Andris Hiršs

One way to scry the future of philosophy is to look at its past. However, the history of philosophy – both as a field of academic study and in more popular literature – tends to tell a rather narrow and parochial story. This story predominantly focuses on Europe to the exclusion of almost everywhere else. The shift away from such a bias has already begun, especially in the specialist history of philosophy literature, but there are still deeply Eurocentric assumptions built into the most influential general histories of philosophy available today. One invisible assumption, still widely adopted, is that there is such a thing as “Western Philosophy”. As we will argue, the history of philosophy – both in Europe and globally – would be better understood if we abandoned the idea of a “Western Philosophy”. To see why, we start with the most widespread narratives about philosophy’s past.

The article deals with the charge of irrelevance levelled against D. Lewis’s modal realism, notably known as a reductionist account of modality. The charge of irrelevance is apparently one of the most popular objections to modal realism though it often seems that the debate surrounding this charge is not very fruitful since in this context it is common to appeal, implicitly or explicitly, to different criteria for theory choice. As a result, the article deals with the problem in a slightly different manner. The article addresses arguments aimed to show that, contrary to what is often stated, modal realism does not violate our pre-theoretical intuitions, as well as arguments aimed to respond to the charge of irrelevance without appealing to criteria for theory choice at all but providing different reasons instead. However, the aim of this article is to show that all these arguments are rather unconvincing.

H. G. Gadamer’s “philosophical hermeneutics” elicited a controversial response in contemporary philosophy. R. Rorty and G. Vattimo tried to impart a more relativistic shade to H. G. Gadamer’s hermeneutics. In contrast, J. Derrida was inclined to consider H. G. Gadamer hermeneutics more dependent on the previous epoch of “metaphysics of presence”. This article purposes to reveal the points of contact and division between the thinking strategies employed by hermeneutics and deconstruction, providing theoretical arguments why H. G. Gadamer hermeneutics should not be reduced to the so-called “metaphysics of presence”. The question whether H. G. Gadamer’s hermeneutics belongs to “metaphysics of presence” or not is closely intertwined with the problem of dogmatism of meaning and relativism of meaning. J. Derrida was inclined to regard H. G. Gadamer’s hermeneutic as a theory of a search for and discovery of a pre-existing or objective meaning which accounts for the theory’s persistent belonging with metaphysical dogmatism. In opposition to such judgement, this article seeks to substantiate the following thesis: in H. G. Gadamer’s hermeneutics which is based on the “good will” to understand, the problem of dogmatism of meaning (there is one universal objective meaning or truth) and relativism of meaning (there is a multitude of meanings open to interpretation without reference to the primary signified) can be solved by taking into consideration the way offered by E. Husserl phenomenology, i.e. by understanding any possible “thing” (die Sache) as a “thing-in-itself” only in different perceptual perspectives (die perspektivischen Abschattungen).

Amidst the array of criticisms levied against Kurt Gödel’s ontological proof, the critique by Randolph Rubens Goldman stands out for its unique emphasis on a hitherto overlooked yet pivotal weakness within the proof – its lack of an adequate applied semantics. Goldman’s perspective underscores a significant need: the connection of axioms, definitions, and theorems in the proof with the intended meanings of properties traditionally ascribed to God. However, as Goldman has shown, this attempt poses formidable challenges. The endeavour to establish such a connection renders numerous sentences under the natural language interpretation of the proof meaningless, thus undermining the principle of bivalence. In this article, we analyse different methods to confront this problem. Our final solution is inspired by Bertrand Russell’s theory of definite descriptions: namely, we suggest construing sentences under the natural language interpretation of Gödel’s proof as conjunctions of formulas. In this way, we can eliminate meaningless sentences and uphold the once unsettled principle of bivalence.