E. J. Lowe

(1950 - 2014)

La connaissance métaphysique est accessible et nous possédons un tel type de connaissance. Il faut pratiquer la métaphysique de manière directe, sans passer par des considérations de philosophie du langage ou de l'esprit. Les deux principales critiques de la métaphysique sont : le naturalisme évolutionniste et le kantisme. Le naturalisme est incohérent car il nie la possibilité défaire des hypothèses métaphysiques et pourtant il repose sur de telles hypothèses. Kant également ne va pas au bout de son projet, car on ne peut éviter la question du contenu des pensées, une fois qu'on a réduit la métaphysique à une théorie de la connaissance. L'examen des arguments de Barcan-Kripke confirme la possibilité d'une argumentation métaphysique et l'impossibilité d'y échapper. Metaphysical knowledge is accessible and indeed, we have such a knowledge. Metaphysics shoud be done directly, without starting with considerations of philosophy of language or philosophy of mind. The two main critiques of metaphysics are evolutionary naturalism and Kantianism. Naturalism is inconsistent because it denies any possibility to make metaphysical hypotheses, but it hinges upon such hypotheses. Kant is also inconsistent because one cannot avoid the question of the content of thoughts once metaphysics has been reduced to epistemology. A scrutiny of the arguments by Barcan and Kripke confirms the possibility of a purely metaphysical argumentation and the impossibility to do without it.

Are persons substances or modes? Two currently dominant views may be characterized as giving the following rival answers to this question. According to the first view, persons are just biological substances. According to the second, persons are psychological modes of substances which, as far as human beings are concerned, happen to be biological substances, but which could in principle be non-biological. There is, however, also a third possible answer, and this is that persons are psychological substances. Such a view is inevitably associated with the name of Descartes, and this helps to explain its current unpopularity, since substantial dualism of his sort is now widely rejected as ‘unscientific’. But one may, as I hope to show, espouse the view that persons are psychological substances without endorsing Cartesianism. This is because one may reject certain features of Descartes's conception of substance. Consequently, one may also espouse a version of substantial dualism which is distinctly non-Cartesian. One may hold that a person, being a psychological substance, is an entity distinct from the biological substance that is his or her body, and yet still be prepared to ascribe corporeal characteristics to this psychological substance. By this account, a human person is to be thought of neither as a non-corporeal mental substance, nor as the product of a mysterious ‘union’ between such a substance and a physical, biological substance. This is not to deny that the mind—body problem is a serious and difficult one, but it is to imply that there is a version of substantial dualism which does not involve regarding the ‘mind’ as a distinct substance in its own right.

Why does the problem of free will seem so intractable? I surmise that in large measure it does so because the free will debate, at least in its modern form, is conducted in terms of a mistaken approach to causality in general. At the heart of this approach is the assumption that all causation is fundamentally event causation. Of course, it is well-known that some philosophers of action want to invoke in addition an irreducible notion of agent causation, applicable only in the sphere of intelligent agency. But such a view is generally dismissed as incompatible with the naturalism that has now become orthodoxy amongst mainstream analytical philosophers of mind. What I want to argue is that substances, not events, are the primary relata of causal relations and that agent causation should properly be conceived of as a species of substance causation. I shall try to show that by thus reconceiving the nature of causation and of agency, the problem of free will can be made more tractable. I shall also argue for a contention that may seem even less plausible at first sight, namely, that such a view of agency is perfectly compatible with a volitionist theory of action.

John Heil's new book (Heil 2003) is remarkable in many ways. In a concise, lucid and accessible manner, it develops a complete system of ontology with many strikingly original features and then applies that ontology to fundamental issues in the philosophy of mind, with illuminating results. Although Heil acknowledges his intellectual debts to C. B. Martin (p. viii), he is unduly modest about his own contribution to the development and application of this novel metaphysical system. A full examination of the position that Heil defends would require a book in itself, so I shall limit myself to discussing some of its central themes and to explaining a few doubts that I have concerning some aspects of it.

Auf Kants berühmte Frage "Wie ist Metaphysik möglich?" wird eine bejahende Antwort gegeben - eine, die Metaphysik als eine selbständige und unentbehrliche Disziplin darstellt, deren Aufgabe es ist, das Reich der wirklichen Möglichkeiten zu erforschen. Die Begriffe der "wirklichen" oder "metaphysischen" Möglichkeit und Notwendigkeit werden verteidigt und von den Begriffen verschiedener anderer Arten von Modalität unterschieden, z.B. physischer, logischer und begrifflicher Möglichkeit oder Notwendigkeit. Es wird dargelegt, daß die Gegner der Metaphysik, von den Relativisten bis zu denen, welche die Metaphysik den empirischen Wissenschaften, der Erkenntnislehre oder der Sprachphilosophie unterordnen möchten, inkohärente Auffassungen annehmen.

Hume's famous discussion of miracles in the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding is curious both on account of the arguments he does deploy and on account of the arguments he does not deploy, but might have been expected to. The first and second parts of this paper will be devoted to examining, respectively, these two objects of curiosity. The second part I regard as the more important, because I shall there try to show that the fact that Hume does not deploy an argument that he might have been expected to deploy in fact reflects a weakness in the view of natural laws that has come to be associated with Hume's name. I shall argue, in fact, that it is a symptom of the defectiveness of the ‘Humean’ view of natural laws that on that view it is only too easy to rule out the possibility of a miracle ever occurring. In the third part of the paper, I shall show how another view of laws can overcome this problem.

John Locke is widely acknowledged as the most important figure in the history of English philosophy and _An Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ is his greatest intellectual work, emphasising the importance of experience for the formation of knowledge. The _Routledge Guidebook to Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding_ introduces the major themes of Locke’s great book and serves as a companion to this key work, examining: The context of Locke’s work and the background to his writing Each part of the text in relation to its goals, meaning and impact The reception of the book when it was first seen by the world The relevance of Locke’s work to philosophy today, its legacy and influence With further reading suggested throughout, this text follows Locke’s original work closely, making it essential reading for all students of philosophy, and all those wishing to get to grips with this classic work.