren. Als Kandidaten für diese besondere Beziehung kommen drei Relationen in Frage: Begriffliche Ableitbarkeit, Identität und Realisierung . Ich argumentiere dafür, dass man den Naturalismus am besten als These auffasst, nach der alle Tatsachen in einer dieser drei Relationen zu physikalischen Tatsachen stehen. Im letzten Teil zeige ich, dass sich diese Position durch gute Argumente stützen lässt.Naturalists today are confronted with two challenges: First, they have to give “naturalism” a precise meaning, and secondly, they have to provide a plausible justification for their position. In recent years, many opponents of naturalism have tried to show that the naturalist is not able to meet these challenges. In this article, I argue that traditional formulations of naturalism are indeed problematic, but that there is a remedy: the naturalist can characterize natural entities as entities which stand in a special relation to physical facts. There are three candidates for this ‚special relation’: conceptual entailment, identity and realization . I argue that naturalism is best understood as the thesis that all facts stand in one of these three relations to physical facts. In the last part, I show that this thesis can be supported by strong arguments

Truthmaker theorists hold that propositions about higher-level entities (e.g. the proposition that there is a heap of sand) are often made true by lower-level entities (e.g. by facts about the configuration of fundamental particles). This generates a problem: what should we say about these higher-level entities? On the one hand, they must exist (since there are true propositions about them), on the other hand, it seems that they are completely superfluous and should be banished for reasons of ontological parsimony. Some truthmaker theorists—most prominently David Armstrong—have tried to solve this puzzle by arguing that these entities are ‘an ontological free lunch’, i.e. real existents that are still ‘no addition of being’. This answer is prima facie attractive, but I argue in this paper that the standard approaches to truthmaking—modal theories and grounding theories—are unable to vindicate the doctrine of the ontological free lunch, and thus fail to solve the problem of higher-level entities. Fortunately, there is a non-standard account of truthmaking available, the reductive explanation account, which succeeds where the standard approaches fail