Florian Demont-Biaggi

In the modern world of work, diversity, self-fulfilment and personal responsibility are at the centre of interest as values. Moving in this direction and coping with the associated changes requires a cultural change. This, in turn, can only be achieved if leaders succeed in sensitising employees to the values they are striving for. From a theoretical point of view, the theories of “transformational leadership” already provide a suitable framework for this. However, this requires careful reflection on the limits and possibilities of the theory when it is implemented in action- and goal-oriented practice. It is all the more helpful to know the scientific basis of “transformational leadership” in order to develop an understanding of the role it itself plays in conveying values in translating theory into practice.

Until quite recently, the epistemology of logical laws has not been much discussed and neither has how one can be justified in claiming that a particular inference is valid. The transfer of warrant from premises to conclusion in modus ponens will be examined in the paper through assessing Paul Boghossian's inferentialist proposal of assuming 'blind reasoning'. It will be argued that merely being justified in inferring according to a logical law a priori is worthless unless one can also be justified in claiming that the inference is valid. An alternative to Boghossian's solution will be presented which addresses this need as well as the needs Boghossian had identified previously.

The philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel emphasises the importance of understanding consciousness and, even more so, self-consciousness. His lectures on aesthetics contain aesthetic theories for all forms of art (viz. architecture, painting, music or poetry), but critics use them only in significantly altered versions. The present paper attempts to give an in-depth analysis of a poem following one interpretation of Hegel's philosophy of self-consciousness. The poem analysed is not a German Romantic poem, but an Indian poem from the mid-20th century. The explanatory force of Hegel's aesthetics is thus assessed with the needs of a global culture studies in mind.

John Mikhail's moral psychology is an interestin contribution to philosophical debates surrounding the nature of normativity and moral and legal judgement. The paper focuses on Mikhail's metaethical assumptions and how they are combined with the Chomskian framework of his moral theory. Particularly the computational processes which are supposed to generate oughts will be scrutinised. It is then argued that--apart from three other issues--Mikhail does not provide a satisfactory answer to the is-ought problem.

Human language is not arbitrary. But how is its use constrained? Are there rules or general human dispositions that govern it? Rules and Dispositions in Language Use explains how correct language use is indeed governed by both rules and general human dispositions. It does so by bringing together themes from Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky, which for many years have been thought to be incompatible. -/- Opening with a fresh discussion of Saul Kripke's work on rule-following and meaning, the question of what objectively correct language use could amount to is raised and answered. In its conclusion, the importance of human biological endowment for language use is discussed and compared with Wittgensteinian views on how rules govern language use.

This book explores topical issues in military ethics by according peace a central role within an interdisciplinary framework. Whilst war and peace have traditionally been viewed through the lens of philosophical enquiry, political issues and theological ideas - as well as common sense - have also influenced people's understanding of armed conflicts with regards to both the moral issues they raise and the policies and actions they require. Comprised of fourteen essays on the role and application of peace, the book places emphasis on it's philosophical, moral, theological, technological, and practical implications. Starting with an overview of Kantian perspectives on peace, it moves to discussions of the Just War debates, religious conceptualizations of peace, and the role of peace in modern war technology and cyber-security. Finally concluding with discussions of the psychological and medical impacts of war and peace on both the individual and the larger society, this collection offers a contribution to the field and will be of interest to a wide audience. Chapters 4, 6 and 10 of this book are available open access under a CC BY 4.0 license at link.springer.com.

Ever since the publication of his monograph Cartesian Linguistics(1966), Noam Chomsky has been eager to show that his vision of psychology in general and theoretical linguistics in particular is conceptually sound. The claim has been opposed from various sides, including perspicuous objections by Baker and Hacker (1984: Chapters 8 and 9) and Wright (1989). Chomsky and his followers have subsequently concentrated their efforts on defending Chomskian methodologies in psychology and theoretical linguistics. The present paper considers one particular question in relation to these efforts: Is Chomsky’s methodology in psychology and theoretical linguistics conceptually sound? The paper begins by considering Chomsky’s views on methodology and subjects it to a conceptual challenge. The conceptual challenge comes from Bennett and Hacker (2003) and was initially raised, under the label ‘mereological fallacy’, to counter conceptual confusion in neuroscience. It had, however, been anticipated in a more general form by Kenny (1984: 125-36) and Wittgenstein (1958: § 281, §282-4, 357-61). Any version of the challenge can be readily adapted to serve present purposes, but Bennett and Hacker’s is particularly suitable due the amount of detail they provide. The section ends with Chomsky’s reply to the challenge and the leading question of the paper will be answered: whereas Chomsky’s methodological naturalism will be found to be sound, his particular brand of internalism will be shown to be pernicious.

In 1982 Saul A. Kripke proposed a reconstruction of the central insights of Ludwig Wittgenstein's remarks on rule-following. The reconstruction prominently featured a sceptical challenge which soon was recognised as a new and very radical form of scepticism. According to the challenge there is no fact of the matter which constitutes meaning. As there is no such fact, the first-person authority people intuitively seem to have concerning what they mean is also baseless. In response to the sceptic, many solutions have been proposed. This thesis is about one family of solutions, according to which facts about meaning are sui generis and can neither be reduced to other facts about the world nor to non-semantic facts about the human mind. The non-reductionist proposals by Colin McGinn and Crispin Wright will be assessed in detail and arguments against both will be introduced. The arguments stem only partially from Kripke himself, some are based on recent literature, others are completely new. The emerging situation will be used as a basis to propose an alternative non-reductionism about meaning-facts.